A New Way of Looking at Interest- 1st successful Claim - N'wide

[thewifeandI]

It looks OK to me, but I'm not sure about how one would fill in the Value section, as there are three possible amounts claimed - I have a feeling that the judge won't like it. This is probably best looked at by BankFodder I think.

[Mindzai]

Ok thanks for that. Hopefully he'll look in on this tommorrow morning cos it's being filed at lunchtime (unless of course we can't come to a suitable conclusion by then, but i'd like to stick to our original timetable).

 

I'm kind of hoping that the Judge will just view the claim as unspecified rather than have a problem with the idea of alternative amounts being mentioned. I can't really see another way of going about this when claiming contractual interest though?

[thewifeandI]

I fully understand what you are saying, but I'm uncertain of the way it would be viewed by the judge.

[bill-k]

Just got back on to find a load of stuff since I said hello yesterday - you guys are sure on the case.

 

Caro (forgive my original typo, please) - I see you got a result from Smile. I've e-mailed and am still waiting (for a much smaller amount than yours). How "nasty" did you have to get, and did they close you down on paying up ?

 

Tinyman - I hope this info is proving useful - I think I know how you feel !!

 

Mindzai - good to see you going for the contractual rate of 29.8%. It's not very clear from the N1 or N1A notes, as to whether contractual interest is part of the initially claimed (principal?) amount or is to be detailed as the separately claimed interest. If it is part of the principal amount claimed, then I would think that it is subject to any legal argument that may be put forward before the case is won or lost - as opposed to being discussed as a minor detail after the verdict. However, earlier comments about newspaper headlines featuring a bank describing its' own interest rates as unreasonable as a defence seems to suggest that it will not be contested as long it's their own quoted rate. I say go for it - "break a leg," as they say ! I myself have put it separately as interest on my N1.

 

Glenn - Of course be blunt. I take the view that the Small Claims procedure IS actually for small people like us to "have a crack" at getting back our paltry little amounts (that's paltry in the greater scheme of things) without using brute force but allowing a little ignorance. So I suspect that a certain amount of flatulence in court is allowed for (call it fear). Gung ho ? No - it's CAG/BAG gang mentality I think. If I get singled out for "special treatment" then I shall indeed be quaking (and peeing) in my boots, standing up there all alone. I really do feel that, as long as I am putting forward a reasonable argument for a reasonable claim, then I can expect a reasonable result. I think I'm awake (albeit stupefied), but you may be right about the coffee. Can you explain or direct me to a thread for multi- & fast-track courts ? Do these have different criteria for what is or is not reasonable, just or lawful ? What would be the problem if my case was put on these lines ?

 

The arguments for and against are indeed worth monitoring (and, yes I agree, NOBODY'S view here is the final answer - that remains to be seen when some poor blighter gets his case heard and a precedent set at the Old Bailey !!) I'm not a legal eagle, but spent some years in electronics (test & repair, and R&D). When you can't accurately predict what is going to happen, then someone has to say "OK - that's the end of the discussions, now we'll have to suck it and see." It either runs or it blows up. We can discuss ad nauseam, but there comes a time when you just really want to get the nausea over and done with and dump it all regardless.

 

From what I have seen & heard, as long as you have a claim that a bank cannot EASILY contest as unreasonable, then it will not be contested (unless they're stupid - and even I concede that they ain't). I'll brace myself for a torrent of opinion (or do I flatter myself) from you guys, but I too, would like to see if BankFodder has summat to say, when he's next in the area.

[Mindzai]

Mindzai - good to see you going for the contractual rate of 29.8%. It's not very clear from the N1 or N1A notes, as to whether contractual interest is part of the initially claimed (principal?) amount or is to be detailed as the separately claimed interest. If it is part of the principal amount claimed, then I would think that it is subject to any legal argument that may be put forward before the case is won or lost - as opposed to being discussed as a minor detail after the verdict. However, earlier comments about newspaper headlines featuring a bank describing its' own interest rates as unreasonable as a defence seems to suggest that it will not be contested as long it's their own quoted rate. I say go for it - "break a leg," as they say ! I myself have put it separately as interest on my N1.

 

Hi Bill,

 

I've detailed the interest separately on the N1 form, but I'm thinking that, as thewifeandi points out, it differs from s69 interest in that it isn't discretionary. Although does the fact I've outlined alternatives *make* it discretionary? Logically it seems it must be part of the claimed amount itself and hence go into the total amount, but who says logic is correct in this case? Could really do with some help here from someone who knows the answer. I guess I could just take 2 versions to the court and ask them if all else fails.

[bfb]

if the unlawfully taken funds were fees and compound interest that is what is needed back to compensate properly for the uinlawful actions ( and there is a further more elaborate argument on this) any statutory interest should be on top of that, my claims are on that basis I have had at least one settlement in excess of that figure. This is a question of principle with me not of pound signs however my argument is not capricious but genuine

 

 

(I write as a layperson but I have a lot of expertise in compensation and compound interest/financial maths)

[crashbandicoot]

bfb could you please elaborate on this?

 

Many thanks

[Mindzai]

if the unlawfully taken funds were fees and compound interest that is what is needed back to compensate properly for the uinlawful actions ( and there is a further more elaborate argument on this) any statutory interest should be on top of that, my claims are on that basis I have had at least one settlement in excess of that figure. This is a question of principle with me not of pound signs however my argument is not capricious but genuine

 

 

(I write as a layperson but I have a lot of expertise in compensation and compound interest/financial maths)

 

I think you are confusing the discussion in the thread, though I may be wrong.

 

We are saying that there is a strong basis for being able to charge the banks contractual interest on the total sum of charges they have taken + interest payed on their charges (at whatever rate they used). So yes we should be claiming back any contractual interest charged by the bank, but we are also saying that there are grounds for then charging them the same rate for 'borrowing' your money.

 

Sorry if this is what you meant, I may have misunderstood you.

[Glenn UK]

FWIW

 

I wasnt suggesting only qualified persons could comment, as you say that would diminish the post count considerably.

 

The point I am making is that many posts are offered as being fact, when the legal facts are not necessarily known.

 

I may be alone in my opion, but it seems to me that to make a claim which is anything other than straight forward ie charges plus interest paid and Sec 69 interest for up to 5K, should be considered as potentially unusual and interesting.

 

The assessment oft repeated that the banks wont defend is reasonable in terms of a hope, it should never be an expectation.

 

I sincerely hope to be able to claim contractual rates, compounded because i believe that is just and fair.

 

I expect however, to reclaim what its cost and Sec 69 interest on all the amounts up to 6 years old.

 

After that there is an element of doubt about how things will go if/when it gets in front of a judge.

 

The 'if/when' is only a matter of finance in resepct of charges more than 6 years old and contractual interest. As i understand it those issues are not clear cut from a legal viewpoint.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[caro]

Caro How "nasty" did you have to get, and did they close you down on paying up ?

I have updated my thread now but not nasty at all and account still up and running.

[tim2718281]

I think it is complicating further because small claims are purely financial, and the interest is part of the financial settlement. Loss of amenity sounds more like a compensation issue and nothing to do with the financial loss per se. I hope that makes sense, and of course you may disagree with my reasoning. But we are here to discuss the issues so feel free.

 

The compensation being claimed *is* purely financial - no one is seeking an injunction or anything like that, just money.

 

Tim

[Glenn UK]

But compensation implies you have suffered a loss which is above and beyond the actual loss. The compensation is of course money in this case, but it may be seen in a different light to the acutal losses claimed.

 

I dont disagree that its possible to argue about it in court and probalby win. However, IMHO its not a simple as saying they can do it to me and so i can do it to them.

 

If it is that easy then im really glad, they will just pay up then.

 

Glenn

[tim2718281]

"But compensation implies you have suffered a loss which is above and beyond the actual loss."

 

No, the value of the compensation is supposed to equal the value of the loss.

 

If your bank unlawfully takes £100 from you, you have lost the use of that £100, as well as the £100 itself. So your loss is greater than £100, and you are entitled to more than £100 compensation. And the longer it is before the bank returns the £100, the greater is your loss of the use of it.

 

The difficulty is setting a monetary value on the loss of the use of the money.

 

However, you *could* have borrowed £100, thus regaining the use of the £100. And so you can reasonably argue that the amount of compensation should be the £100, plus the cost of borrowing £100 while the bank had yours.

 

Of course, there are many different lenders, each with different lending rates. It seems simplest to use the bank's own lending rate, as set out in its interest charges. And it's natural to use the interest rate applicable to the account the dispute is about.

 

Tim

[bill-k]

Anybody care to explain Multi & Fast Track to me ?

 

Caro - I'll check your thread (if I can find it - I'm still struggling with the forum techniques !!), but by "how nasty" I really meant "how serious." I'm just getting told to stay in the queue and wait my turn at present.

 

Mindzai - I have to admit I'd be a bit scared to put in the entire particulars of claim that you kindly showed us. It looks more like a complete set of arguments/notes to cater for any and every possibility of a Defence or Judicial objection. I dunno fer sure, but I think the fallback positions should be kept to yourself unless and until the original claim is contested. You'll get a chance to argue your point then, I'm sure. It occurs to me that the multiple options listed might indicate to the Defendant that you really don't think you have a very strong case, and they will smell your fear. THAT could be sensed as "farting about" perhaps ?? !!

 

Jeep - thewifeandi - seems to put it succinctly in that s.69 is applied by the court if requested, where there is no other guideline (eg., for money claimed from a defendant who does not operate - or is not themselves - a lending organisation with a publicised interest rate). The interest we are claiming is indeed part of the claim itself, and I think we have to decide on a single definite level and amount, along with having a good argument (in our pocket) for that level and amount, should it be contested. Anything other than (or in addition to) that might look like dithering, and be either laughed at by the Defendant or by the Court itself. Tim has put it clearly for me, I think. I'll copy his post down and use it if I have to (but not in my particulars of claim !!) Thanks, Tim.

 

Regarding interest calculation itself - I'm not using compound interest, nor am I charging interest on interest. I remember being taught a formula for compound years ago, but I have just used the spreadsheet function to calculate interest in simple form on a daily basis from the date of each charge being made. I just put in the banks' published AER instead of the 8% Judicial rate. Yes, I was also charged various amounts in interest by the bank itself on my overdrawn balance each month, but I think it reasonable to let them keep that at least (ain't I kind). It wasn't that much anyway, compared to the penalty charges and daily interest I'm claiming on them, and I would argue if requested by the Court that THAT is the only reasonable amount that the bank is entitled to keep. More trouble than it's worth calculating, methinks. As for claiming interest on THAT interest - no fanks - I'll leave that kind of malarkey to bfb who at least knows what to do with it !!! In a nutshell, I'll keep mine simple, and single-layered - and my supporting arguments (if needed) similarly simple.

 

Glenn - the quiet but firm voice of caution !! When it comes to actually filing your claim, you have to decide which it is going to be, don't you ? Do you claim for what you expect to get, or for what you hope to get ? If you do not claim for what you hope to get, then there is no way that you will get it, and you have thus abandoned that hope. It seems to me that we must claim what we reasonably expect that we are entitled to claim for, hope that is what we get, but be prepared to (albeit reluctantly) accept less.

 

BankFodder - you're quiet. Does that mean there's a storm coming ?? !!!

 

I'll be back......

 

Bill-k

[lucid]

Mindzai - I have to admit I'd be a bit scared to put in the entire particulars of claim that you kindly showed us. It looks more like a complete set of arguments/notes to cater for any and every possibility of a Defence or Judicial objection. I dunno fer sure, but I think the fallback positions should be kept to yourself unless and until the original claim is contested. You'll get a chance to argue your point then, I'm sure. It occurs to me that the multiple options listed might indicate to the Defendant that you really don't think you have a very strong case, and they will smell your fear. THAT could be sensed as "farting about" perhaps ?? !!

There is no other opinion but to use alternatives when claiming contractual interest though, and it's not an unusual thing to do. It isn't 'farting about', it's a perfectly acceptable approach. Besides, it's not for the defendant to decide if the argument is weak. If they think they smell fear and want to take it to court, we're prerfectly prepared to go. Most of the particulars are actually from the standard template, it's the interest rate sections that differ to cater for contractual interest. We thought it would be best to include reasoning for claimng the contractual interest.

 

Mindzai

[Mindzai]

The claims have now been filed. We did spend a lot of time looking into wording the particulars due to the slightly unusual (in the context of this site) claim, and we have got them correct to the best of our ability. To quote BF's orignial post

I can't see that this approach creates any risks for anyone unless it brings the amount claimed over the £5,000 limit. But if it doesn't then there is no problem. If the matter went to court then I would suggest that the N1 was worded to claim the contractual rate of interest or in the alternative, 8% pursuant to section 69 blah blah blah.

 

Now it's just a matter of wait and see I suppose. I think it would be helpfull if bankfodder would join in this discussion though as it was his initial suggestion, i'm assuming he's done some research into the area?

[Glenn UK]

Tim

 

im sorry if i wasnt clear, i agree that you will have suffered a loss because of the unlawful removal of the meny from your account and i entriely agree its difficult to determine what the loss has been with any degree of confidence.

 

In turn when or if the claim ends up in court though one will have to convince the judge exactly why one is claiming the rate and why it is reasonable.

 

I am only trying to argue that this is not as clear cut as many seem to think, i certainly wouldnt consider it a done deal if it gets to court.

 

Bill

 

claiming what you hope to get is fine, you just have to understand the arguments about the whys and wherefores. You also need to consider the risks of making a claim which is 'outside' the norm and the possible implications if it all goes tits up.

 

Fast and multi track are courts where more complex or valuable claims are heard typically. courts have guidance which susggests that claims less than 5k go to small claims court where it is normal for both sides to pay their own costs. There are circumstances where costs can be awarded in small claims though.

 

Fast track is generally for claims 5 - 15K and costs are generally restricted to a max of 750 although again costs above this can be awarded in certain crircumstances.

 

Multi track is winner take all as i understand it for claims larger than 15K, and if you have a house and you lose, you could lose the house to pay the bills!

 

However, and heres the rub, the allocation of a claim to a particular track is determined not solely on the basis of its value and cases of legal importance or interest can be allocated to multi or fast track to get a resollution to a legal issue.

 

I do not know how many claims are currently being put through in relation to bank charges right now, but i do know form the court officials that i have spoken to that there are loads and the courts are getting fed up.

 

they will try to get a legal resolution and this means a precedent, i think im right in saying precedent can only be set in multi trak or mercantile court. And before you ask i havent got my head round mercantile court yet. You cannot represent yourself in multi track i believe so its lawyers and barristers i believe.

 

So your claim for more than 6 years plus contractual interest could be interesting to the court.

 

Then the bank may just decide to see where you are prepared to go with your claim.

 

Should your claim end up in the something other than SCC are you prepared?

 

Glenn

[caro]

At least one of our members has quite a small claim heading for the Mercantile Court at the moment, as the courts are trying to get a test case to set a precedent and put a stop to all the litigation going on at the moment. You really cannot be too blase that you won't end up in court.

[Glenn UK]

Caro

 

 

i havent looked into mercantile courts, is it possilbe for you to post the basic outline of what the issues for claimants are? ie. potential costs, need for representation ?

 

Glenn

[Mindzai]

You also need to consider the risks of making a claim which is 'outside' the norm and the possible implications if it all goes tits up.

 

 

To refer once again to BF's post:

 

I can't see that this approach creates any risks for anyone unless it brings the amount claimed over the £5,000 limit. But if it doesn't then there is no problem. If the matter went to court then I would suggest that the N1 was worded to claim the contractual rate of interest or in the alternative, 8% pursuant to section 69 blah blah blah.

 

It seems that there is continous repetition and warning about claiming contractual interest in this thread, but after 15 pages comparitively little fact and figure about actually doing so. That's not to say there has been none, but I think the point about treading carefully has been made over and over, I think it would be more helpful at this stage to start coming up with some real solid help for those considering to go this route.

 

I'd suggest that if BF is posting things such as what I've quoted above that either he is correct, in which case it would be nice to get some further input, or the people repeadedly expressing the need for extreme caution are correct. Either way as staff members seem to be taking drastically different viewpoints, and it is staff members who users will tend to naturally heed most, maybe there should be some kind of discussion amongst yourselves before posting threads like this, especially when they are then backed away from by the OP.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful, but now that point has been made perhaps we could move on to more constructive areas rather than just repeating it ad nauseum?

[bill-k]

Mindzai & Lucid - sorry to insult your case. Not meant - just making observation with a bit of humour. Thanks for your answer, and I'm that much the wiser now. One small leap for some guys - one hell of a learning curve for me !! All the best with yours.

 

Glenn - thanks for your track descriptions. I think I now see the danger, considering the fact that I am proposing to claim contractual interest PLUS over 6 years back. I think I'll split the claim to contractual over past 6 years first, then contractual over previous years if that pays up.

 

Caro - thanks for the Mercantile mention - maybe you & Glenn can get together on that. I'd rather not go there, yet. There be dragons.

 

Cheers for now,

 

Bill.

[Mindzai]

Mindzai & Lucid - sorry to insult your case. Not meant - just making observation with a bit of humour. Thanks for your answer, and I'm that much the wiser now. One small leap for some guys - one hell of a learning curve for me !! All the best with yours.

 

No offence taken, I didn't think you were being insulting. (btw the above post as lucid was me, she's much more laid back than I am and comes accross much less harsh I'm sure )

[Glenn UK]

Mindzai

 

I can see your point, about moving on, the most recent posts have been factual about the courts and at least one case that has gone to mercantile court.

 

FWIW the need for understanding is not related per se to contractual interest, its about the process generally.

 

I have only been coming on this site for a relativley short time, but the numbers of people asking for help when this or that has happened because they havent done any reading seems to be increasing.

 

I only hope that peoples claims go through smoothly and understand that there are risks.

 

Im sorry if you feel this is detracting from the thread, it seems to me to be entirely pertinent that someone should say watch out there are sharks in the water, occaisionally

 

Glenn

 

Glenn

[bill-k]

M & L - Glad we're still onspeaking terms !!

Catchulater,

Bill.

[bill-k]

Glenn - Yes, indeedy, I agree we need input of all flavours from jerks like me to experienced guys like yourself. Don't go away, and don't fall silent, as your absence would be conspicuous, and your silence distinctly "un-golden" !!!

 

Catchlater,

Bill-k