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

[doo]

Hi Milly, ditto your post above 1898, absolutely agree, I thought milktrayman's post was excellent and as you know I am in this position too - if I am forced to accept the money they have put on my card I shall apportion it to the oldest charges and contractual interest, leaving plenty of my charges outstanding - I have claimed contractual from the beginning so I am standing firm.

[2gr82btrue]

i asked for CI but they were only estimates because i couldn't get my head round it to break it down.... i'm sure this will go against me.

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi doo!

...if I am forced to accept the money they have put on my card I shall apportion it to the oldest charges and contractual interest, leaving plenty of my charges outstanding...

It makes makes more financial sense to apportion any money, forced upon U, to the YOUNGEST unlawful Charges etc.

Remember folks......(...least we all forget!...lol)

INTEREST on INTEREST etc etc is greater the longer the period of time that it has accrued!

The above is strictly a Plan B.

...Plan A is to reject the money altogether, if possible, or restrict the temptation to touch/spend it until AFTER your Claim has been Settled in Full.

[Guest bong]

mtm, wouldn't there be an expectation by the court that you would mitigate your oldest losses?

[thereshope!]

Hi MTM and Milly:)

 

Thanks for your input MTM.You have a wonderful way with words and you have reassured me that I am doing the right thing:D

 

Milly ,I am claiming unauthorised on all my claims hun

 

Hope xx

[MilkTrayMan]

Hello Bong!

mtm, wouldn't there be an expectation by the court that you would mitigate your oldest losses?

Would that be the same Court that would expect the Defendant to pay the Claimant the TOTAL sum that what was Claimed, or nothing at all???

 

Especially if the Defendant had initially submitted a Defence that denied the Claim in FULL???

 

Without an admission of liability and the disclosing of actual processing costs to support the Banks position of why a 'Part Payment' should be deemed acceptable as a FULL Settlement of a Charges + C.I. Claim, the Bank has no logical reason to make ANY payment to the Claimant other than the FULL payment Claimed, if it wishes the Claim NOT to proceed to the hearing stage.

 

Have been on my hols, so I may have missed something??!

[lazybones]

By the way are peeps claiming unauthorised still or authourised?

 

Hi Milly

 

I think unauthorised, unless you they asked you first and then you agreed.

 

As to rates on credit cards, it should be their CASH TRANSACTION RATE.

 

Such interest to be charged from the day the penalty charges were applied.

 

Anyway thats my opinion

 

All the best

[Guest bong]

You could be right MTM, to be absolutely honest I have no idea really, but using your logic I don't think there would be any justification for setting off part-payments against the youngest charges either. I don't think the court would be sympathetic to a claimant saying that it made him/her more money that way. Plus I think there is an onus on you to reduce your losses if possible.

 

Another option of course would be to keep the spreadsheet as it was and show a credit (refund) at the bottom, reducing the total claim but not affecting the interest running on any part of the claim.

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi Bong!

You could be right MTM, to be absolutely honest I have no idea really, but using your logic I don't think there would be any justification for setting off part-payments against the youngest charges either. Which bit of logic are U referring to? I don't think the court would be sympathetic to a claimant saying that it made him/her more money that way. I wasn't supplying a definitive answer to any case before a Court. The semantics may differ, but the resulting Claim would be the same. Plus I think there is an onus on you to reduce your losses if possible. There is DEFINITELY an onus on a Bank to Settle a Claim in FULL, or defend the FULL amount to be paid, if the Bank has stated in it's original defence that that is what it is intending to do. The Bank does NOT have the right to apportion any 'Part Payments' it makes or offers to make.

 

Another option of course would be to keep the spreadsheet as it was and show a credit (refund) at the bottom, reducing the total claim but not affecting the interest running on any part of the claim. I agree and thought I said roughly that, differing only in as much as reducing the TOTAL by subtracting the youngest Charges + C.I. to keep the idea of the two entities being intrinsically linked, at the forefront of any challenged Claim.

Please try to remember Bong, a Claim that includes C.I. isn't about the Claimant making money on top of what he/she is entitled to.

 

It's about what the Bank has unlawfully debited from the Claimants account, the interest that it has unlawfully charged the Claimant on the unlawfully taken charges AND the deprival to the Claimant, of the opportunity to use that unlawfully taken money to make good/reduce any other hypothetical debt that the Claimant may have had. e.g a Credit Card balance

 

(...which often has a higher %APR than what a C.I. Claimant is actually Claiming from a Bank!!!)

[Guest bong]

using your logic I don't think there would be any justification for setting off part-payments against the youngest charges either. Which bit of logic are U referring to?

 

the logic of not applying the payment against oldest charges & CI

 

Please try to remember Bong, a Claim that includes C.I. isn't about the Claimant making money on top of what he/she is entitled to.

 

I don't think I said that it was?

 

I also didn't say that the bank has the right to apportion the refunds it makes so I think you are rather preaching to the converted.

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi again Bong!

 

Whooa Tiger!...

 

Am fully aware of your stand point on C.I.

My post was also for general viewing and to help clarify for others the reasoning behind why a Claimant should be considering a C.I. Claim.

If U read my other posts on the last couple of pages of this Thread U will see that.

 

Am sorry to have to beg to differ on your comment about U saying that U didn't infer that my explaination of apportioning a C.I. Claim 'Part Payment' was tantamount to profiteering.

I don't think the court would be sympathetic to a claimant saying that it made him/her more money that way.

It reads that way to me, hence the need for my clarification.

[nicklea]

The point about the frequency of compounding - monthly vs annually for a clear example - is that interest is added to the Principal on which the next lots of interest is to be calculated monthly or annually in my example here.

 

If the first month's interest is added at the end of the first month the Principal on which the second month's interest will be calculated will be higher than if it is not.

 

If the compounding goes on annually then each of the twelve interest payments will be exactly the same, if compounding is monthly each will be larger than the previous one.

 

If you do take the time to look at COMPOUND INTEREST CALCULATOR (in which I have no other interest whatsoever) the matter may be clearer if you input your data.

 

 

Hi Quietzap,

 

This all goes back to your comment that:-

 

the same interest rate will give different results if you compound annually/monthly/weekly/etc.

 

This simply isn't true.

 

To take your example of the monthly and annual compounding periods then if you have £100 of charges and compound it once annually at 29.84% then you end up with £129.84 at the end of the year.

 

If you take that same £100 and compound it at 2.2% per month for 12 months you also end up with £129.84 at the end of the year.

 

Likewise, if you compound at 0.5034% per week for 52 weeks you end up with £129.84 and if you compound at 0.0715...% per day for 365 days you also end up with £129.84.

 

Also, where you mention:-

 

If the compounding goes on annually then each of the twelve interest payments will be exactly the same, if compounding is monthly each will be larger than the previous one.

 

I am a bit confused as if the interest is compounded annually then it will only be applied to the capital amount once during that period - you won't receive twelve interest payments exactly the same you will receive one interest payment.

 

Regards

 

nicklea

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

mtm, wouldn't there be an expectation by the court that you would mitigate your oldest losses?

 

Yes & if they are pre 6 years you no longer have to argue section 32 of the limitations act.

[quietzap]

Hi nicklea,

 

As you are adjusting the annual rate you give so that the new monthly rate you give produces the same result I cannopt see the point of your arguement.

 

It may be useful to Lloyds customers to know that they can go about the process in the manner you give, but it is still simpler and less confusing to use just one annual rate, and compound as per the Bank's practice, which they will advise if you ask.

 

Also the calculator I pointed to will take an annual rate and give appropiate rates for whichever compounding period is appropiate.

 

The interest could be paid daily, hourly whatever, it is only where it is applied to the Principal on which the interest rate is applied that it affects further interest payments.

 

It is quite true that the same interest rate - whatever it may be - will give different results for compounding at different intervals.

 

You can only make out otherwise by changing the rate you apply, which is what you have done.

 

Take care & interest,

 

Quietzap.

 

PS Interest Rates are usually quoted pa - per annum - and there seems no point in changing this common, day to day ordinary practice in order to complicate matters, particularly when spreadsheets and the online calculator I pointed to will take annual rates, compounded as may be required.

[paul651]

I made a claim against Lloyds TSB for three accounts held my wife and me. I decided to claim BOTH the contractual rate at 29.8%, AND the statutory rate of 8%.

I did this by entering a second column in the spread sheet, which sorted it all out nicely.

Although I thought it a bit cheeky at first, my plan was based on the fact that A, they would not defend and B, if they did I would accept a bit less, graciously and still take a packet home.

Well, Lloyds did not even turn up to court and the judgement for the full cheeky amount was made.

It meant the amount of £2,400 owed to us jumped to £3,718, which is now back in our coffers. Kerching!!!

My advise is, if you’re going for it, go for as much as you can, they can afford it.

[aqua2]

 

Another option of course would be to keep the spreadsheet as it was and show a credit (refund) at the bottom, reducing the total claim but not affecting the interest running on any part of the claim.

 

Spot on Bong...

 

Don't even bother allocating a part payment anywhere...

 

It is a part payment only, it is not full settlement of any part of the claim, just a payment towards the total claimed.

 

I 100% agree, just place it at the bottom of the claim as a credit towards whatever the total claim turns out to be.

 

Damn, you're good...

 

Clicked..

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Correct Bong but assuming it's sufficient funds, if you set it against the pre 6 year charges you can argue that they have settled them & won't have to argue section 32.

[chezt]

Spot on Bong...

 

Don't even bother allocating a part payment anywhere...

 

It is a part payment only, it is not full settlement of any part of the claim, just a payment towards the total claimed.

 

I 100% agree, just place it at the bottom of the claim as a credit towards whatever the total claim turns out to be.

 

Damn, you're good...

 

Clicked..

 

I agree too FWIW! That's exactly what I did & then I even went on to not showing it on the schedule at all & just mentioning it in my next letter ... ie 'as you have already refunded £XX then the balance outstanding is now £XXX'

 

[2gr82btrue]

I made a complaint to the abbey that they had claimed that i had insufficient funds in my account of which was not correct. what theyv'e done is repaid a total of £175 for that period of which i can find no charges for. so that's 5 x £35. So what percentage alone have they returned that. If they claim to attend court to contest paying CI have they not already done it to the extreme with that one payment alone. It would be useful to know your opinion. But i have gone over the statements over and over again and on that day there are def NOT 5 charges. Only 1 and that was incorrect???????

even though i had a estimated amount of CI it was requested from the initial claim (after an amendment). But everythings changed today as im a little confused. I only had one charge for that day and that was a mistake on their part. So......... if their argument is that they do not award CI then would the £175 paid on that day argue that fact that it was not returned at 8%SI...... do u understand what i'm getting at.......

 

plus they've gone back on the bundle fee cost by reducing it by £100, not refunding S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) or showing breakdown of daily charge. I have in front of me a breakdown of charges, interest (at 8%) and refunds....... and that's it. Nothing more mentioned except the court bundle revised bundle amount..... what, if anything can i do about that. there's no mention of null & void anywhere in these letters. Do i have a case to argue?

 

The bank also missed x 1 charge and had to amend the amount today.

So £175 what interest rate is that? Technically if this is correct they have paid partial CI................ am i going mad or is this right?

 

the abbey claim to have appointed a barrister for my case and will not refund the differnce figure of the promised bundle/admin fee. But the main issue before friday at the latest is what can i do about the £175 can i argue partial CI for that day therfore enforcing CI for the whole of the claim at 28.7 unauthorised interest...... or am i totally wrong in my logical thinking ?

[aqua2]

I made a complaint to the abbey that they had claimed that i had insufficient funds in my account of which was not correct. what theyv'e done is repaid a total of £175 for that period of which i can find no charges for. so that's 5 x £35. So what percentage alone have they returned that. If they claim to attend court to contest paying CI have they not already done it to the extreme with that one payment alone. It would be useful to know your opinion. But i have gone over the statements over and over again and on that day there are def NOT 5 charges. Only 1 and that was incorrect???????

even though i had a estimated amount of CI it was requested from the initial claim (after an amendment). But everythings changed today as im a little confused. I only had one charge for that day and that was a mistake on their part. So......... if their argument is that they do not award CI then would the £175 paid on that day argue that fact that it was not returned at 8%SI...... do u understand what i'm getting at.......

 

plus they've gone back on the bundle fee cost by reducing it by £100, not refunding S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) or showing breakdown of daily charge. I have in front of me a breakdown of charges, interest (at 8%) and refunds....... and that's it. Nothing more mentioned except the court bundle revised bundle amount..... what, if anything can i do about that. there's no mention of null & void anywhere in these letters. Do i have a case to argue?

 

The bank also missed x 1 charge and had to amend the amount today.

So £175 what interest rate is that? Technically if this is correct they have paid partial CI................ am i going mad or is this right?

 

the abbey claim to have appointed a barrister for my case and will not refund the differnce figure of the promised bundle/admin fee. But the main issue before friday at the latest is what can i do about the £175 can i argue partial CI for that day therfore enforcing CI for the whole of the claim at 28.7 unauthorised interest...... or am i totally wrong in my logical thinking ?

 

Unfortunately, I can't follow what you've posted, which is probably because I dont know the details of your claim...

 

Have you been to court? Been offered a settlement?

 

What have you claimed? What have they paid?

 

That might help to quickly identify your problem...

[2gr82btrue]

I was offered a settlement figure and this was paid into my account without my permission after it was refused. the reason for the refusal was that the abbey had refused to acknowledge questions i had regarding my claim and that CI had been submitted on my claim. The Ci were estimated but however the point was raised.

The abbey have a breakdown of my charges now and we were in dispute over amounts and dates of the charges. the origianl settlement figure was £802 in charges including £35 they offered to refund, £218.83 interest @ 8%, £10.46 daily interest, £474.75 for bundle and prepartion costs, and - £175 as i had already received this. so they raised a cheque totalling £1331.04

After informing them they had missed charges and that they had made an error in charging me claiming i had insufficient funds in my account. i showed them a statement informing them i was in credit at that time and that they had made an error. So now abbey as we could no longer rely on the figures or dates provided a schedule of charges. this now reads £917.00 in charges, £214.87 interest @ 8% & - the £175. Well on the date in question of the error by abbey they refunded a total of £175 according to the schedule of charges. The person working on my case say's its a collection of charges for that date, but even looking at their statements even though i apprecaite the refund it shows no such thing. Also what annoys me is that the second letter did not say that the first letter was nil & viod and i assumed that it would only be the charges & interest that could alter, of which it did , in my favour. So technically I'm just over £100 short of what was originally offered for that section of the bundle. Plus am i entitled to return of my SAR amount of £10, plus i see no mention of a mention of any daily charge figure in their calculations. so in their opinion they claim the amount i have received in my account which has not cleared yet exceeds the total value of my claim. what they've done is give it to me in one hand and took it from elsewhere... ie the bundle fee. As the £175 was mentioned in the schedule covering one day technically in my opinion this part of the charge refund is not a 8% calculation if based on once charge. the sheet shows £14.90 and days since chare totalling 387 days. The abbey refuse point blank to refund the £100 but have confirmed the charge of £35 will be refunded. Where do i stand?

Court dates monday 14th but will the judge look favourably at me if the charges have been met?

[Josie8]

You're entitled to reclaim the SAR fee of £10. As to the previously agreed bundle costs of £475 ring them (& fax a letter confirming conversation) that the schedule they've produced has ommitted the trial bundle cost already agreed and the SAR fee.

[2gr82btrue]

You're entitled to reclaim the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) fee of £10. As to the previously agreed bundle costs of £475 ring them (& fax a letter confirming conversation) that the schedule they've produced has ommitted the trial bundle cost already agreed and the SAR fee.

 

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING THAT FOR ME. I HAVE SENT A FAX ASKING FOR THE FEE AND COST REMAINDER. THEY REFUSED YESTERDAY BUT AT LEAST I HAVE ASKED THEM TO PUT THIS IN WRITING AS IT MAY LATER BE RELIED ON IN COURT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINIONS ON THE £175?

[Josie8]

was the original offer for settlement endorsed by them "Without Prejudice" ? If not advise them you will be producing it to the court.

 

As to the £175 if they have credited you for those particular charges then you can't claim these again as if it went to court the Judge would probably not look favourably on it. However if you don't beleive they have credited you for those charges carry on........must admit I got a bit lost in that part of your original question!

[2gr82btrue]

was the original offer for settlement endorsed by them "Without Prejudice" ? If not advise them you will be producing it to the court.

 

As to the £175 if they have credited you for those particular charges then you can't claim these again as if it went to court the Judge would probably not look favourably on it. However if you don't beleive they have credited you for those charges carry on........must admit I got a bit lost in that part of your original question!

 

 

Neither of the letters are marked without prejudice. just admission without liability.

 

no i wasn't trying to claim those charges of £175 its that i was pointing out those charges bar 1 dont exist and the abbey due to an error they made (not having enough monies in my account) put that amount on the day in question on their schedule of charges. therfore i suppose i was getting at is this amount could it be classed as CI for that day. they said its for 5 charges at that day & that they's added tem together but they dont exist....... get my drift?