Jump to content


Innocent vs LLOYDS TSB CLASSIC CURRENT (CONTRACTUAL INTEREST)


innocent
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5372 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

Well "hi" all..... :-)

 

and welcome to this new thread....

 

 

Settled three claims so far (one with barclaycard just last week) and its about time I 'fired off' some more, including my TWO

 

LLOYDS TSB Classic Current Accounts...

(not to be confused with my LLOYDS TSB MASTERCARD CLAIM... a separate claim in a similar starting position)

 

I am about to submit my N1 claim form direct to the court (a first for me as up until now I have used moneyclaim online). This was a neccessity bearing in mind the much longer 'particulars of claim' (POC) for the contractual interest part (another first for me)....

 

 

To date (and I have been a little slow with this claim)

 

19/4/06 Received my DPA request info from Lloyds

 

26/4/06 Sent my prelim letter

27/4/06 Got a lengthly letter back including:

 

"For the vast majority of our customers banking with us can be completely free as charges are not made for services such as debit cards, cash machine withdrawls, balance requests, statements, cheque books and Internet banking. We also do not charge for processing Direct Debits and Standing Orders when they are paid through our Customers accounts."

bla bla bla...... and ultimately....

"...... Alternatively, you may wish to consider alternative banking arrangements."

 

Signed JEAN CAMPBELL (Charmed I'm sure?)

 

11/5/06 Sent 2nd letter

12/5/06 BANKS FINAL RESPONSE signed David Just

 

7/6/06 Sent my LBA

14/6/06 BANKS FINAL RESPONSE signed Jamie O'Neill

 

22/1/07 Ok, resent my LBA specifying componded contractual interest implications.... "I wanted to give the bank time to reconsider"

7/2/07 BANKS FINAL RESPONSE signed Jamie O'Neill again

 

 

Ok,

 

*Aware I cannot claim 8% statatory aswell

 

*I've always enclosed schedules with my letters, using the fantastic Vampires's spreadsheets

 

*Having been to their website I believe a LLOYDS TSB CLASSIC CURRENT ACCOUNT has CURRENT:

unauthorised overdraft rate of 2.20% a month; 29.8%EAR

authorised overdraft rate of 1.44% a month; 18.7%EAR ALL AGREE?

 

*In my schedule I am claiming beyond 6 years (just) as I first wrote to LLoyds about my concerns on the 26/4/06 and the first charge I include is dated 27/4/00; within the 6years AT THIS POINT! EVERYONE AGREE?

 

*I am not certain when I opened these accounts; one was defintely in 1986.... ADVICE FOR THE POC?

 

 

In the next thread I will show:

 

My proposed POC (derived largely from the brilliant 'mccuth' and 'mindzai & lucid' threads

 

 

Innocent :D

 

 

YOUR ADVICE AND HELP WILL ALWAYS BE APPRECIATED :-)

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok my draft POC

 

(a huge thankyou particularly to 'mccuths vs RBos' thread:

 

 

 

"Brief details of claim"

The Claimant seeks the return of penalty charges and overdraft interest charged thereon, debited to the Claimant's bank account by the Defendant, and interest on these amounts as defined by the contract between the parties.

 

 

"Value"

Penalty charges in the sum of £xxxx and interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx. Interest to be determined as the Court deems just, as per section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim, with the maximum to not exceed £xxxx. A maximum total of £xxxx.

Plus any applicable Court fees.

Plus interest from date of issue to date of judgement or earlier payment at a maximum rate of £xxxx per day or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just, according to section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim.

 

 

"Particulars of claim"

1. The Claimant has two 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Accounts, numbers xxxx and xxxx("the Accounts"), both with sort code xxxx) opened on or around xxxxth xxxx xxxx and xxxxth xxxx xxxx respectively;

 

2. The Accounts are governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions ("the contract");

 

3. During the period in which the Accounts have been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "Late Payment Fees", "Unpaid Direct Debit Fees", "Overlimit Excess Fees", etc.. on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied;

 

4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant;

 

5. A schedule of the charges and interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim; (Appendix xxxx);

6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission's report entitled "Northern Irish Personal Banking" published on the 20th October, 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Account defaults;

 

7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s ("the OFT") statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements;

 

8. The Claimant thus contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

 

c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) section4, and the common law.

 

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

9. Contractual Interest

 

a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed;

 

b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates;

 

c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s current unauthorised borrowing rate, being 29.8% EAR;

 

d) In the alternative to 9.c), should the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account not be deemed to be unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant, then, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s current authorised borrowing rate for a 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Account, being 18.7% EAR;

 

e) In the alternative to 9.c) and d), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year;

 

f) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows:

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00%

Appendix xxxx – Evidence of the Defendant’s current borrowing rates

 

10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims (having first contacted the Defendant about these amounts on the 26th April, 2006):

 

a) The return of the amounts debited between 27th April, 2000 and xxxx xxxx xxxx in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx, together with interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx – totalling £xxxx;

 

b) Any applicable Court fees;

 

c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 29.8% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

d) In the alternative to 10.c), compound interest at the contractual rate of 18.7% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx, of £xxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx.

 

 

11. Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

 

 

*THE ACCOUNTS ARE DORMANT; 1 has 53p in! Thus point 11.

Innocent ;)

ANY THOUGHTS? ANY FEEDBACK WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Enaid....:D

 

and 'thankyou'

 

 

.... and in turn I get soooooo much inspiration, knowledge and encouragement from people here too....:)

 

 

Innocent

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on my proposed POC and other questions?

 

Rgds

 

Innocent :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to post 1, do not be concerned about when you opened the accounts, it will not be a point of contention, I would just claim back all the charges you have details for, even if arguable pre 6 years, I claimed back 10.

 

Turning to post 2 in my view they are too convoluted. Stick with the POCs below and add in 1 alternative for CI:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html

 

I gave some advice a few days back whereby the court refused to accept nearly the same particulars because they had difficulties with, inter alia the not to exceed part - if I recall correctly. I cannot find it now, the number of days you can search your posts back has reduced.

 

The POC are a summary of your case, you then further particularise, within the confines of your POC, as the litigation progresses. You will get the opportunity to say all of this later, unless as it probably will with Lloyds, settle before then.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok my draft POC

 

(a huge thankyou particularly to 'mccuths vs RBos' thread:

 

 

 

"Brief details of claim"

The Claimant seeks the return of penalty charges and overdraft interest charged thereon, debited to the Claimant's bank account by the Defendant, and interest on these amounts as defined by the contract between the parties.

 

 

"Value"

Penalty charges in the sum of £xxxx and interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx. Interest to be determined as the Court deems just, as per section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim, with the maximum to not exceed £xxxx. A maximum total of £xxxx.

Plus any applicable Court fees.

Plus interest from date of issue to date of judgement or earlier payment at a maximum rate of £xxxx per day or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just, according to section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim.

 

 

"Particulars of claim"

1. The Claimant has two 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Accounts, numbers xxxx and xxxx("the Accounts"), both with sort code xxxx) opened on or around xxxxth xxxx xxxx and xxxxth xxxx xxxx respectively;

 

2. The Accounts are governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions ("the contract");

 

3. During the period in which the Accounts have been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "Late Payment Fees", "Unpaid Direct Debit Fees", "Overlimit Excess Fees", etc.. on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied;

 

4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant;

 

5. A schedule of the charges and interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim; (Appendix xxxx);

8. The Claimant thus contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages.

c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) section4, and the common law.

 

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

9. Contractual Interest

 

a) The Claimant claims interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity (if you are going to use this term you should know that i havent seen anoyne post a good explanation of this or where it comes from, balance and fairness comes fro utccr i think and is a better term) in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed;

 

b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates;

 

c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s current unauthorised borrowing rate, being 29.8% EAR;

 

d) In the alternative to 9.c), should the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account not be deemed to be unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant, then, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s current authorised borrowing rate for a 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Account, being 18.7% EAR; This is illogical i cannot see any way that the unlawful removal of your moeny could be authroised.

 

e) In the alternative to 9.c) and d), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year;

 

f) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows:

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00%

Appendix xxxx – Evidence of the Defendant’s current borrowing rates

 

10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims (having first contacted the Defendant about these amounts on the 26th April, 2006): Your cause of action has nowt to do with when you contacted them its to do with either when you discovered thier concelament or your mistake or when the charges were applied to yuor account.

 

a) The return of the amounts debited between 27th April, 2000 and xxxx xxxx xxxx in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx, together with interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx – totalling £xxxx;

 

b) Any applicable Court fees;

 

c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 29.8% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

d) In the alternative to 10.c), compound interest at the contractual rate of 18.7% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx, of £xxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx.

 

 

11. Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

 

 

 

 

*THE ACCOUNTS ARE DORMANT; 1 has 53p in! Thus point 11.

 

 

Innocent ;)

 

ANY THOUGHTS? ANY FEEDBACK WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED :D

 

I have made some comments, you may have different views but i cannot see logically how anyone can aruge that the unlaweful removal of your moeny was authroised obviousely jmho.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

"THANKYOU"

 

Guildo, and Glenn.......

 

I respect both of your comments sooooooo much :)

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all......

 

Still pondering :?: about your thoughts (Guildo and Glenn :) ) as you do before the inevitable N1 submittal

 

Can I ask both of your thoughts on memnoch's excellent POC (and his differing approach to explaining the claiming CI)(memnoch vs lloyds)

 

Appreciating your help...

 

Innocent :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, hi all again....:)

 

(I think I'm eventually getting there with the POC....):rolleyes:

 

Many, many thanks to mcuth (vs RBos) and memnoch (vs lloyds) for their threads and POC's so far, and for others in their input to this thread

 

Again I have highlighted any changes in BLUE

 

Taken on board most of past comments apart from making the POC too big (I think? :?: ) but you don't want it too vague either eh?!?

 

Forgot to say, till now, the claim, at 29.8% is about £4700 so should be within the small claims arena....

 

Please, PLEASE, feel free to comment

 

Innocent :D

 

 

"Brief details of claim"

The Claimant seeks the return of penalty charges and overdraft interest charged thereon, debited to the Claimant's bank account by the Defendant, and interest on these amounts as defined by the contract between the parties.

 

 

"Value"

Penalty charges in the sum of £xxxx and interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx. Interest to be determined as the Court deems just, as per section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim, with the maximum to not exceed £xxxx. A maximum total of £xxxx.

Plus any applicable Court fees.

Plus interest from date of issue to date of judgement or earlier payment at a maximum rate of £xxxx per day or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just, according to section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim.

 

 

"Particulars of claim"

1. The Claimant has two 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Accounts, numbers xxxx and xxxx("the Accounts"), maintained at the Defendant's Cosham, Portsmouth branch, with sort code xxxx);

 

2. The Accounts are governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions ("the contract");

 

3. During the period in which the Accounts have been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "Late Payment Fees", "Unpaid Direct Debit Fees", "Overlimit Excess Fees", etc.. on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied;

 

4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant;

 

5. A schedule of the charges and interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim; (Appendix xx);

6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission's report entitled "Northern Irish Personal Banking" published on the 20th October, 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Account defaults;

 

7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s ("the OFT") statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements;

 

8. The Claimant thus contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

 

c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) section4, and the common law.

 

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

9. Contractual Interest

 

a) The claimant claims compound interest on the charges and overdraft interest applied thereon to the claimant’s account ("the principal claim"), at 29.8%EAR. This is the rate currently applied by the defendant to the claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in the said contract.

The claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

The claimant deems the defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. Since the defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the claimant deems the defendant’s charges to the claimant’s account to be indefensible, unenforceable at law, and unauthorised, since it was clearly not in the claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the claimant would authorise the defendant to apply penalty charges and interest thereon to the claimant’s account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the claimant’s account breaches.

For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR").

Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

Unfair Terms

5. – (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.

b) In the alternative to 9 (a), should the court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the claimant claims compound interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7% EAR, based in the premise that the court finds that the defendant’s withdrawals from the claimant’s account were authorised;

c) In the alternative to 9 (a) and (b), if the court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to either of the two contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7% EAR;

d) In the alternative to 9 (a), (b) and ©, if the court finds that the claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year;

e) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows:

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of xxxx%

Appendix xxxx – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00%

Appendix xxxx – Evidence of the Defendant’s current borrowing rates

 

10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims (having first contacted the Defendant about these amounts on the 26th April, 2006):

 

a) The return of the amounts debited between 27th April, 2000 and xxxx xxxx xxxx in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx, together with interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx – totalling £xxxx;

 

b) Any applicable Court fees;

 

c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 29.8% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

d) In the alternative to 10.c), compound interest at the contractual rate of 18.7% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx, of £xxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx.

 

11. Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, think this is my final proposed contractual POC unless anyone wants to add anything else???

 

Rgds

 

Innocent ;)

 

"Particulars of claim"

1. The Claimant has two 'Lloyds TSB Classic Current' Accounts, numbers xxxx and xxxx("the Accounts"), maintained at the Defendant's Cosham Branch, with sort code xxxx);

 

2. The Accounts are governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions ("the contract");

 

3. During the period in which the Accounts have been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "Late Payment Fees", "Unpaid Direct Debit Fees", "Overlimit Excess Fees", etc.. on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied;

 

4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant;

 

5. A schedule of the charges and interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim; (Appendix x);

6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission's report entitled "Northern Irish Personal Banking" published on the 20th October, 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Account defaults;

7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s ("the OFT") statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements;

8. The Claimant thus contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

 

c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) section4, and the common law.

 

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

e) Further the Claimant will vehemently refute any contention that the charges made by the Defendant are contractual service charges which are as such not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the Defendant. The Claimant believes such contention would be an attempt by the Defendant to 'cloak' its penalties, in order that it circumvent the statutory and common law provisions which prohibit contractual penalty charges with view to profit.

 

f) Without prejudice to paragraph 8.f) above, in the event that the Defendant’s charges were accepted as a fee for a contractual service, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15.

9. Contractual Interest

a) The claimant claims compound interest on the charges and overdraft interest applied thereon to the claimant’s account ("the principal claim"), at 29.8%EAR. This is the rate currently applied by the defendant to the claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in the said contract.

The claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

The claimant deems the defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. Since the defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the claimant deems the defendant’s charges to the claimant’s account to be indefensible, unenforceable at law, and unauthorised, since it was clearly not in the claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the claimant would authorise the defendant to apply penalty charges and interest thereon to the claimant’s account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the claimant’s account breaches.

For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR").

 

Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

Unfair Terms

5. – (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.

 

b) In the alternative to 9 (a), should the court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the claimant claims compound interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7% EAR, based in the premise that the court finds that the defendant’s withdrawals from the claimant’s account were authorised;

c) In the alternative to 9 (a) and (b), if the court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to either of the two contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7% EAR;

d) In the alternative to 9 (a), (b) and ©, if the court finds that the claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year;

 

e) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows:

Appendix xx – Compound interest calculated daily at 29.8%EAR

Appendix xx – Compound interest calculated daily at 18.7%EAR

Appendix xx – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00%

Appendix xx – Evidence of the Defendant’s current borrowing rates

 

10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims (having first contacted the Defendant about these amounts on the 26th April, 2006):

 

a) The return of the amounts debited between 27th April, 2000 and xxxx xxxx xxxx in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx, together with interest charged thereon in the sum of £xxxx – totalling £xxxx;

 

b) Any applicable Court fees;

 

c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 29.8% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

d) In the alternative to 10.c), compound interest at the contractual rate of 18.7% EAR from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx;

 

e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to xxxx xxxx xxxx, of £xxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx.

 

11. Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

  • Haha 2

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi innocent,

 

was just reading your thread, which i must say was very interesting and thus i have added it to my favorites for future reference if you dont mind?

 

im just at the stage with Lloyds TSB where i sent the prelimary letter and the 14 days have elapsed, thus im now sending off the LBA.

 

do you know if it is standard of Lloyds not to reply to the prelimary letters?

 

thanks for your time and i would appreciate any helpful suggestions as this is my first claim.

 

cheers

 

Lou

HALIFAX-4..CLAIM 1

5 Jan PRELIM

5 Mar LBA

26 Phone HSBC about offer

14 April Halifax paid into account

 

HALIFAX-10..CLAIM 2

21 Mar PRELIM

18 Jul LBA

24 Jul FILED N1

30 Jul Letter from halifax putting case on hold due to OFT

10 August notice of acknowledgement

22 August letter of defence from halifax legal

 

LLOYDS TSB..CLAIM 3

5 Jan PRELIM

5 Mar LBA

26 Mar FILED N1

5 April acknowleged

4 May defense

27 June to be assessed by judge

12 Sept court date (adjourned till further notice)

21 August letter from court, case on hold till Jan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi innocent,

 

was just reading your thread, which i must say was very interesting and thus i have added it to my favorites for future reference if you dont mind?

 

im just at the stage with Lloyds TSB where i sent the prelimary letter and the 14 days have elapsed, thus im now sending off the LBA.

 

do you know if it is standard of Lloyds not to reply to the prelimary letters?

 

thanks for your time and i would appreciate any helpful suggestions as this is my first claim.

 

cheers

 

Lou

 

 

Many thanks hands2bfree :D

 

 

In my humble experience Lloyds have always replied....."LATE"

 

(anything to try and delay you) :rolleyes:

 

You set the deadlines though, not them.... :D :D :D

 

So, onwards and (penalty charge refunds) upwards

 

 

Innocent

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

e) Further the Claimant will vehemently refute any contention that the charges made by the Defendant are contractual service charges which are as such not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the Defendant. The Claimant believes such contention would be an attempt by the Defendant to 'cloak' its penalties, in order that it circumvent the statutory and common law provisions which prohibit contractual penalty charges with view to profit.

 

f) Without prejudice to paragraph 8.f) above, in the event that the Defendant’s charges were accepted as a fee for a contractual service, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15.

 

d) and f) amount to the same. Get rid of d).

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do.... :rolleyes: my fault....

 

 

 

Many thanks Gary...... appreciate someone of your experience checking

 

"Thankyou"

 

Innocent :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

The particulars of claim do seem lengthy and also seem to be providing an argument at the AQ stage or the hearing.

 

Is this really the right time to be going into so much detail as laid out in part 8 and 9? Aren't you just giving them a greater insight into your claim?

 

If this has been looked at by a moderator and checked out then fine, but I wouldn't want you stumbling on this.

 

Besides, I want to do the same!!!! :grin:

 

Steve

 

Despite all I have written I have still copied it into Word and formatted it all nice in a template style :-) I am such a geek!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8. is simply essential as that's what forms the substantive basis of the claim. If your going to claim contractual I see no harm in pleading it in detail, so 9. is fine too. Having said that, quoting the full wording of the UTCCR section isn't really necessary -

Unfair Terms

5. – (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

just citing the number of the relevant section would be fine. Its hardly critical though!

 

As I said on another thread, I don't think 6. and 7. are particularly needed - its supporting evidence which would be disclosed at a later date. I see no actual harm in leaving it in though.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The particulars of claim do seem lengthy and also seem to be providing an argument at the AQ stage or the hearing.

 

Is this really the right time to be going into so much detail as laid out in part 8 and 9? Aren't you just giving them a greater insight into your claim?

 

If this has been looked at by a moderator and checked out then fine, but I wouldn't want you stumbling on this.

 

I am a little concerned about the length of the POC but know of POCs much much longer....:cool:

 

I think my point of view is: by now the banks know all (or the majority) of our 'insights' into our claims.... I'd like to think I am demonstrating a "well thought out, sound and complete" case to the judge, and the banks :-)

 

 

Besides, I want to do the same!!!!

 

Steve

 

Despite all I have written I have still copied it into Word and formatted it all nice in a template style :-) I am such a geek!

 

 

Im exactly the same, so much knowledge here that you can loose yourself..... only problem now is that I have so many word documents derived from this fantastic site :lol:

 

 

Thankyou again Gary..... I have taken on board much of what you have said and of course, respect all of your great advice :grin:

 

 

Anyway, down to the court tomorrow to submit.... (felt a bit alone the last few weeks without a case somewhere in progress :lol: not any more)

 

 

Innocent

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Deed Is Done

 

But A Few Keyboard Issues

 

 

Will Update Thread Asap

 

 

:|

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

innocent vs LLOYDS TSB

 

(edited)

 

DEEMED SERVED: 21st MARCH 2007

 

 

(defendant has until 4th April (initially) to reply)

 

 

On a separate note; nothing like using Windows 95 again :| since one of the leys on my laptop exploded the other night, and now I have no numerics and only some characters :rolleyes: ........apologies for not updating this thread sooner

 

Innocent ;)

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one innocent!

I am at the same stage, just about to compile my N1, so your poc is a god send (gonna click those scales as well) as it will save me a lot of time and effort. You are a star!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/rbs-bos-successes/49470-contractual-interest-details-case.html

 

Check this link as well, don't think it is the one you are referring to but you can add costs, damages and exemplary fees on top of it. Few more pennies for all that hard work.

 

Edit: too late the deed has been done, can you add admin costs, damages, etc at a later date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this link as well, don't think it is the one you are referring to but you can add costs, damages and exemplary fees on top of it. Few more pennies for all that hard work.

 

Edit: too late the deed has been done, can you add admin costs, damages, etc at a later date?

Not in the small claims track you can't, unfortunately. There is a strict no costs rule. Damages is a different ball game altogether, and not one I'd advise anyone to go down.

 

There is a provision for the awarding of costs against a party who has behaved unreasonably, so if this claim goes as most LTSB ones do, you could request that they are awarded on settlement upon that basis. If you want to do this you should keep a record of hours spent at the rate of £9.25, and keep receipts, etc.

  • Haha 1

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just to update this thread (now I have a working keyboard)

 

The Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 29 March 07

 

which the intention to defend the claim....

 

 

The Claim was deemed served on the 21 March 07 so I believe

 

the 28 days to file a defence is up on

 

18 April 07

 

(I expect them to defend (badly) but will check on the date, knowing they occasionally miss the date)

 

Innocent :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...