Are they about to settle with Contractual Interest?

[RageAgainstTheBanks]

I have been offered my bank charges back in full but without CI. I refused the offer telling them that I was going to court if they didn’t pay the CI within 14 days..blah, blah…

 

I have now been sent another letter telling me that my claim is currently being re-considered and they will get back to me, please be patient etc..

 

Has anyone else been in this situation, I have held off starting court proceedings until they get back to me. Are they about to settle with CI??

[isidore]

I can't imagine so. I wouldn't get your hopes up too much - I would imagine this is no more than a generic letter sent out in order to delay you.

 

Personally, I would have accepted the offer for full settlement but I'm sure we've gone through this somewhere else (in another thread possibly???).

 

You can wait to see what their response to this is but then that's what the purpose of the letter is isn't it!!

[RageAgainstTheBanks]

Personally, I would have accepted the offer for full settlement but I'm sure we've gone through this somewhere else (in another thread possibly???).

 

 

I've heard so many different opinions on this now and i'm now certain that everyone should go for contractual interest.

 

The basis of the argument for it means that if the banks don't want to pay CI, they MUST prove in court that their charges are fair and legal. Not one bank has done this yet. Most banks will go for strike out before it gets that far but if everything is done correctly, they wont succeed.

[isidore]

In which case, you are probably right to go for it.

 

If everyone was to put the hours in researching the numerous threads and the ever changing arguments on this and be prepared to plan out their attack so to speak (as it sounds like you have), then yes everyone should go for it. For every one person like you, there will be 10 or more who will simply say "that sounds good, I'll add that on then".

 

Don't think everyone should go for it lol

 

 

Back to the point of the post, personally I would go to court, it's just stalling tactics. The way that RBS are conducting themselves at the moment, they are fobbing off everyone they can with the excuse of being behind schedule. They have been quoting 2 - 3 weeks delay! Can't see how you would get a response any time soon.

[dangler8]

Hi RATB reading your thread it would seem that what your saying is everyone has been misinformed and should have applied CI with their prelim and LBA letters ??

[RageAgainstTheBanks]

Hi RATB reading your thread it would seem that what your saying is everyone has been misinformed and should have applied CI with their prelim and LBA letters ??

 

That is correct.

 

The reason we are all here is the fact that we believe that bank charges/penalties whatever you want to call them are ILLEGAL (it hasn't actually been proved yet but the smell of sh*t coming from the banks gives you the impression that they know they're are!)

 

 

Under my contract i have with my bank, they have the right to charge me 29% interest if i borrow money from them outwith our arrangements or without their authority. This contract works BOTH WAYS, whats good for them is also good for me. Now, if a bank charge is illegal, i'm pretty damn sure that makes it unauthorised! Hence the reason I can also charge them 29% for making an unathorised withdrawl from my account.

 

This applies to every person who is claiming back their charges. In my opinion, everyone should claim this, from the prelim stage onwards.

[isidore]

We are diverting a little from the point of this thread here but it is easy for you to have this opinion because you have taken the time to do the research. Most people don't want to do the legwork or want to put up a fight for it. Until this part of the claim is a given - part of what you are DEFINITELY entitled to and is paid out without a fight - you shouldn't advise everyone to go for it.

 

Try to understand that if you go round saying this, then people will be under the impression they are entiteld to it regardless - and let's face it right now, we're not - and run the risk of losing everything for fighting for something they don't quite understand.

 

I do agree with your opinion, but only once CAG have set out a formal process for this and there is a fool-proof process for "winning" CI. Until that point, the average joe who simply wants to send a few letters to the bank and get their charges back SHOULDN'T go for CI.

 

I'm not being negative as you accused me of previously, just cautious. Not everyone will have the background knowledge you have acquired or be bothered to collect it.

[hagenuk]

 

Under my contract i have with my bank, they have the right to charge me 29% interest if i borrow money from them outwith our arrangements or without their authority. This contract works BOTH WAYS, whats good for them is also good for me. Now, if a bank charge is illegal, i'm pretty damn sure that makes it unauthorised! Hence the reason I can also charge them 29% for making an unathorised withdrawl from my account.

 

This applies to every person who is claiming back their charges. In my opinion, everyone should claim this, from the prelim stage onwards.

 

You have no such right and none has ever existed.

 

Contracts simply do not work that way. Why do you imagine that your contract with the bank is symmetrical? It is not. There is no provision in the contract for you to receive anything other than the stated rate of interest on any credit balance.

 

Contracts have rights and correlative obligations for both parties. These rights and obligations differ for each party. Mutuality of contract simply identifies the rule that where one party fails to adhere to a contractual obligation, the other party need not fulfil their correlative obligation.

 

Mutuality of contract is the reciprocal understanding or agreement between parties that is a requirement in the creation of a legally enforceable contract. It means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other

 

In Bank contracts, the Bank has a right to impose interest at the unauthorised rate. This is what we agree to when we enter into the contract. There is no right in the contract for us to receive interest at anything other than the published rate on credit balances. Any right to interest must be found under the common law.

 

These claims are not based on contract. Contractual rights and obligations may set the background, but there is no remedy in contract for the consumer in relation to bank charges and therefore no contractual right to claim interest at the rate charged to you by the bank.

 

If you have been offered a full refund of your charges and court costs then to pursue a claim on the basis of contractual interest only - in particular on the flawed understanding that you have stated above - is very foolish indeed.

 

If you were to lose, you could be seriously out of pocket. You absolutely must keep the unlawful charges central to this issue, if the charges are settled, then you are entering a whole new area of law.

[RageAgainstTheBanks]

You have no such right and none has ever existed.

 

Contracts simply do not work that way. Why do you imagine that your contract with the bank is symmetrical? It is not. There is no provision in the contract for you to receive anything other than the stated rate of interest on any credit balance.

 

Contracts have rights and correlative obligations for both parties. These rights and obligations differ for each party. Mutuality of contract simply identifies the rule that where one party fails to adhere to a contractual obligation, the other party need not fulfil their correlative obligation.

 

Mutuality of contract is the reciprocal understanding or agreement between parties that is a requirement in the creation of a legally enforceable contract. It means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other

 

In Bank contracts, the Bank has a right to impose interest at the unauthorised rate. This is what we agree to when we enter into the contract. There is no right in the contract for us to receive interest at anything other than the published rate on credit balances. Any right to interest must be found under the common law.

 

These claims are not based on contract. Contractual rights and obligations may set the background, but there is no remedy in contract for the consumer in relation to bank charges and therefore no contractual right to claim interest at the rate charged to you by the bank.

 

If you have been offered a full refund of your charges and court costs then to pursue a claim on the basis of contractual interest only - in particular on the flawed understanding that you have stated above - is very foolish indeed.

 

If you were to lose, you could be seriously out of pocket. You absolutely must keep the unlawful charges central to this issue, if the charges are settled, then you are entering a whole new area of law.

 

 

Ok, there are some things to think about there. There are a lot of people using the very argument I have stated for claiming contractual interest. You obviously believe this argument to be flawed. There are people winning with contractual interest, what do you believe are the banks reasons for paying out?

[hagenuk]

Actually nobody is winning anything. There cannot be a win if there is no contest, can there?

 

The banks are giving up without contesting any claims. I know we use the word "win" but it in not in fact correct.

 

I think the reason the banks are paying some claims is that most of the them are small and are more of a nuisance than anything else - I am not aware of any large claims where contractual interest has been awarded - that is not to say that there are not any however.

[rmal1]

Something else should be remembered when claiming Contractual Interest -

 

In certain cases banks have been crediting money to disputed accounts without the agreement of the customer. And then asking the court to throw out the case as it had been 'dealt with'.

 

This happened with RBS Group (NatWest) with the trainee Barrister, Tom Brennan who is attempting to actually get them into court.

 

This has also happened with a Compound Interest case, LloydsTSB (I think) where the bank has paid the disputed charges into the claimants bank account and then asked the court to throw out the C.I. part

[isidore]

I concur with what Hagenuk says, there is no point in paying out legal fees for smaller claims as it doesn't make financial sense to argue about it.

 

There are very few high profile CI claims that are successful....in fact only Bong's springs to mind right now.

 

A good example of how to do it correctly within the RBS threads is mcuth who is going after CI but is offering RBS the opportunity to come to an agreement. He isn't suggesting he wants the full amount he is giving RBS the opportunity to offer him a reasonable offer (can't even get more than 50 quid right now but that's by the by lol). Point is, it comes across from his letters that he probably realises that he won't get the full amount but wants *something* refunded to him on top of his charges.

[Sparkie1723]

Here is a pont to c onsider I believe, The Banking contract customers have states in part something like this " if we return a direct debit or cheque we will charge you X amount of pounds for the cost of this, and the customer signs that contract, then people have seen that they can claim these charges back .. but doesnt that mean that the contract has been broken and its unfair, then when people claim contractual interest I think they may have a case to argue that the Bank has previously breached the contract by applying the unlawfull charges therefore the initial contract could be unlawful, and they can claim the same O/d interst that the Bank charge i.e reciprocal because there isnt a contract in force it has been broken by the Bank. just a thought,

 

 

sparkie 1723

[hagenuk]

Here is a pont to c onsider I believe, The Banking contract customers have states in part something like this " if we return a direct debit or cheque we will charge you X amount of pounds for the cost of this, and the customer signs that contract, then people have seen that they can claim these charges back .. but doesnt that mean that the contract has been broken and its unfair,

Yes it does, we breach the contract when we allow a payment to be returned through insufficient funds for example

 

then when people claim contractual interest I think they may have a case to argue that the Bank has previously breached the contract by applying the unlawfull charges

 

Two points - we breach the contract first and thus far, the charges are not unlawful - only a court can rule that they are and so far, none has.

 

therefore the initial contract could be unlawful,

 

See above

 

and they can claim the same O/d interst that the Bank charge i.e reciprocal because there isnt a contract in force it has been broken by the Bank. just a thought,

Again, we breach it by attempting to pay for something without having the necessary funds and a breach of a certain clause does not render the entire contract invalid, ergo it still exists.

 

sparkie 1723

 

The basis for our claims, all of them with regard to bank charges is that the banks do have a contractual right to charge us for breaching the contract but that they must only charge us what it has actually cost them to remedy the breach - they must not profit from it.