A credit card wont list it as authorised and unauthorised rate as it operates in a different manner to banks but for the purpose of CI claims it is generally used as cash advance is the equivelent to unauthorised as it is them advancing you good old hard cash and purchase rate is deemed authorised rate as you dont see the money you just charge it

key-arguments-against-compound think this summaries the key posts from this thread and some others

key-arguments-against-compound think this summaries the key posts from this thread and some others

I don't know if this is a case of wishful thinking or if it has been discussed before in the main CI thread. I suppose I ought to copy this post over there too, if you and others think its worth it, just to see whether it is something that can be developed. I hope all this makes sense ..

..

Information taken from site in regards contractural interest at the Banks rates Information from following threads Why is no one claiming the contractual rate of interest??? Mad Nick Vs Abbey RedDeath Vs LloydsTsb contractual-interest-judge-doesn't seem to think so new-way-looking-interest Bong Vs HSBC mcuth v RBoS

Ok read a few of the threads on contractural compound interest including the horrid 88 page post and have now posted here what i believe to be the key issuses and elements in regards this subject I have tried to keep the information in the context it was meant and include points of contention in regards this subject this post is by no means definitive and I will keep updating as i find information i think relevant If anyone thinks they have something relevant to the subject feel free to add or pm me a link to the thread and i will add

Devils advocate time for me I think Glenn in this poc section 6 c surley trying to say this is a penalty then asking for the same rate back might appear hypercritical to a judge as it might appear you are saying the bank does it to me is unfair but it is just for me to do it to them only thing i can see that might be a point of contention

No abbey will have 14 days from date papers(n1) deemed served which will prob be friday to state if they wish to defend or not if they defend they then have 28 days from date the N1 was deemed servered if they do not respond with in the 14 days you Supposedly win by default and can apply for judgement it will be come clearer when you get copy from court saying your n1 is deemed servered the info in regards defense or claim for judgement is on it

Sorry Bong for the additional confusion i was having a toungue in cheeck moment refering to where hagenuk had said in a post refering to mine that i would have to give the banks similar facalities as they gave me that we in a way do lend banks money

I agree it was my breech that caused these charges to be levied and as such agree that as i had insufficent funds in my account and as such borrowed the banks maoney without permission it was entitled to charge me it's unauthorised rate Hence why in my specific claim i have not gone to claim back any interest levied by the bank in regards these breeches weather it was incurred by my drawing on the account or by the banks drawing on it in regards their charges My belief is that the charges the Bank levied on me whilist ridiculous were to cover staffing and administration and as such i was prepaired to swallow the cost of them But scince being pointed in direction of this site and recent media coverage and reading of threads and external links it is my contention that the charges were not just And as such i wish for it to be rectified and as such recompensed for my loss of use of that money. Now as wistleblower showed the other night the banks have people working within them that figure out what the cost of every act and action will cost the bank so it knows it's costing So if the charges are true and just then the banks would just call that employee or a sworn statement from that employee in to prove the charges are lawful and not payout as they have done The excuse of cost efficentcey doesn't wash as they have sent solicitors and barristers to some hearings only to settle rather than divulge the costs I agree that in the contract their is no provision that says if we the bank borrow your money without authorisation then you can claim XX% interest from us. But then again who expects a bank to take money it is not entitled to also Therefore as i wasnt able to negotiate my contract in person that to me would make the contract unfair and the fact that there is no recipitory action in the contract for breeches by the bank would make its terms unfair Now for the life of me i cant remember at this minute where i read it but i did read that if a contract or condition is unfair then the most favourable option to the claimant shall be used I will edit and insert it when i find it So therefore as the bank has took money in excess of what it was entitled to i want this money back and i wish to be recompensed for the loss/use of it Thus meaning i start court action seeking restitution From this you can then delve into the different type of restitionary remedies available Which my understanding of them is to remove any enrichment the defendant may have obtained by the benifit it gained at the claimants expense. which there are many different thoughts on the best way forward the general reasoning behind the usage of the banks own rates as this is what is stated in black and white from the bank. Due to the fact that you did not authorise them to take the excess amount of money in charges this would deem that that the unauthorised rate would be the one to claim for but depending on what form of restitutionary remedy you are following this may be hard to justify and the authorised borrowing rate maybe easier to argue but these are points that thoose of us who are trying to argue for this Additional money are trying to sort out now End of the day no in the contract it doesnt say you are entitled to this rate But in the contract it doesnt say we will only let you have XXX of your balance back a day unless you give us XX amount of notice It also doesnt say in the contract that we as your bank may take money from you that we are not entitled to and if you find us out we will give you 8% statatory interest on it if you file at court At the end of the day if nobody was prepared to challange the banks actions we wouldnt all be here now claiming back our charges in the first place and it is only by open disscussion and debates and people prepared to take a risk and use the arguments that we can push the boundries of what we can and cannot claim back from the banks As for the claiming of compound interest in general it hasnt been ruled out as an option in common law or even small claims So it is at the judges discretion based on your arguments for why you should get it though most will opt for the 8% as it is the easier option At the end of the day it is down to the banks on weather they wish to continue paying out and how much they want to pay out for to stop the pay outs all they need do is disclose the true costs if they dont want to do that then we will continue pursuing them and pushing for what we can get until they are prepared to enter a court room to prove the legality of their charges To the borrowing money from me i didnt mean that they borrowed it from me in the sense of the charges but that in every instance of someone using a bank weather it is a kids savings account to a high yield investment account every time we pay money in to the bank we are loaning them money to trade and invest as they see fit

SOLA Statute Of Limitations Act:D

from abbeys terms and conditions they are saying their terms are governed by the law of the land in this case English law which their charges are in breech of thus as i see it making them in breech of the contract which is a set of promises which each party agrees to abide by As for the bank borrowing money from me they do and every person who uses a bank where else do they get it from to invest and carry out their operations as needed it is on an act of faith and trust that we lend them our money on the belief they will return it to us upon our request if the bank were to ask me for additional services cheque book etc then i am sure i would be happy to provide it to them so long as they met my requist criteria if they didnt then i might be able to point them to a competitor who would be more than willing to help them out Silly side thought so if the thought is that the banks have overcharged us on the charges agreed and it is not considered unauthorised borrowing then wouldnt that then make the money taken from us theft. Though they would claim it was by accident would it not then move this into the field of criminal fraud as someone somewhere whould have to be answerable for the figure to which was choosen by the banks to charge and thus knowing what the true cost is and charging an excessivley over inflated price be open to accusations of obtaing money by deception and by obtaining money by fraudulent means or if more than one person is priviy to the costing and administrating of the costs of transactions and they have kept quiet to the real cost would that not then bring it into a conspiricey to obtain by fraud

Following on contracts barons legal dictionary defines one as Contract A promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. 1 Williston, Contracts §1 (4th ed. 1990). The essentials of a valid contract are "parties competent to contract, a proper subject-matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation," 286 N.W. 844, 846; "a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively." So yes we agreed to the contracts terms and conditions and expected the banks to charge us no more than was just in administering our defaults in the contract but as they have broke that promise made to us to act lawfuly under english common law then they are lacking in their performance and as such we have reciprocal rights to charge them interest at the same rate If we had envisaged that The banks who we have confidence and trust in to use our money for investment or other profit making ventures (angle to try and prove fiduciary relationship) for their own gain paying us a proportion of this in interest for the authorised use of our money until we require it back (made by withdrawl weather by cheque DD SO or cash) then we would have looked at wanting terms entered into the contract for such a breech by them

fiduciary: Definition and Much More from Answers.com Legal Encyclopedia Library > Legal > Legal Encyclopedia This entry contains information applicable to United States law only. Fiduciary An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit. A fiduciary relationship encompasses the idea of faith and confidence and is generally established only when the confidence given by one person is actually accepted by the other person. Mere respect for another individual's judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary. Courts have neither defined the particular circumstances of fiduciary relationships nor set any limitations on circumstances from which such an alliance may arise. Certain relationships are, however, universally regarded as fiduciary. The term embraces legal relationships such as those between attorney and client, broker and principal, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary, and executors or administrators and the heirs of a decedent's estate. A fiduciary relationship extends to every possible case in which one side places confidence in the other and such confidence is accepted; this causes dependence by the one individual and influence by the other. Blood relation alone does not automatically bring about a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary relationship does not necessarily arise between parents and children or brothers and sisters. The courts stringently examine transactions between people involved in fiduciary relationships toward one another. Particular scrutiny is placed upon any transaction by which a dominant individual obtains any advantage or profit at the expense of the party under his or her influence. Such transaction, in which undue influence of the fiduciary can be established, is void. Real Estate Terms Library > Business > Real Estate Terms Fiduciary One who acts, in a legal role, in the best interests of others. Examples: • A Broker is a fiduciary for the seller. • A banker is a fiduciary for the bank's depositors. • An attorney may be a fiduciary for the client. • A Trustee is a fiduciary for the Beneficiaries.

no oit means they now have 28 days from day of service (the papers were issued deemed served) in which to file their defence i.e they now have until 7th april to file their defence papers

you can make the claim in one go for all 3 accounts if you wish but be warned if the total of claim exceeds £5000 then it could put you on fast track where their is a risk of costs being awarded but having said that you can still request small cliams court if the value of claim does put you outside the £5k amount then you have valid reason for 3 claims one for each of the accounts also depending what benifits if any you are on you maybe exempt from fees (income based jobseekers) or entitled to a reduced fee (working tax child tax credit) worth checking it out

Update paper now deemed served on Abbey 14 days to now to file intent Newbody hopes they are so swamped they will forget on his Doubt it but can but hope

the microfiche printouts are just a list of transaction money in and out and what it was for no balances and no summary sheet so you have to go through them with a tooth comb looking for the charges which are shown by the abreviation chg in the 2nd from last column example of microfiche sheet ACC no DATE transaction abbreviation amount so it would be like this # 434225465........ 02/12/05........ bankgiro................ bgc ...55.00 .......................03/12/05........ unpaid dd charge ....chg ...30.00 hope it helps and good luck on the way forward

well you cant claim until monday now at the earliest unless you are using mcol you could get your n1 filled in in preperation and amend the amounts if required monday before printing it off or sending it using mcol as for how they arrive at figures god knows but as the letter with my GOGW didnt actually say what it was for it is merely an inference that it is in regards the charges I was tempted to send a letter saying thank you for gesture of goodwill i am assuming this is to try and restore my faith in yourselves as a bank and as such i am happy to accept it but i will still be pursuing you for the amount you have levied against me in the region of 11K :D :D

hope this helps

sorry wrong thread

the letter you recieved is standard drag it out stuff (you may even find in another 2 weeks you get another letter with a GOGW in it but dont hold your breath and be sitting when u recieve it (through fear of falling over laughing) see my thread for further info . follow your own timelines if you said you will file if no settlement then proceed as such remember this is your claim not theirs also after you file when they offer figures to settle do not ofrget to mention you have filed at court and as such now are seeking reimbursement for this as well I downloaded the N1 and filed at my local court so i knew everything had been sent that was required the problem i think i have sen with using mcol is that you have to forward copies of your schedule of charges and space on the form is limited

Must be a day for GOGW i got one as well but mine was only for £233 My Claim

double post