Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok guys here is the draft of WS please guide me if needs any changes. Thanks     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in ( the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.1. The photographs of the  NTK letter shows that the car entering the car park at 00.02.00 midnight but the fact is that the car entered before midnight and it took time for the driver to find the suitable parking bay so it allows driver to park the car there for five hours.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.    5.1. Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes Any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” 11. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, It is also subject to the Liverpool Airport Byelaws 2019, Schedule 4 of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.   5.2. As part of the KADOE contract, it states under paragraph B2.1(a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date).    5.3. the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can’t apply on airport land where byelaws apply – plus POFA is only relevant for parking. PROHIBITION 6. It is also my position that the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. I base this on the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6 (page 79, Exhibit 10), where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.    6.1. I question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists    6.2. In case Ransomes vs Anderson, Claim No. 3YS16797, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with: “Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the landowner listed below”. District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim   The Service Agreement between Vehicle Control Services (hereby known as VCS) and Liverpool Airport dated 08/07/2013 clearly states “for a fixed period of 24 months” (Exibit C), therefore this contract expired in July 2015.   It is contended that no legal contract existed between VCS and Liverpool Airport, at the time of the alleged breach of contract.    7.1. Definition of “Relevant contract” from PoFA 2 [1] means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is— (a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b) authorized, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. 7.2. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44, a contract to be valid requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between VCS and the motorist. And even if “no stopping” could form a contract [which it cannot], it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.   7.3. According to information on John Lennon Liverpool Airport website (https://www.liverpoolairport.com/ ). Peel Group/Ancala are the land owners NOT Liverpool Airport. More recently, Ancala Partners LLP, the independent infrastructure Investment Manager completed the acquisition of a 45% interest in the Airport in September 2019, with Peel and Liverpool City Council retaining 45% and 10% interests respectively.  7.4. Surely VCS a company that signs innumerable contracts must be aware that no contract exists at the Liverpool Airport. Two points arise from that.    7.4.1. 7.4.2. The first is that by issuing many PCNs at Liverpool Airport with knowingly not having a valid contract is bordering on fraudulent. Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legal necessities, which appears patently untrue.   7.5. Claimant contract contains logo of BPA (British Parking Association) which implies that VCS operates under BPA code of practice which is false. According to information on BPA website (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-approved-operators ) VCS is not a member of BPA. (Exhibit C) ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D), in which I requested copies of the claimant’s planning permission for the signage at the site in question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself, I found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   8.1. Planning application for the relevant signage (ref: 15A/0657) was made on 11/03/2015 which expired on 24/08/2015, however without permission being granted this application was later withdrawn by the applicant on 16/06/2021. ABUSE OF PROCESS   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.1.1. 9.1.2. 9.1.3. Section 5.3 of the new Code of Practice states the following: “The provisions of Schedule of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g. within airports. Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.” Section 7.2 of the new CoP, defines explicitly, when photographic evidence should be used to serve notice: “Care must be taken to ensure that photographic evidence from camera vehicles is only used to serve a notice of parking charge in respect of parked vehicles, not vehicles whose drivers have momentarily stopped e.g. to check directions or an address within a business park.” The Minister Neil O’Brien, who’s foreword I have attached (Exhibits E) also goes on to state “And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely”   9.1.4. The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. This indicates that the new CoP should be adhered to now, where possible, but clearly VCS are choosing to ignore these new rules, and continuing to go about their business as normal, regardless of the law.   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  “g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs.”     Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • That's not correct.    If a private car park operator includes in their contract conditions that only certain users can use designated bays that's enforceable under the contract the same as any other condition in their contract.   Of course, as we know, the car park operators frequently fail to notify the parking contract conditions correctly or fail to use proper procedures to issue PCNs, but if they do get it correct Parking + Child bays, Blue Badge bays, etc, in private car parks are enforceable as a breach of contract (not as a criminal or civil offence obviously).
    • I wouldn't contact Tesco because what would be your grounds for asking them get the PCN withdrawn?   Surely Tesco will ask you to confirm whether you did in fact have a child with you when parked in the Parent and Child bay? And the only honest answer you could give to that would be 'No'. At which point Tesco are unlikely to use their discretion to get the ticket withdrawn just because of procedural faults in how the PPC dealt with it.  I'm guessing here, but aren't Tesco going to take the view that you have admittd to being guilty of parking where you shouldn't and wash their hands of it?
    • Yep Statute barred: I have credit reports from Oct 2012 that the debt was originally ShopDirect this report had missed payment markers Mar 2012 to Oct 2012 as I was disputing charges. Then on a credit report from March 2013 it shows: Account Name: CapQuest (Formerly FTC) Type: Mail Order Account started 22/03/2010 Default Date: 04/12/2012 Current Balance: £884 and Default Balance: £393 With two months Default markers  Credit report Apr 2015 shows that the Balance was £884, but then in May 2015 balance was amended to £524 This was a the result of complaint with directly with the original lender Shop Direct and not Capquest. The refund was never given to myself by Shop Direct but passed straight to CapQuest which I disputed as the complaint was between myself and Shop Direct. I never got an reply relating to that. I have not had any contact with CapQuest probably since 2015 to tell them that the account should be closed due to the complaint and that is should be passed to the original lender. I have never agreed / acknowledged the actual debt with CapQuest or any such contract with CapQuest - it has always been disputed with the original lender.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Claiming contractual interest from day one !


progenic7
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5517 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, i have read a few threads about contractual interest and noticed most people have generally not bothered to try and get this from the banks ect. How do people feel about claiming this and is it worth trying to state it early on in the process ?

It seems to me that if the boot was on the other foot then there would be no question of what would happen.

Maybe this is bold but i am going to state my intentions to a few of the banks and card companies in my prelim letters that i fully intend to claim contractual interest, as its the only fair way of proceeding. Ofcourse the standard court 8% will be omitted from said claims.

 

Any thoughts anybody ? am i being over optimistic or have i got balls ?

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, there is quite a large thread on here already about contractual interest and although it explains how it works in detail over and over again. I was still no clearer in understanding it. I do know you have to claim it from your Pre-lim letter. I did fill in vamps spreadsheet on basic contractual interest which I'm sure includes everything and which works fine as all I had to do was fill in the boxes and add the interest rate of 29.9% great, printed it of and that is what I am using for court. (thanks Vamps) I just hope the figures are right. But!!! having just read the main thread I am once again confused since some posts talk about claiming the interest twice ie contractual then compounded which just did not make sence to me, so I am now not so sure at all . all I know is that according to the spreadsheet I have filled in a charged for a O/D usage Fee of £70, on the 3rd Jan 01, the interest to present day @29.9% worked out at £161.56 so the total charge plus interest worked out at £231.56 does this seem right? I think the more you try to understand something the harder it gets, well it does for me so I have just done as advised and not tried to think to much. please tell me if I have it all wrong

pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, there is quite a large thread on here already about contractual interest and although it explains how it works in detail over and over again. I was still no clearer in understanding it. I do know you have to claim it from your Pre-lim letter. I did fill in vamps spreadsheet on basic contractual interest which I'm sure includes everything and which works fine as all I had to do was fill in the boxes and add the interest rate of 29.9% great, printed it of and that is what I am using for court. (thanks Vamps) I just hope the figures are right. But!!! having just read the main thread I am once again confused since some posts talk about claiming the interest twice ie contractual then compounded which just did not make sence to me, so I am now not so sure at all . all I know is that according to the spreadsheet I have filled in a charged for a O/D usage Fee of £70, on the 3rd Jan 01, the interest to present day @29.9% worked out at £161.56 so the total charge plus interest worked out at £231.56 does this seem right? I think the more you try to understand something the harder it gets, well it does for me so I have just done as advised and not tried to think to much. please tell me if I have it all wrong

pen

I've recently claimed successfully for simple contractual interest from date of claim (i.e. not compounded), my charges were £1600 whilst basic and contractual interest together were about £1800 so your numbers sound about right. I went for simple rather than compound calculation as i wanted to keep the claim straightforward in case of the very unlikely event that i get interrogated in court !

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stornoway, I was dreading reading your post in case i had understood it all wrong. Thanks I can now rest easy

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, just realised my int rate was also a fair bit lower at 22% so your calc looks even more realistic !

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all,

 

lol i still think im not getting the hang of this compound contractual interest thing, i have that many spreadsheets now i dont know where to start.

 

i got another one off mindzai and that just made things worse lol

 

i give up, im changing tack and going to pay the bank instead it will be easier..

 

:lol:

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progentic, don't do that, honestly I am as thick as 2 shorts planks with a comoputer and maths but if you just add the details in vamps basic contractual spreedsheet then thats it bobs your uncle so to say. I have seen quite a few and your right I would'nt know where to start but vamps is great.

 

One thing I do have to say is when I looked in the spreedsheet templates I could not find vamps only the imported one for the 8%, so you will need to find it. it's the one that you have to sign up to google, best thing would be to PM vamps may be she will let you have a copy, if i knew how to send it by attachment i would send you mine, but thats how bad i am so if i can work it out so can you.

good luck

pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, Pombix04 here, my friend gave me this site to explore as I am absolutely disgusted with my bank amongst other things. One thing I would like to know is what is Vamps? and how do you calculate all these charges correctly? Anyone?

thanks Pombix

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went looking for Vamps spreadsheets today (google ones) as I wanted to do another claim, It appears they are offline at the moment 'cos they are being amended.

Alliance prelim 7th Jan £3270

sod off letter 14th Jan

LBA 19/1/07

N1 taken to local court 6/2/07

Offer recived part amount but already in court

WON! WON!full amount !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

 

Barclays prelim £1973 7th Jan

No can do letter 14/1/07

LBA 16/1/07'

part offer received and refused 1/2/07

N1 issued 15/2/07

letter received re defence - they have till 22/3/07

Defence received - 25/3/07

AQ received to be back by 11/4/07:-(

 

Lloyds TSB trustcard S.A.R - 12th Jan

claim for £126 prelim 12/2/07

sod off letter recd.

LBA 17/3/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pom,

 

Vamps is a CAG member better known as Vampiress, she is a wizard with the old spreadsheets and has her own pages hosted by Google power. there is a link in the library to her pages somewhere, have a good look around the site and you will get a much better idea of whats on here and where to find it.

personally i have found some of the spreadsheets that are doing the rounds a bit too basic, others way too complicated and others that are plain inacurate.

In recent light of what some of the banks are trying in court its all too important to be right on the money so to speak !

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vamp's one's are wonderful, and attuned to all levels of understanding, I for one am very grateful to her, How many people would give all that time and energy just to help us out ? I suppose if your clever enough you could always do your own like some have done or pay a accountant (if you can afford one) to do it for you. I am not, so greatly rely on the help and support of other's who help to make the claiming process so much more simple. thats what makes this site so wonderful.

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to be very careful when it comes to working out the interest, ie do it with several spreadies and refer back each time, then maybe get a few peeps to check it over for me.

I think if we give the judge the option in out PoC ie compond contractual @ say 29% first option, then 23%, then 16.9% then s69 @8 % simple he has the options there to see your being very fair and open to suggestion, and as long as he can see you attempted making it as accurate as possible i dont see a problem really. And yes like you say the banks often work on the principle of Approximate !

 

progenic

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progenic, In my N1, there is a certain paragragh you have to write when claiming contractual interest meaning whats good for the goose etc I put down 29% which is my banks unaurthorised borrowing rate, check out your banks If the judge does not agree you add that he could choose the alternative S69 8% I can not think of these words at the top of my head but it is very important that you add them. You need to do a bit of digging around, I personally not give the court all the options but you will find completed POCs on here which list them both. anyway it is all explained in the FAQs

Hope this helps good luck

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I put on my N1 I submitted yesterday -

 

The unarranged overdraft rate is charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant draws money from the Account whilst he/she has not obtained permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that he/she has. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charges the Claimant when he/she draws funds from the Defendant when he/she has no right for doing so.

 

Using, that reasoning and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity between the parties, the Claimant contends that he/she is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant.

 

If the Terms and Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself, in similar circumstances. If no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimant’s right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances.

Alliance prelim 7th Jan £3270

sod off letter 14th Jan

LBA 19/1/07

N1 taken to local court 6/2/07

Offer recived part amount but already in court

WON! WON!full amount !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

 

Barclays prelim £1973 7th Jan

No can do letter 14/1/07

LBA 16/1/07'

part offer received and refused 1/2/07

N1 issued 15/2/07

letter received re defence - they have till 22/3/07

Defence received - 25/3/07

AQ received to be back by 11/4/07:-(

 

Lloyds TSB trustcard S.A.R - 12th Jan

claim for £126 prelim 12/2/07

sod off letter recd.

LBA 17/3/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was very kindley given to me by GaryH, I,m he won't mind if other used it.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £**;

 

b) Court costs;

 

 

c) interest at the contractual rate of **% AER, from the date of each transaction to **/**/**, which is £**, as set out in the attached list of charges. The Claimant further claims interest, on the resulting total of £**, at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £**.

 

The Claimant believes this rate to be justified under the implied principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendants interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimant claims interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from the date of each transaction to **/**/**, which is £** and also interest at the same rate until date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £**.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

 

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'm about to send my LBA to Cap One - but I have some serious doubts about the spreadsheet I have used (taken from here... 6. Interest calculation spreadsheets I have used England - Advanced - Excel). Or put more accurately how I've used them. In a nutshell... the sheet does the following to calculate simple contractual int.

 

(Total amount charged in fees over the period of time)

 

Divided by

 

(The statement balance Month 1)-(the payment made in respect of that eg. the one which appears on Month 2 statement)

 

Multiplied by

 

Total interest charged as per Month 1 statement

 

= interest to reclaim for Month 1

 

I might be being thick, but I don't understand why the following month's payment needs to be deducted? Can anyone explain to set my mind at rest?

BATTLES WON/ONGOING

NatWest Bank- £8k+ **SETTLED IN FULL**

Capital One - £2k+ ** SETTLED IN FULL**

Cahoot - £255 **SETTLED IN FULL**

Abbey National - £385 **SETTLED IN FULL**

Central Trust - £3k+ **SETTLED IN FULL**

GMAC RFC - £2k **SETTLED IN FULL**

Now going after Natwest (again) and Halifax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pc23,

 

im sorry but for the first time in a while i cannot answer your question :rolleyes: ,

i am by no means an expert in spreadsheets and would not like to guess at the answer.

I just put my figures into them and it produces a claim for me, funny how we take so much for granted huh.

Although you have raised an important point, because it is important to understand the hows and whys of these spreadsheets becasue the judge may well ask, how we have arrived at these figures.

 

If however you go along to this thread and ask the same question, im sure a friendly fellow may oblige your request. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/51736-excel-contractual-interest-spreadsheet-5.html

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I'm about to send my LBA to Cap One - but I have some serious doubts about the spreadsheet I have used (taken from here... 6. Interest calculation spreadsheets I have used England - Advanced - Excel). Or put more accurately how I've used them. In a nutshell... the sheet does the following to calculate simple contractual int.

 

(Total amount charged in fees over the period of time)

 

Divided by

 

(The statement balance Month 1)-(the payment made in respect of that eg. the one which appears on Month 2 statement)

 

Multiplied by

 

Total interest charged as per Month 1 statement

 

= interest to reclaim for Month 1

 

I might be being thick, but I don't understand why the following month's payment needs to be deducted? Can anyone explain to set my mind at rest?

I've created my own spreadsheet for the very reason that progenic mentions - i want to be able to fully understand what is going on in case I am challenged. For the spreadsheet you are using i suspect the following months payment is deducted so that interest is calculated on the lowest balance in the month so that an overestimate of balance o/s isnt made.

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...