Offer from Capital One

[sarahpp]

 

 

If the total amount of interest you've been charged is, as Cap One says, £80.45, then the sum total of your loss is the charges (£480) plus £80.45 interest, being £560.45. They've paid you that, plus £226.33 statutory interest at 8%. You make the point that it's your money they've had for 6 years, which is entirely valid. However, if you'd had it during that period and put it on deposit, where would you have got a return of 8%? I can't think of anywhere.

 

No- but then Kathryn presumably isn't able to lend out those funds again at a commercial rate of up to 34.9% (unless she has a sideline she is not telling us about!)

They have been able to do that because they have had the unauthorised (by dint of the charges being an unlawful penalty rather than an accurate reflection of their costs ) use of her money.

 

Westy

 

Kathryn - I am glad you have decided to continue with your claim. I have received a (very poor) defence document from Halifax which I have replied to and I would be happy to forward the reply by PM if you think that it may help you.

 

Westy - whilst I respect your argument, I have to disagree insofaras you talk about restitution for demonstrable damages but, that is not what the principle of mutuality and reciprocity is about. It is concerned with the lack of fairness and equity in the original contract (or Agreement) and this is reflected in the new POC which has now been compiled by Karne and Bong. We are talking about the UTCCR and regulation 5 (1) in particular.

 

I have yet to see a defence which rebuts this argument adequately and do you not think that if there was one we would have seen it by now?

 

Where I do agree with you is that in my own case, I have just gone for the unauthorised rate- I have not claimed any of the interest back at the authorised rate because I feel that I have made the decision that the banks/cc companies have had the unauthorised use of my money. If I go into court I want to be able to say that I have not charged them twice but, merely charged them at the same rate they would have in the same circumstances as per the contract.

 

Not shooting you down in flames Westy, just offering an alternative opinion and one which I feel comfortable with.

[Rumblestrips]

You made some valid points there Sarah. Good to get both sides of the argument so that if I were to go to court I would be fully prepared!

 

Sent above reply to C1 on friday so will let you know as soon as I hear back from them. fingers crossed! x

[TANZARELLI]

Valid points sarahpp

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Sarah

 

" Not shooting you down in flames Westy,"

 

It's OK - you haven't: at least, I haven't noticed flames licking round my cockpit just yet!

 

(Cockpit - am I allowed to say that?)

 

"I have to disagree insofaras you talk about restitution for demonstrable damages but, that is not what the principle of mutuality and reciprocity is about."

 

Have to disagree. Mutuality and reciprocity, restitution, all flow from the principle of equity, the highest principle in English law - civil law, anyway.

 

You are entitled to recover damages (i.e., loss). the bank, too, is entitled to recover damages - liquidated losses - in dealing with breaches of contract. The bank is not allowed to profit unlawfully - it's not allowed to make money from breaches. The obverse also applies: claimants shouldn't expect to profit from their legal action - they should expect to have restitution for unlawful losses. they can expect to be restored to the status quo ante - the position they were in before the unlawful actions that caused the loss. They can also reasonably ask for some degree of restitution for loss of benefit - but the loss has to be proven, reasonable and acceptable.

 

We can see the banks and financial institutions increasingly digging their toes in about this. GE Capital and Capital One are both taking the approach of paying the charges plus statutory interest out and being prepared to go to court for the rest. They may not have had a successful case yet but, then again, they've only started doing it in the last couple of months, so nothing's got that far, yet.

 

I feel - and I reiterate - that our cases have to be carefully considered and presented. We have a load of templates to do so. We also have free and frank exchanges of views in an atmosphere of (mostly) mutual respect. I am concerned about some cases, however, and, while I respect Kathryn's right to pursue her claim as she sees fit, I have my concerns, which I think I have made clear.

 

These are not general concerns, they're actually quite specific to her case. Where, for example, someone has been using their credit facility, has been charged the outrageous rates of interest the credit card companies levy even on accounts run within their limits, then the claimant can make a very strong case for reclaiming all of that interest back (insofar as it applies to their charges) It's their demonstrable loss, it's the damage they have suffered.

 

I also believe that, on the grounds of mutuality and reciprocity (as well as unjust enrichment), there is a strong argument for going for the unauthorised interest rate. I firmly believe that argument gets stronger if the claimant has been suffering interest in addition to the charges being levied. I'm not convinced when the claimant hasn't been hit with interest on everything. I am willing to be corrected and to be proved wrong but, on the basis of Equity, I'm not sure that Kathryn will succeed in her objective.

 

With the greatest possible mutual respect,

 

Westy

[Rumblestrips]

Hi everyone.

 

Recieved a letter or should I say package, from C1 yesterday.

Basically they have said what they said before, that they will defend the claim on the basis that they have paid the correct amount blah blah blah.

 

They also included copies of all my statments where they have highlighted the amount of interest charged on each statement.

 

The interest I calculated was compounded and goes back 6 years. Yes it may be alot more than they actually took at the time but I believe it is the correct amount owed to me. Not to mention the fact that they have left me with a poor credit rating which has had a number of negative effects on me; obtaining credit, etc and made my life quite difficult.

 

I actually think it is a small price for them to pay considering all the damage they have caused. By levying such high fees, making it difficult for me to keep up with payments, and to this day making it impossible for me to get credit anywhere, which has in turn left me considerably more out of pocket than the interest i am claiming.

 

So my question now is....

If C1 went to court with this would they still have to disclose their costs and if so wouldn't this prevent them from going?? Or would they merely be able to defend the level of interest alone as I have not heard of any bank doing this before?

Also do you think my argument would stand well in Court and that my claim for interest is reasonable considering the facts?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Kathryn

 

I guess I could look busy, keep my head down and leave someone else to answer but that would be a bit chicken, wouldn't it?

 

My personal opinion - and this is personal - is that CapOne are, by paying you charges, plus interest charged, plus statutory interest, putting themselves in a very strong position. They won't (IMHO) have to argue costs-v-charges, because they can say they've already repaid the charges, so that aspect has been dealt with and need not trouble the court. The unresolved issue is the interest. They can argue that they've paid the interest they've actually charged you, plus statutory interest at 8% on the whole lot. Therefore, they have compensated you for loss of benefit - and have done so in line with the Court's standard practice. While it is possible for the court to award 'any rate that it sees fit', in practice they award 8%.

 

I honestly feel you've won your claim and you would be on very tricky ground if you take it further. It's up to you but also bear in mind that you MAY become liable for costs - the barrister's travel expenses, at least. They travel 1st class and cost £00s per hour.

 

The Court in civil procedures isn't a forum for punishing the unrighteous - it's there to restore the status quo ante, to ensure that a wronged individual - you - doesn't lose out through unlawful behaviour. Personally, I think CapOne have covered the bases.

 

If it were Oi (I live in the West Country), I'd take the money already offered/paid and enjoy it. You've come out ahead.

The only gripe you have left is if they've issued notices of default or anything like that. It's a separate issue: don't risk your award for it. Take separate action, if appropriate.

 

Best wishes, and with respect

 

Westy

[sarahpp]

I can only tell you that I expect to be in the same position as you in a few days time (with the exception that I have not claimed 8% statutory in the alternative deliberately as I didn't want to give them any "wriggle room")

 

I will be carrying on with mine - I have yet to see an adequate defence submitted regarding the mutuality and reciprocity of contract terms.

 

I am not going to say any more than that - you have had both viewpoints and the decision is ultimately yours. There will be support available to you of course, if you decide to continue.

[millymollymoo]

Kathryn any news?

 

Milly:)

[rougesept]

Sorry to bump, but likewise, any news Kathryn? Been following your thread with great interest.

 

Rouge

[millymollymoo]

kathryn is everything Ok?

 

Milly X

[rougesept]

Any news yet Kathryn? Hope you've had some good news?

 

Rouge