helpful sites with so much disinformation

[brechiner]

Is the CAG going to press other 'helpful' sites like BBC, MSE etc. that have info for claimers, which is wrong - like applying 8% before court action etc.?

 

Will there be a uniform guide to include CI, going back 6 plus years etc.? because at the moment I help people going to court (MacKenzie friend) over these charges and they all, bar a few, have the MSE/BBC template and have basically a deeply flawed case against the bank. On many occasions the 8% interest was added on first letter.

 

Any ideas ladies and gents?

[bennyowen]

I think CAG cannot do much about other sites that give out wrong information. CAG can only provide guidance if consulted but those sites are at liberty to accept or refuse guidance.

 

I would expect that people running those sites can ensure they give out correct information.

[Kurt_Hamster]

I left the MSE site due to their willingness to hand out flawed/incorrect/ unprofessional advice. It drove me up the wall how unqualified and obviously non-knowledgeable people were allowed to hand out advice willy-nilly all in the name of the MSE site. I had a choice of biting my tongue, letting rip or departing... I chose the latter.

[Rooster-UK]

As Benny said, there is nothing that we can do about other sites. They are nothing to do with CAG and we have no control over them. Unfortunately too many sites that purport to help in reclaiming penalty charges have a standard sequence which worked once. They expect it to work for ever. Some sites even direct its users to us when their claims go pear-shaped. If there are any snags or variations in a claim, they are lost.

On CAG we are well aware of the way snags can, and do occur. We get a lot of new users making their first post in the Newbies Forum with a claim in the later stages asking for help because the site that got them this far, now washes their hands of them because the sites are lost.

We don't expect any two claims to be the same. A lot of them are very alike but with enough subtle differences to lose a claim. Because we are constantly monitoring the outcome of claims, we can look at the whole picture, along with the users thread (provided it has been kept up-to-date and in detail) and constantly devise ways of overcoming any variation.

We manage to salvage 99% of troubled claims that come to us for help.

If only all these people came to CAG first.

 

With regards to contractual interest I would strongly advise against it. There is no legally sound basis for claiming it. It has now been tested in a Mercantile Court and as a result, there is now a precedent for striking it out.

 

As you rightly noted the 8% statutory interest allowed under S.69 is granted at the discretion of the judge and is not a right

[tifo]

With regards to contractual interest I would strongly advise against it. There is no legally sound basis for claiming it. It has now been tested in a Mercantile Court and as a result, there is now a precedent for striking it out.

 

Maybe the huge thread "why is no one claiming contractual interest" should now be closed as the advice is still conflicting with the above.

 

A lot of other threads still say 'go for it' while others, such as this, say no chance anymore.

 

It confuses users.

[carolineiam]

Is the CAG going to press other 'helpful' sites like BBC, MSE etc. that have info for claimers, which is wrong - like applying 8% before court action etc.?

 

Will there be a uniform guide to include CI, going back 6 plus years etc.? because at the moment I help people going to court (MacKenzie friend) over these charges and they all, bar a few, have the MSE/BBC template and have basically a deeply flawed case against the bank. On many occasions the 8% interest was added on first letter.

 

Any ideas ladies and gents?

 

 

Please let me know what is it in the BBC template that is wrong ?

[anon1]

caroline, i am sure it is not for the Moderators or site helper or admin to comment on other sites as their time is wisely used to help people here who will have posted their letters on here. The charges campaign is not static and so various sites have differing methods from 1 letter to 3 letters(i have seen that mentioned as well). The banks will continually fight back and at times get lucky so newer strategies will be required.

I will comment though, if the BBC states 8% prior to court then it is wrong as interest can only be awarded at the discretion of the judge. With regards to contractual interest, it is easier to argue it on credit cards charges then on personal accounts. Why? well on personal accounts many people on contractual rate use current rates of interest and you would need to explain and show why you are entitled to it and how you worked it out. I am with rooster on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid(K.I.S.S.)

[carolineiam]

caroline, i am sure it is not for the Moderators or site helper or admin to comment on other sites as their time is wisely used to help people here who will have posted their letters on here. The charges campaign is not static and so various sites have differing methods from 1 letter to 3 letters(i have seen that mentioned as well). The banks will continually fight back and at times get lucky so newer strategies will be required.

I will comment though, if the BBC states 8% prior to court then it is wrong as interest can only be awarded at the discretion of the judge. With regards to contractual interest, it is easier to argue it on credit cards charges then on personal accounts. Why? well on personal accounts many people on contractual rate use current rates of interest and you would need to explain and show why you are entitled to it and how you worked it out. I am with rooster on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid(K.I.S.S.)

 

the bbc is using the 8% as leverage for the claim. It states : that it is in the interest of the bank to pay up or risk having to pay interest in court .

[Michael Browne]

The worst advice by the BBC is estimated claims. They even show an example of how to work out estimated charges over 6 years based on just five months statements.

 

I have yet to see an estimated claim that that doesn't have to be amended, which costs money, delay and stress.

[anon1]

Caroline, there is something that is incorrect in the initial post by brechiner, MSE do not suggest 8% unless it goes to court, and in point of fact i am not aware of any sites that advocate that either. The BBC templates were initially taken from PenaltyCharges site which has not advocated 8% prior to court stage(This i have learnt of). I have to say that i have not seen the BBC template as they have no discussion facility for claims so I should claim ignorance. Howeverer, the point of the thread was with regards to misinformation about interest am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing to be honest. If 8% is leverage then everyone will be in court. No bank will pay out charges AND interest.