Porcupine v Smile the fight continues!

[porcupine]

Hi there,

Having sent off the LBA 1 & 2 I have had £1900 of the £2450 I was claiming returned.

Whos smiling now!

 

But what I want to ask is how many people have got the interest back? And is it worth sending them a part settlement letter and going in for the rest of it as I worked on the excel spreadsheet?

 

Any advice appreciated and can anyone who got their interest back let me know how they went about it?

Thanks

[caro]

I'm very surprised that you didn't get the full amount of charges, although smile don't seem too keen on paying the overdraft interest on the charges. Have you any idea why they didn't pay the full amount?

 

Can you be a bit more specific about the interest you are claiming please.

[porcupine]

Hi,

 

It is interest that they didnt pay, that was worked out on the excel spreadsheet.

So they returned my charges but not the interest.

I know that I am not entitled to the debit interest.

 

Have I explained that okay?

Thanks

[caro]

You are entitled to claim the debit interest that on the charges, but it sounds like an awful lot of interest that you were claiming. There are a number of excel spreadsheets about and I've a feeling you may have claimed contractual interest. If that's the case, and you have the money for your charges I don't think you should pursue contractual interest through the court as there is no legal basis for claiming it, although some people have got lucky and got it.

 

Personally I would never claim it.

[Micky the Hippo]

I'm claiming compound CI, why not?

 

the worse that will happen is that they'll pay only the charges, perhaps the interest on the charges

 

the best is that they'll pay the lot

 

this all revolves around them really really really not wanting to stand up in court and explain their charging

 

really really

[caro]

If the claim is under 5k including the compound interest there probably wouldn't be too much of a problem, and the worst that can happen is that your claim would be struck out, and you might be given the opportunity to amend your POC to just statutory interest.

 

If it is in fast track though and the claim struck out you might find yourself having to pay costs to the bank, which could potentially be a lot of money. If there was a hearing to discuss the application to strike out the claim, the issue of whether or not the charges were lawful would not be up for discussion, just whether the strike out application was valid.

[Micky the Hippo]

thanks, that tallies with what I've read

 

my biggest claim is for £3.5k

 

As long as my claims shows the basic charges plus basic interest on charges, and the CI interest separately with the s65 in variance to the CI, wouldn't that cover me if CI is a problem, how can the case be struck out if the question of the legality of the CI wasn't considered?

 

On what basis would they strike it out?

 

genuine question, sorry if it's simplistic

[caro]

The CI could be brought into question I think, and if you were entitled to claim it. I think that could be a basis for applying for a claim to strike out. I don't think any application to strike out would be on whether the charges were lawful, so that issue would not be raised at a hearing.

 

There is an enormous amount written on the issue of CI all over the forum, and you have obviously been reading up on it, but I think there is some issue if you can give alternative options in your POC, particularly as the size of the claim might make a difference to which track the claim was allocated to. Don't quote me on that though, but I think I may have read it at some point in the dim and distant past.

 

All I'm saying is that there are risks associated with claiming CI and it is for you to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Sorry for the hijack porcupine. Hope you don't mind as you are in a similar situation, but I think Micky and I should move on to Mickys thread for further discussion on this, although all I can really do is advise caution, which I've done. I wish I could just say go for it, but unless or until someone finds something in the statutes to prove the validity, or a precedent can be said, I wouldn't personally risk it.

 

The judge at the Leeds Mercantile Court in February seemed to imply it wasn't acceptable, and amended some claims accordingly.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-564344.html

[Micky the Hippo]

uh huh, I hear you

 

from my finger and moving lips reading of that summary, he still pretty much said that 8% was ok instead

 

ish

 

early days for me, doubtless I'll get more frantic nearer the time

 

thank-you for your input and sorry to Porcupine