Does contractual interest count for track allocation?

[Guest bong]

Morning peeps.

 

I think I've got it clear in my head now that if you're claiming contractual interest it is included in the Amount Claimed box on the N1 form but if you only claiming s.69 interest it is not included in the amount claimed box.

 

The bits I am undecided about are whether the contractual interest should count towards the court fee and the track allocation. I know that the CPR state that you exclude interest and costs from the value claimed but do any of you learned people out there know whether this only applies to s.69 interest?

 

I think it would be very useful to reach a conclusion on this as at the moment I think it is operating on a bit of a chance basis - ie. some courts allow it if you argue the case, others not. The contractual interest element is usually quite substantial.

 

Any ideas?

[bill-k]

Had some time to read up on this, now.

 

The Pearl Book refers us to CPR 26.8 on this question.

 

I just lifted this from CPR online - sub-para (2) is the most relevant here, but I included (1) for completeness. It seems like the rule is quite simple, but the interpretation is not :-

 

Matters relevant to allocation to a track

26.8 (1)When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include –

(a)the financial value, if any, of the claim;

(b)the nature of the remedy sought;

©the likely complexity of the facts, law or evidence;

(d)the number of parties or likely parties;

(e)the value of any counterclaim or other Part 20 claim and the complexity of any matters relating to it;

(f)the amount of oral evidence which may be required;

(g)the importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings;

(h)the views expressed by the parties; and

(i)the circumstances of the parties.

(2)It is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim and in doing so it will disregard –

(a)any amount not in dispute;

(b)any claim for interest;

©costs; and

(d)any contributory negligence.

[Guest bong]

Do you know what Bill, I think I'm heading back to my original thoughts on this - ie. that contractual interest is not included in the amount claimed box. I think this makes more sense because

 

a. CPR 26.8 (2) states that interest is disregarded in the financial value of the claim, so I have been searching a while for their definition of interest which in turn has led me to -

 

b. CPR 16.4 (2) - if the claimant is seeking interest he must state whether he is doing so under the terms of a contract (or per statutory provision or otherwise).

 

c. And CPR 16.3 (7) - the statement of value in the claim form does not limit the power of the court to give judgement for the amount which it finds the claimant is entitled to.

 

My thoughts on whether contractual interest should be included in the amount claimed section on the basis that it is included in your letters to the bank, are that it is still a claim for interest and the court will have to judge on that aspect of the claim as it would for a claim under s.69. So the fact that we have brought it to the bank's notice doesn't really alter the nature of that part of the claim.

 

It also gives us the advantage - if the charges element of the claim is low enough - of getting it through on a lower fee and keeping it on the small track.

 

What say you? (btw - thanks for the click and I am going to return the honour (I do hope its not a grey blob - I'd be interested to know - yours was a green one!) because I think you have proved you are more than just a pretty face! )

[bill-k]

Bong, well done for finding that extra CPR stuff. All the evidence certainly seems to point to interest of ANY kind being disregarded for the purpose of allocation.

Pearl (I only got my copy the other day, so this is good exercise in finding my way round !!) says (my bold emphasis) :

"The District Judge looks at the amount which the claimant states as the claim, but a different valuation may be put on the claim by the District Judge and this is determinative for allocation purposes. Interest is disregarded (Rule 26.8[2])."

"It is the disputed amount which is considered for allocation purposes."

 

She also points out that, where a partial settlement has been made after the claim is issued and before allocation, then the balance (or unsettled part) of the claim is taken as the amount for allocation purposes.

 

It would seem that by "disputed amount" she means the initial amount claimed, which is the penalty charges. Any subsequent dispute over interest is then a dispute over whether or not interest is claimable and/or what rate to apply, but NOT the actual amount itself.

 

I reckon the whole of the first side of an N1 form is just for the court clerks use, and simply helps them put it in the right tray. The detailed particulars is the bit the Judge looks at, and that's the bit that has to be right. IMHO it's that bit that he makes his decision on allocation with, regardless of what sort of a coffee-stained mess we make of side 1 !!!

 

...and if that is actually the case, then it certainly seems that your view - and the one I would prefer to be correct - is indeed correct. I think I will try that way next time, and I've got a few more to do later.

 

There was a similar discussion a while back, on one of the Contractual threads I believe. It was all looking fine until Glenn UK said he'd had a word with a court official, who said that ALL of the amount claimed (including interest) must be included in the claim Value. But my few dealings with court officials has shown me that they often only THINK they know, and believe their own opinions because people generally expect them to be right. If I could find what Glenn said, I'd quote it, but can I 'eck as like ?

 

Sometimes you could click Glenn, and sometimes you could kick him !!!

Cheers for yours BTW - dunno about the blob colours - I'm still waiting for my points gift catalogue to arrive. No - let's not go there again !!

 

Bill.

[bill-k]

...Just a pretty face would be nice, I suppose !! Still, I'm working on it. FWIW, your click-blob was green, too ! Dunno what that means, though ! Maybe the grey clicks are Mods, and carry a higher score !!

[bill-k]

Aah -found it !! You might wanna backtrack a few posts, but this was Glenn's post that warranted an a$$-kicking from my point of view !!

 

Bloody spoilsport !!!...and I told him as much !

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-322433.html

 

Although I have much respect for Glenn's posts, this was a 100% verbal encounter by all indications. I still feel inclined to cling to the printed Pearl & CPR info, and assume that this was just another court official being officious !! Unless Glenn can come up with a bit more "Provenance" - that is !!

 

Once again, it looks like it's down to the old method of "Suck it & see."

[Guest bong]

Thanks for the link bill and for sharing your research. I'm putting my claim in tomorrow - all being well - and I'll let you know what happens.

 

The other bit that I'm not sure of is what seminole says in that link about the interest counting towards the court fee. I have looked in the CPR and have googled county court rules all afternoon till my eyes have googled in their sockets, and I can't for the life of me find out where this is stated.

 

What the court guide says is that the court fee is determined by the sum claimed. If the CPR is clear in that the financial value of the claim shall disregard interest then I think the definition should apply to the court fee aswell.

 

Anyway we shall see.

 

BTW the grey blobs don't count for anything except appreciation of course.

[bill-k]

I'll be watching, Bong. Power to you, mate.

 

Yes - court fee - part of the same discussion, really, innit ?

Well done for trawling CPR - it does hurt after a while !!!

 

It would seem logical to base the court fee on the same principle as the allocation, but logic doesn't seem to feature too strongly, here !

 

I'll quote Pearl again here, if I may (my bold emphasis) :-

 

"The court fee payable to commence a Small Claims case is calculated on a sliding scale depending on the amount of the claim."

 

"Interest is not taken into account when deciding if the case qualifies for the small track but interest is taken into account when calculating the court fee."

 

I reckon that's where Seminole got his info from. Pearl doesn't give a CPR ref. for this, unfortunately - but she's a District judge, so I guess that's good enough. Still, you get it back eventually, don't you ? !!!

 

In her appendices, she mentions Rule 45, and the County Court Fees Amendment Order 1999 ( sch 1), but I haven't checked these out, yet.

 

This sort of thing explains why the court clerks get in such a muddle over anything more complex than a bloke trying to get satisfaction from a faulty vacuum cleaner !!

 

Bill.

[Guest bong]

thanks again bill. If Pearl is right, which I do not doubt, I wonder how the court decides which interest figure to use then - do you think they make an assessment of the likelihood of your claim succeeding or always plump for the highest figure on the basis they get more money?

[bill-k]

thanks again bill. If Pearl is right, which I do not doubt, I wonder how the court decides which interest figure to use then - do you think they make an assessment of the likelihood of your claim succeeding or always plump for the highest figure on the basis they get more money?

 

Hi Bong. I have used Mindzai & Lucid's example in my claims so far. This claims the higher & lower contractual rates, and also statutory. But the lower and statutory rates are claimed in the alternative, which as far as I understand, is only looked into if the case gets to court AND the defendant successfully argues against the primary amount claimed. I assume that the primary amount claimed is what the fee is based on. I haven't been all round, but I don't know of that having happened, yet. If a lower amount is awarded in the alternative, then I would think that the defendant still has to pay your full fee, and if they don't like it they will have to take it up with the Judge. It would be interesting to know for sure, though, what happens in that case.

[Guest bong]

I haven't been all round, but I don't know of that having happened, yet.

 

bill have you been slacking?!!

[bill-k]

bill have you been slacking?!!

Sorry, Bong. Correction - "I have been making the usual nuisance of myself, but haven't stumbled into this one yet."

 

Cheeky sod.

 

Going offline until later, now.

 

YES - you can all go back in the water for a coupla hours !!!

[Guest bong]

For anyone reading this thread who wants to know what happened when I lodged my claim today, the court accepted my N1 form showing £x (x = charges) "plus interest" in the amount claimed box, with the court fee calculated on £x. I suppose it may come back to me yet, but that's the current update.

[sarahpp]

For anyone reading this thread who wants to know what happened when I lodged my claim today, the court accepted my N1 form showing £x (x = charges) "plus interest" in the amount claimed box, with the court fee calculated on £x. I suppose it may come back to me yet, but that's the current update.

 

 

Watching this thread with interest Bong and would be interested to know what happens.

[Guest bong]

promise to let you know - thanks for the click!

[Guest bong]

well just to let you know my claim was issued and there was no further query from the court about the fee paid.

 

I am pursuing an enquiry with MCOL about this whole issue and I received an acknowledgement today from a manager there who is waiting for advice from the 'Civil Rules Team'.

[sarahpp]

So far, so good.

 

It would be great to get a definitive answer.

[livelylad]

well just to let you know my claim was issued and there was no further query from the court about the fee paid.

 

I am pursuing an enquiry with MCOL about this whole issue and I received an acknowledgement today from a manager there who is waiting for advice from the 'Civil Rules Team'.

 

Well done Bong good work.

[sarahpp]

well just to let you know my claim was issued and there was no further query from the court about the fee paid.

 

I am pursuing an enquiry with MCOL about this whole issue and I received an acknowledgement today from a manager there who is waiting for advice from the 'Civil Rules Team'.

 

Just as a side issue- you have mentioned the MCOL system here. I was under the impression that contractual interest had to be claimed on an N1 form because the wording would take it over the limit for MCOL. I just wondered if anyone had actually tried to see if the wording would adjust to fit or if there were other objections to submitting via MCOL rather than an N1 form.

 

It would certainly simplify matters if contractual could be claimed via MCOL

[Guest bong]

Sarah you wouldn't be able to fit it in on MCOL, it's tight enough already with everything else that needs to be included.

[sarahpp]

For anyone reading this thread who wants to know what happened when I lodged my claim today, the court accepted my N1 form showing £x (x = charges) "plus interest" in the amount claimed box, with the court fee calculated on £x. I suppose it may come back to me yet, but that's the current update.

 

I am due to fill out my N1 form today for a claim so, I will give your method a try Bong.

[bill-k]

well just to let you know my claim was issued and there was no further query from the court about the fee paid.

 

I am pursuing an enquiry with MCOL about this whole issue and I received an acknowledgement today from a manager there who is waiting for advice from the 'Civil Rules Team'.

 

Any response from them on this, yet, Bong ?

 

I am due to fill out my N1 form today for a claim so, I will give your method a try Bong.

 

Be interested to see, myself, Sarah.

[sarahpp]

I think it is worth a try Bill-K - if we can try out a few different courts we may get a sense of which way the wind is blowing so to speak (at this point I will make no comment about staying upwind of Gorilla armpits)

 

Bong - hope your tummy is ok although you don't deserve much in the way of sympathy. Taking food from children Tsk! ;-)

[bill-k]

Oh, yeah - the "group hug" LOL !!!

 

I prefer to send my claims to the CC's nearest the defendant's main offices, to keep up a "mix." However, I claim fee exemption with EX160 due to good old Tax Credits, so I can't help with this. I will be filing for some family members soon, though, so I'll try then.

 

I did have one CC return my papers saying my Tax Credits award notice was no good as proof of receipt of same !! They also told me I can only claim Statutory interest. At least by then, I'd had several claims go through OK., so I sent a polite but firm stiffie, along with my claim, and it went through no probs. So it does pay to "shop around."

 

Blimey, Bong - you should know better. You don't wanna know some of the places I've seen kids sticking their food before, during - and after - consumption !! Serves you right !!

 

Was that tornado anywhere near you, Bong. Was it perhaps even caused by the draught from you practising your super-fast origami moves !!

[Guest bong]

yes but nothing to get excited about. email came in yesterday morning as a matter of fact -

 

Dear [bong]

I have referred your query to our Court Support branch for more advice, who have confirmed that court fees are payable on the total amount claimed, which includes interest. The decision to disregard interest by the judiciary is at their discretion, and it is for the claimant to decide whether or not to they include interest in their claim, in light of this.

Should you require any further assistance, please contact me, or alternatively you can contact our Customer Service Unit at Clive House, 70 Petty France, London, SW1H 9HD.

 

 

Regards

Donna Potter

Money Claim Online Office Manager

Northampton CCBC

I'm going to follow this up by letter to Petty France. You'd have thought they could at least have referred to the authority behind their statement. if there is one. I'll post up my letter when I've drafted it. its probably another money-making [problem]. what I can't understand is why should there be one rule for track allocation and another for the court fee.

thank you for your concern Sarah, my tummy is perfectly fine and the children are looking a bit thin