New Claim - Another Capital One

[thesergeant]

Doo,

 

Like you I have just finished with Halifax. I claimed "simple" contractual interest, which they initially resisted.

 

However by the time the claim was lodged they finally relented and paid up at 29.8%. They did fail to pay the daily rate of interest, but after pointing out my claim was still ready at court they finally paid that up.

 

I am now on to Crapitol and their interest rate for classic customers is 34.9%.

 

If you search the various forums you'll find quite a bit on contractual interest. The simplistic view is that because the charges are without your permission and are unlawful then you are entitled to reciprocate the interest onto their debt with you.

 

You could charge them compounded contractual interest, which will give you a better return (if they pay up), however I found that to be complicated, therefore I've gone for simple interest at the applicable rate.

 

I have an amended N1 template giving the judge a range of options, ie the higher unauthorised interest rate, if not the lower authorised interest rate, failing that the statutory 8% rate. If it does end up in court at least the judge can see that you have thought about the various options.

 

For simple interest calculation the Vamp spread sheets are fine with a bit of tweaking .....................

 

Good luck - Go for it :-):lol:

[thesergeant]

Doo,

 

Make sure you read up on the various ways of applying contractual. Such as http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/18313-why-no-one-claiming.html

 

You can apply simple interest or compound interest. There are conflicting views as to whether it is applicable or not. It has not as yet been tested.

 

My personal view is that if you get the balance right in making the bank pay a fair amount back to you, then you wont be the one in court arguing why it is applicable.

 

I dont want to put you off. I was successful in my first use of it and I hope to be in my next. But this is a help forum, it is you who has to make the decisions and face the consequences.

 

Sheet 13 is ok to use, you need to make adjustments by making the calculations of that the multiplier for your rate is. For Crapital1 34.9% I am using 0.0009572.

 

Hope I haven't scared you, it is not that difficult, however to be fair to you you need to understand the potential consequences of all this. ie explaining it all to judge to win your case.

 

Good luck ............ :D:D:D:D

[thesergeant]

Doo,

 

What I did with Halifax claim was go to my local county court with my N1 (The hard copy version of MCOL for your local county court) There is no space restrictions on this one. I then set out the alternatives, Unauthorised borrowing rate, authorised borrowing rate and failing all that the 8% statutory rate.

 

Anyway your difficulties with the spreadsheet, I edited the available ones, for Crapital I use =SUM(C8*0.0009572)*E8, where C8 refers to the cell where the penalty fee is, and E8 is the cell where the number of days since the charge was made is.

 

Hope that helps.

[thesergeant]

Bill-k,

 

Yes you are right. However due to the controversy over the legitimacy of contractual interest I have taken the view that there is a need to apply a balance, due to the possibility of challenge.

 

Applying contractual "simple" interest, may attract a reduced possibility of legal challenge.

 

I have gone through many of the threads referring to contractual interest. There are numerous views on the issue. From the this is not applicable to the the be damned with it go for the jugular approach.

 

What I decide to apply is my approach. I have stated this in my prelim letter and in the LBA on route. It worked with the Halifax. Most likely on the basis that it is not worth challenging, hopefully that will be the same next time. Compounding my current claim adds over £1000 to the amount. At some point the balance will be tipped and it will be worth the bank sending the legal boffins in.

[thesergeant]

bill-k,

 

The trouble is that I as well as others have concerns re the application of contractual interest. Therefore it becomes a question of what they are willing to let go unchallenged, as in all negotiations it is not necessarily a question of good law, remember Non omne quod licet honestum est, it becomes a question of good poker:D:D

 

The application of contractual interest is guided in part by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, which gives the Bank of England + 7%, as a guide. Delving into these areas raises many concerns.

 

I am happy with my route ............. :D

[thesergeant]

Bill-k,

 

I think we are on parallel tracks, however yours has the law as black and white - that it isn't. As for the Latin that states that "Not everything that is permitted (lawful) is honest"

 

The problem, is that on many occasions, if you are not willing to compromise then you often lose the whole game.

 

If you believe that the law is not a gamble then you haven't played the game:cool:, I assure you that I have (in different contexts than this forum is concerned with).

 

Maybe, differently than you, I am less than fully confident that compounded contractual interest is absolutely unarguably lawful and that every judge would see it that way.

 

We are though after the same thing and different views are valuable.

 

Lets concentrate on the objectives, those thieving banks :D:D:D

[thesergeant]

I have had another look at the issue of "Contractual", (thanks Bill-k, another few hours of my life gone).

 

IMHO I think the problem revolves around the use of "Contractual", this implies a mutual business contract. That I feel causes difficulties in applying that approach to unlawful charges. Although having looked at the Late Payment of Debt Act which I think is the applicable law on this I can see some possible arguments to apply it.

 

A better approach maybe, as visited in other threads, is the argument of misappropriation of funds from our accounts. The banks are applying unlawful penalty charges and removing these from our accounts without authority. In similar circumstances unauthorised borrowing they apply penalty interest. Applying the principle of mutuality and recipocity (ie in fairness) we are entitled to apply similar interest. Using this argument we can apply any "fair" (The judge would ultimately decide if said rate is fair or not) rate we feel is equitable. Whether compounded daily interest would be deemed fair would have to be ultimately tested, if the banks ever went that far.

 

See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/7252-new-way-looking-interest-38.html for some discussion around the issues.

 

However, of course there is the possibility then that the interest we earn on the penalty charges becomes taxable - arggghhhhhh :(

 

In short - I would stay away from the term "Contractual Interest", I have used this in a recent LBA:

>>>

You have misappropriated funds from my account, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity I am applying an equivalent interest rate. I calculate that you have taken £685.00 which you have charged me in unlawful late payment and overlimit fees. I expect full settlement of my claim, the balance of which is £685.00, plus interest (34.9% equivalent to your current APR rate for classic card holders) of £982.24; Total owed: £1,667.24. I am enclosing a copy of the schedule of the charges which I am claiming.

>>>

 

 

I do not proclaim to be an expert on this, merely "informed". I would appreciate any views for or against my understanding. At the moment lots of members are using "legalistic" terms, maybe in the belief that because of the "words" they are on solid ground. This may not necessarily be the case.

 

AGAIN - I do not want to put anybody off, I just want to make sure that people are entering into this process to get back what the banks have ( edit) with the right information with which to make their decisions

 

Good luck ........... :grin:8)

[thesergeant]

Tanz,

 

Absolutely, you should set out in the N1, something similar to the rate you are claiming which is likely to be the unauthorised borrowing rate, if that is not found to be applicable the lower authorised borrowing rate, if all that fails then the statutory 8% rate.