Why is no one claiming the contractual rate of interest???

[newbody]

CI interest can be a nice value added to your charges claim but it by no means an easy feat or really one for the light hearted as it entails reading alot and preparing arguments that could lead to nothing it is still realativly a new approach to claiming charges back and as such each case bought for CI is a learning curve

 

the easiest way to do reclaim charges are to claim back exactly what was taken from yourself and then claim 8% simple interest if you file court proceedings

 

using a company to me isn't an option as they wouldnt even entertain claiming CI as far as i am aware

 

the choice has to be yours as to what you feel comfortable claiming and being prepared to argue/build a case to support

[TANZARELLI]

I agree totally newbody.

 

Not for the faint hearted.

[cascade]

Ok. So I changed the interest rate to my banks contractual rate of 29.80% in the compound Interest spreadsheet. My first charge was for £30.00 on 26th March 2002. My total charges come to £396.00 and the interest calculates out to £765.25. Grand total £1,161.25. Does this seem about right?, and has any one actually won back all their charges using this method.

[TANZARELLI]

Found this which may be useful as it refers to some of the cases we are referring to also, even though it is in relation to construction:

 

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?ar...mail_access=on

[dangler8]

Reading many threads the question of C.I. is quite a hot potato. One I recall asked on what grounds can claiming C.I. be legally justified ?

A question which would have to be answered when pursuing a court claim.

[JonCris]

dangler whilst it may take a little time may I suggest you read this thread from the begining after which I'm sure all your questions will be answered

[newbody]

and read this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/79524-key-arguments-against-compound.html for a summary of the CI arguments

[TANZARELLI]

dangler whilst it may take a little time may I suggest you read this thread from the begining after which I'm sure all your questions will be answered

 

 

It will only take you a week. lol

 

No seriously, this is good advice. It will explain things for and against CI, you will understand it, then be totally confused, then think you've got it again, then get confused.

 

Newbodys link to his summary is a good plan, but still read then main thread.

 

Tanz

[itsmeandonlyme]

Hello guys, when you have some time please look in my thread..need a bit of advise...

 

Itsme Vs Halifax 2 accounts

 

Thank you.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Maria

[tim2718281]

Reading many threads the question of C.I. is quite a hot potato. One I recall asked on what grounds can claiming C.I. be legally justified ?

A question which would have to be answered when pursuing a court claim.

 

The grounds on which CI can be claimed - the *only* grounds I should think - are that the contract means you are entitled to it.

 

In the Mindzai and Lucid case, they quoted the wording from the Ts&Cs of their bank account, which stated that interest woud be payable on unauthorised drawings. They said in their claim that this applied to unauthorised drawings by the bank as well as unauthorised drawings by themselves.

 

That argument is at least reasonable. If the bank wished to argue that the term does not apply to the bank's drawings, then of course it could have turned up in court and do so.

 

Tim

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

There are 2 arguments one being reciprocity of contract & second undue enrichment

[jalex_uk]

Good lord.. talk about a complicated matter! How about this:

 

1) The bank, having taken your money by way of debiting penalty charges and charging interest on those, has unjustly enriched itself.

2) You are entitled, on the basis that they did this, to demand restitution.

3) The easiest way of quantifying the value of that unjust enrichment, and thus your restitution, is to determine the Bank's net profit margin (available from their annual publicly-filed accounts) and use that as the basis for calculating what rate you should claim.

 

ie. if NatWest's net profit margin for 2006 was 30%, you can quite reasonably justify claiming 30% per annum back for that year (pro rata on a monthly basis) on whatever debits they have made from your account unlawfully.

 

It must be beyond question that the Bank have achieved a total return, net of their costs and operating expenses, of their stated net profit margin for any given year. Its in their filed annual accounts. Thus you can unequivocally say that this represents the precise and exact rate at which you can without question state the degree they have benefited from your money.

 

Bugger using the contractual rate of their overdraft facility, authorised or otherwise. Hit them with their own net profit margin - they can't possibly argue with that!

 

Thoughts?

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Very good point jalex & needs some thinking about

[nevos]

The easiest way is not to accept any offers and force them into court as they will pay more than twice what your claiming to avoid it!

[TideTurner]

Good lord.. talk about a complicated matter! How about this:

 

1) The bank, having taken your money by way of debiting penalty charges and charging interest on those, has unjustly enriched itself.

2) You are entitled, on the basis that they did this, to demand restitution.

3) The easiest way of quantifying the value of that unjust enrichment, and thus your restitution, is to determine the Bank's net profit margin (available from their annual publicly-filed accounts) and use that as the basis for calculating what rate you should claim.

 

ie. if NatWest's net profit margin for 2006 was 30%, you can quite reasonably justify claiming 30% per annum back for that year (pro rata on a monthly basis) on whatever debits they have made from your account unlawfully.

 

It must be beyond question that the Bank have achieved a total return, net of their costs and operating expenses, of their stated net profit margin for any given year. Its in their filed annual accounts. Thus you can unequivocally say that this represents the precise and exact rate at which you can without question state the degree they have benefited from your money.

 

Bugger using the contractual rate of their overdraft facility, authorised or otherwise. Hit them with their own net profit margin - they can't possibly argue with that!

 

Thoughts?

 

Jalex,

 

You will find that every contract is treated on its own merits. Where interest has been charged, an equal reaction will be allowed. This will not apply to the general profit margin as some clients will have contributed a greater percentage than others, and each contract is seperate.

 

Why are you not insisting on the 'actual' rate of interest applied?

 

Tide

[jalex_uk]

Jalex,

 

You will find that every contract is treated on its own merits. Where interest has been charged, an equal reaction will be allowed. This will not apply to the general profit margin as some clients will have contributed a greater percentage than others, and each contract is seperate.

 

Why are you not insisting on the 'actual' rate of interest applied?

 

Tide

 

But that's the whole point - I am not trying to claim back "contractual interest" at the "contractual rate of the contract" due to some mysterious and little-understood, vague "principle of repricosity, mutuality, fairness and balance" and all that gumph which nobody has yet had to argue in front of a judge.

 

I am saying:

 

a) The bank has "unjustly enriched" itself with your money.

b) under the law, "unjust enrichment" gives rise to a lawful demand for "Restitution." Restitution is the process by which profits acquired by the Defendant in the course of using your money are transferred from them to you, the Claimant.

c) Restitution has to be carefully worked out.. AND JUSTIFIED.

d) What could be fairer that taking the bank's own net profit margin - the percentage of its turnover which is profit AFTER operating expenses - and using that to calculate the return they have managed to achieve with your money? Its indisputable. It is simple to understand. It doesn't clutter up the argument with some nonsense about whether it is "fairer" to use the unauthorised or authorised overdraft rate (the law doesn't care about "fair," it just wants to be "right."). It isn't so much YOU charging THEM interest, as YOU calculating the profits they have made with YOUR money and under the law of Restitution transferring them to you, duly calculated at the precise profit margin at which the Bank has stated in its Annual Accounts it has achieved for any one year.

 

Its simple. Its easily explained in court. Its indisputably fair, accurate, and based on sound facts. And its easy for a judge to understand.

 

And I believe you could still claim your s.69 statutory 8% interest on top of it if you go to court and win, as the claim for Restitution would form part of your claim and not be something awarded by the court in compensation, which is effectively what Statutory Interest is.

 

Can anyone see any problem with this?

[TideTurner]

Jalex,

 

I can't see a Court in the land agreeing to this.

 

I could however, see them agreeing to a claim based on today's rate if they are not forthcoming. Can you calculate off that rate?

 

Tide

[Glenn UK]

But that's the whole point - I am not trying to claim back "contractual interest" at the "contractual rate of the contract" due to some mysterious and little-understood, vague "principle of repricosity, mutuality, fairness and balance" and all that gumph which nobody has yet had to argue in front of a judge.

 

I am saying:

 

a) The bank has "unjustly enriched" itself with your money.

b) under the law, "unjust enrichment" gives rise to a lawful demand for "Restitution." Restitution is the process by which profits acquired by the Defendant in the course of using your money are transferred from them to you, the Claimant.

c) Restitution has to be carefully worked out.. AND JUSTIFIED.

d) What could be fairer that taking the bank's own net profit margin Taking what they made on your money which could be entirely different to their net profits.- the percentage of its turnover which is profit AFTER operating expenses - and using that to calculate the return they have managed to achieve with your money? Its indisputable. It is simple to understand. It doesn't clutter up the argument with some nonsense about whether it is "fairer" to use the unauthorised or authorised overdraft rate (the law doesn't care about "fair," it just wants to be "right."). It isn't so much YOU charging THEM interest, as YOU calculating the profits they have made with YOUR money and under the law of Restitution transferring them to you, duly calculated at the precise profit margin at which the Bank has stated in its Annual Accounts it has achieved for any one year.

 

Its simple. Its easily explained in court. Its indisputably fair, accurate, and based on sound facts. And its easy for a judge to understand.

 

And I believe you could still claim your s.69 statutory 8% interest on top of it if you go to court and win, as the claim for Restitution would form part of your claim and not be something awarded by the court in compensation, which is effectively what Statutory Interest is.

 

Can anyone see any problem with this?

 

Apart form your methodology for arriving at the value claimed, no, i cant see anting wrong with the concept.

 

In truth i doubt it would yield s much as 30% as excess OD rate would or similar.

 

Its called various things as far as i can make out, account of profits being one, and tom brennan has effectively asked for similar i think.

 

Glenn

[woodentop]

I have a question re: compounded interest. Essentially had a business account which folded in 1991 - account frozen as couldnt pay £17k back then. Paid nominal amount of £50 monthly until 2 yrs ago when remortgaged to get charge off house. Astonished original amount had risen to £43k. Compound interest of roughly £248 a month. Didn't want to negotiate and finally settled after nearly a year for £42k which we paid them. I have written to The Chief Exec and his next in line replied essentially saying "get lost" they acted lawfully, citing limitation act etc. Told them I was going to Ombudsman and thats where the case is at the moment. Since it went to Ombudsman we are being encouraged to claim charges back beyond 6 years so am going to go for all the charges onthe business account prior to 1991 as there were many but cannot do this until Ombudsman comes back with an answer. Am trying to get some or all of the £42k back. The Bank are saying:

• no charges were added to account when frozen
  
• they were justified in charging the amounts of interest

They say they tried to negotiate during all the time we were paying the £50 which we are disputing. Stopped paying them to get them to write to us because when we called no-one knew where file was. Took them 4 months to respond LOL. Essentially I just want to know if there is anything that we can do because feel that have been ripped off something rotton. Not disputing we owed them money but its daylight robbery.

 

Yours excellent thoughts please

[TideTurner]

Woodentop,

 

You need to do a proper SAR, then look in the library for the interest calculator. Input all charges and analyse the interest.

 

No charges were added to account when frozen!!

 

Get a full breakdown of your account, dates, amounts, full description etc.

 

Then question each and every charge and try to get a description of each.

 

It doesn't matter if charges were made when the account was frozen or not.

 

You need details of all info they hold on you.

 

Tide

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

IMHO I think the argument put forward by jalex has merit. Apart from the problem of calculation it would also have the effect of drawing attention to the fact that their ill-gotten profits are being targeted directly by consumers.

 

I suspect it would lead to some sleepless nights for the banks bosses

[jalex_uk]

IMHO I think the argument put forward by jalex has merit. Apart from the problem of calculation it would also have the effect of drawing attention to the fact that their ill-gotten profits are being targeted directly by consumers.

 

I suspect it would lead to some sleepless nights for the banks bosses

 

Thanks. I think some people here are too obsessed with trying to charge the unauthorised overdraft rate on a) principle, because it sounds great to charge "them" interest and b) because it is a high number. Lesson 1: courts don't like greedy people trying to "unjustly enrich" themselves by suing others. You may not see yourself like that, but the Court might.

 

Look, this issue is being over-complicated. Claiming the contractual rate of interest on the basis of reciprocity, mutuality, fairness, balance blah blah blah has NOT been proven in court. It may be a great argument, but its just that for now - an argument, and one without much precedent. I for one don't want to base a £25k claim (or a £2.5k one for that matter!) on that.

 

Claiming Restitution from Unjust Enrichment HAS been tested in court and is a long-established principle of law. It is NOT the same as you charging them interest, where you work out what you are entitled to charge them on some spurious basis you then have to explain. It is YOU working out the profits THEY have made with YOUR money, and seeking Restitution of those profits. All you have to do is explain how much money they are likely to have earned over a given period, and its yours by Law to demand.

 

So just find out the bank's profit margin (usually between 20-30%) from its official Accounts, and work out its rate of return on your money. I really don't see how anyone can argue with this - its so basic, so simple, that its undeniable. And I'd like to see a Bank's barrister argue that it isn't a fair and reasonable way to assess the Bank's likely return on your money. Their profit margin on revenues is their profit margin on revenues. Your money is revenue. Their profit margin is their profit on that revenue. So work out what the margin is (as I said, usually 21-30% depending on the Bank) and you can work out the profit you can demand in Restitution from their Unjust Enrichment.

 

There... doesn't that makes sense? Even a County Court Judge could follow that logic

[hagenuk]

Westdeutsche v Islington BC [1996] A.C. 669, [1996] 2 All E.R. 961 states there was no basis for compound interest under unjust enrichment

[TANZARELLI]

Westdeutsche v Islington BC [1996] A.C. 669, [1996] 2 All E.R. 961 states there was no basis for compound interest under unjust enrichment

 

Due to the lack of Fid duty, element.

[jalex_uk]

Westdeutsche v Islington BC [1996] A.C. 669, [1996] 2 All E.R. 961 states there was no basis for compound interest under unjust enrichment

With respect, you're missing the point. You aren't charging them interest, simple or compound. You don't need to compound the interest. You are taking their profits in Restitution. Lets say their profit margin is 30%. In 2001, they took £100 in penalty charges. They made £30 that year from you. Now they have £130. In 2002 they make 30% of 130 = £39. Now they have £169. In 2003 they make 30% of £169 = £50.70. Now they have £219.70.

 

This has the net effect of compounding profits annually. You could, of course, work this out on a quarterly basis rather than annual, as companies report profits (and their profit margin) quarterly, which would have the effect of compounding profits quarterly - obviously more beneficial to us.

 

The point is, WE are not charging INTEREST, simple OR compound. We are asking for restitution of their PROFITS, which are obviously compounded.

 

So the ruling with regard to compound or simple interest is completely irrelevant, as we're not charging interest in the first place.