Excel Contractual Interest Spreadsheet

[e28bigalbexley]

Bill - Agreement found

 

 

 

I imagine most judges would be pretty p***ed off with the banks playing silly b******s and woukld relish giving them a slap

 

WE have been waiting for that for what seems ages we must be clogging up the court system thats why claims are taking so long to settle (i started my woolwich claim in june ive got an allocation hearing this month 22nd) so i guess the judges must have wind of whats going on.....and then theres the Mercantile cases:cool: .

 

AL

[bill-k]

Yeah - agreement in full, then !! It's the banks that are forcing this into court, as we are giving them every opportunity to settle beforehand. So they are at a disadvantage before the Judge, already !!

 

Just one minor tweak to our "agreement" though. I primarily claim contractual interest at the higher (unauthorised borrowing, or cash advance) rate. The first alternative is then contractual (authorised, or purchase) rate, and the second alternative is Statutory 8% simple.

 

Bill.

 

PS - any other business? Adjourn to pub.

[Guest ian cognito]

OK seeing as you have completely hi jacked this thread with another contractuall interest debate, I have to throw in another question, or rather observation.

 

If you borrowed money off a bank 6 years ago (or more), as in an agreed loan, and didn't repay it, they would chase it though a DCA or the courts, at some point, interest charges would be stopped and only the outstanding balance would be recoverable, granted this would contain some element of charges and hence unauthorised interest rates. If you could find a way (and please let me know if you do) of taking the banks money without their authorisation and holding on to it for a similar period, they would take you to court much quicker and again interest charges would stop.

 

So why, when the other way round, would we be entitled to claim full interest for the full period they had the money?

 

Sorry obviously just playing with your heads now - womens logic.

[FairlyNiceChap]

Hmm Jan - i love having my head played with *massive slap from wifey - Enjoy it didja?*

 

So...

 

A- sorry for massive hijack

B - Are you suggesting we could reasonably break into a bank in order to retrieve what is rightfully ours - We couldn't be done for attempted theft! instead only for criminal damage, and the civil tort of trespass - oh and now that we have discussed it Conspiracy to commit a Civil tort - which carries hideous penalties - what fun.

 

Hold that thought checking conspiracy:cool::cool::cool: (per wiki) !!!!!

 

For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss"

 

Surely that was the purpose of the banks - they have certainly discussed it easy to prove

 

Is there any way we could prosecute them on conspiracy as follows:

 

 

Conspiracy in English law

 

 

[edit] Common law residue

 

Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great. The courts were therefore acting in the role of the legislature to create new offences and, following the Law Commission Report No. 76 on "Reform of the Common Law", the Criminal Law Act 1977 produced a statutory offence and abolished all the common law varieties of conspiracy, except for:

 

[edit] Conspiracy to defraud

 

Although most frauds are crimes, it is irrelevant for these purposes whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. This gives the prosecution a choice whether to charge statutory or common law conspiracy where the agreement would amount to the commission of an offence if carried out. If the victim has suffered any financial or other prejudice, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. But, following Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3 All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim was dishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties to the agreement into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (per Lord Diplock in Scott). For the test of dishonesty, see R v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.

 

Over to the experts on this one

[bill-k]

Jan, this is not a hijack - it is how the thread developed following your observations in post #9 !! These observations all ended with a question mark, and this is the result. You should feel honoured that we all caught your ball and ran with it !!!!

 

Not sure if I understood your question, Jan, but at the risk of being accused of hijacking Mindzai's thread again, here goes !!

 

If I have an agreed overdraft limit of £100, and for the past 6 years I have been overdrawn by £150, then that is me taking the bank's money without their authorisation for 6 years. It is an unauthorised overdraft, and they charge me the unauthorised borrowing rate for it. They don't take me to court over it, because I am paying them the rate they're charging me.

 

So, now it turns out that, despite what they have been telling us, a lot of that money was taken from our account without authorisation (either from us or the law). It is therefore (putting it nicely) unauthorised borrowing. We are now nicely asking for it back, along with interest under the same contract that we are charged it by them. They are saying no, and forcing us to take it to court.

 

Who are the villains here, and what is the problem with understanding "Sauce for the Gander" ? (Sorry BF)

 

Oh, and please don't tear the November page out of the calendar, Jan !!! (VERY private joke, guys !!)

[johnpmc35]

Hi, I am trying to fill in the Intrest spreadsheet & I just have a quick question. Do I include interest taken for every month from when the first charge was taken, even if there were no charges taken in that month?

[lucid]

Hi, I am trying to fill in the Intrest spreadsheet & I just have a quick question. Do I include interest taken for every month from when the first charge was taken, even if there were no charges taken in that month?

 

Yes and you should find that a small amount of the overdraft interest is reclaimable. But it will probably be a small amount in comparison to the interest you have paid. The sheet uses an estimation depending on the account balance and the amount of charges you have recieved around that time. Just keep in mind it's not 100% accurate and the bank won't necessarily pay it - or they will try to get out of it if they can. With us the overdraft interest amounts to a fair bit so it is definitely worth chasing in our claims.

 

Lucid

[johnpmc35]

ok. Thanks for the quick response.

[Mindzai]

...Just keep in mind it's not 100% accurate and the bank won't necessarily pay it - or they will try to get out of it if they can...

 

However it is fairly accurate and if the bank wants to argue about it they would have to provide more accurate figures. It's not really a question of "the bank wont necessarily pay it", you are entitled to it and they will pay it, they will just try to get out of it first.

[nevos]

Hi Mindzai, hope this wont be seen as a hijack:-

 

BillK: I dont accept the words unauthorised borrowing. The Banks no full well how to cap an overdraft on computer. In my view the Banks themselves authorise the over limit borrowing however, missuse of a card is where we have taken the money without authorisation for whatever reason. Reading other threads on contractual interest it appears to the threat of this speeds up settlements and wonder if this is worth a mention in the LBA even the threat is a bit tongue in cheek. Let the Bnaks prove yur claim for interest is wrong etc. I mentioned this in another thread to be told by those wise owls this: It is important that we provide an accurate interest figure etc..some have entered contractual interest or if the judge does not agree then the s69 8% applies as afall back position.

[bill-k]

With further apologies to Mindzai, and thanks for his indulgence thus far !!

 

Nevos, I see what you mean about the use of the term "unauthorised" - but I have always taken it to be the one that the banks' use, rather than one we have manyfactured here. In the case of overdrafts, then I guess the correct term might be something like "non pre-arranged," as it is indeed still effectively authorised, as you say. A bit like the comparison between "illegal" and "unlawful" I guess, and we should be clear about the exact nature of the thing, regardless of whether the label is a true description of the contents !!

 

I agree that it is up to the banks to prove that the interest is calculated wrongly. I believe that, as long as we can show a reasonable level of competence, then any errors pointed out will simply be corrected by the court if the bank can clearly show the errors, or at worst, the fallback rate will be applied. For that reason, I prefer to "err in my favour" at the outset, and leave it to the bank to decide whether to make a fuss, or be a big guy and just take it on the chin !!

 

But indeed, on the other hand, if one has claimed what is a clearly lower rate, then there is less chance of an argument. It probably depends on who you're dealing with, really. I believe, that no matter what we claim, their intention will be to delay it and whittle it down as far as possible. So I still believe in starting at the top, and working down from there.

[Bankershost]

Do you think that there is any mileage in applying a contractual rate that sits halfway between the authorised and unauthorised percentages?

[bill-k]

Do you think that there is any mileage in applying a contractual rate that sits halfway between the authorised and unauthorised percentages?

If it sits halfway, it is not a contractual rate, so I have to say no. If you claim the max rate at the outset, then believe me, they will suggest plenty of lower options without you having to make it any easier for them !!

 

You won't, IMHO, do yourself any favours by being "kind," I reckon,

[JonCris]

Do you think that there is any mileage in applying a contractual rate that sits halfway between the authorised and unauthorised percentages?

 

Its important that claimants do not concede claiming the full contractual rate as to do so simply applies benefit to the banks without any benefit to the claimant.

[Bankershost]

I agree with you both, we should take a hard line with the banks and apply the full unauthorised overdraft rate if we can justify it. Just as a matter of opinion, would you advocate offering alternative rates alongside the full contractual rate for the courts? If so would you mention these on the LBA?

[natwesttookmymoney]

" but , while we admit nothing, we cannot accept your calculation of how big a nothing we should be admitting "

 

Now that, I like.

 

Westy

[JonCris]

I agree with you both, we should take a hard line with the banks and apply the full unauthorised overdraft rate if we can justify it. Just as a matter of opinion, would you advocate offering alternative rates alongside the full contractual rate for the courts? If so would you mention these on the LBA?

 

That'd be a big fat no! Your entering into negotiation before you have even started.

 

Also as they are paying out rather than fight why bother!

[johnpmc35]

Can I just ask, at what stage do you add your contractual interest?

[JonCris]

Not sure what you mean but you charge contractual compound interest from the time you paid the the charge. If you haven't paid the charge & are in debit then you claim the higher interest they will have charged whatever that may be

 

Suggest take some tme & read the FAQ

[johnpmc35]

Sorry, I meant at what stage do I add it to my claim, I have just sent off my prelim letter but did not include it as I was intending on claiming the 8% interest.

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi johnpmc35!

IMHO

I would advise that U provide the Bank/CC with details (via your spreadsheet printout) that U R also Claiming Contractual Interest @ the Preliminary Letter stage and send them an updated version @ each letter stage after that.

They then can't say that they weren't aware and didn't have enough time to defend the concept of themselves being "CHARGED" the same % Rate and in the same way, as what they have sought to Charge U for their unlawful impositions!!!

Hope this helps?!

[johnpmc35]

Ok, thanks Milk Tray Man.

[bill-k]

Yes, as MTM says, claim contractual from the word go !!

 

FWIW, I have been posting this up to help members who are at the early stages. Hope it's useful:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/56957-simple-steps-beginners.html#post475208

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi johnpmc35!

 

I have just sent off my prelim letter but did not include it as I was intending on claiming the 8% interest.

 

Just re-send your PL with an appologetic statement, saying to the effect, that U R now intending to proceed with your Claim with CI added and include the NEW spreadsheet printout!

Hope this helps?!

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi bill-k!

Work beckons so will have to be brief...

At 1st glance seems OK as a 1st Draft!...lol

Could do with simplifying for Newbies though.

ONE very glaring omission!!!...

 

12/ Any successful Claimants with Claims over £1m are strongly advised to divorce their current partner and immediately propose to MilkTrayMan...who will consider their request most favourably, within 1min...rofl...