Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[kashfat]

Hi guys, can anyone give a template letter based on a stay to be lifted under hardship cases, any help would great.

[lancasterchelsea]

SUCCESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

LLoyds/Martin O Johnson have paid in full..... including compound interest going back to 1995

As usual banks will do almost anything to avoid going to court

this time the next hearing was to consider limitation

Historic terms and conditions seems to do the trick

[photoman]

SUCCESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

LLoyds/Martin O Johnson have paid in full..... including compound interest going back to 1995

As usual banks will do almost anything to avoid going to court

this time the next hearing was to consider limitation

Historic terms and conditions seems to do the trick

 

WELL DONE !!!!!!

 

Can you please give us details regards the compound interest aspect ?

 

Did they actually pay you in a compounded manner, and at what rate ?

 

Well done again.

 

 

PM

[lancasterchelsea]

12% interest compounded on a daily basis from 1995 to today

If you flatten the interest it works out at 27% interest added for every year to the original charges for unauthorised borrowing/unpaid fees

So for every £1 charges in 95/99 they have repaid the charges plus another £3

[photoman]

12% interest compounded on a daily basis from 1995 to today

If you flatten the interest it works out at 27% interest added for every year to the original charges for unauthorised borrowing/unpaid fees

So for every £1 charges in 95/99 they have repaid the charges plus another £3

 

FANTASTIC RESULT !!

 

Just shows there is still life in Business claims, and they are VERY much alive and kicking.

Also shows that there is some mileage in compounded interest, and also in the arguments for absolutely smashing through the Statute of limitations 6 year bar.

 

WELL DONE !!!

 

 

PM

[lancasterchelsea]

I used Mindzai's spreadsheet plus a few tweaks

[lancasterchelsea]

Limitations is all about arguing Catch 22.... Yossarian.... if I am crazy I will be grounded, but if I ask to be grounded I must be sane, therefore cannot be grounded.

 

Limitations says you cannot claim back more than 6 years

but you can get past this if I made a mistake by paying the bank unlawful charges

To prove I made a mistake and the charges are unlawful, I need to prove they are unlawful

Therefore I need a full hearing on all charges more than 6 years old (therefore ignoring the 6 years rule)

 

The bank says you cannot go back more than 6 years, even though if you could the 6 years rule would be proven to not apply

"multiple items of illogical reasoning"

[photoman]

ahh... the old "Catch22"

 

Actually my absolute favourite book of all time !!

 

I implore anyone who has not yet read it to do so.... as one of the reviews on the cover claims it is a real "rollercoaster" of a read !!

 

 

PM

[hsbcfiddled]

CONGRATULATIONS...................

[gaz2006]

I used Mindzai's spreadsheet plus a few tweaks

 

Can you tell em where is this spreadsheet and what tweaks you used

and what basis for claiming etc as many people just got for 8% and are happy with that I admire you etc regards Gaz

[steven4064]

milo for chancellor

[lancasterchelsea]

Gaz

you can find Mindzai's s/s here......

 

Save it to desktop and run it

 

http://members.aol.com/wolfcat451/MinziasCompoundSheet.xls

 

I have just tried the link, saved the s/s and opened it and it works ok

If you want my live/actual example I used with logic, tweaks and why you can argue compound interest .... pm me your email address and will send

 

basically... you can argue... I mimiced what the banks did to me

also if the charges went to debt collector and interest was frozen, you can still argue consequential interest.... I still had other live credit cards where I was paying 17% per year compounded monthly/daily. If I hadn't been charged the unlawful bank charges on one card I could have paid off part of the live credit cards years ago, and not paid compound interest on the live ones.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Lancasterchelsea,

 

Welldone and congratulations on your win that is a fantastic result. Can I ask roughly speaking how much the claim was for?

 

TheyrCriminals

[Goldlady]

Excellent news and interesting concept about the knock on effect of the charges. I like it - consequential loss - another string to our bows. I would have claimed for that too, had it occurred to me, but as it happens all the card agreements were unenforceable;)

[MARTIN3030]

Barclays Business -Terms and conditions late 1990s onwards.

 

We are still looking for these and appeals have not turned anything up.

Barclays have craftily removed them from Archive online (I tried the wayback route)

If anyone knows of any floating around please let us know

 

Thanks

[MARTIN3030]

Good result today have a look here.

 

Martin3030 v Barclays business **Good result** - The Consumer Forums

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Martin3030!

 

If anyone knows of any floating around please let us know

 

I'll see what I can dig out, as I never throw anything away, and file everything when it comes to bankers.

 

I think I should have Terms from mid 1990s onwards, so might just be a little too old.

 

Will let you know.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[aroxy]

Just thought it might be important for anyone claiming against a business account to be aware that there are some subtle but VERY important differences in regards how to go about this.

I hope this thread can be a valuable source for those doing so, to exchange information, ideas and methods.

Any takers?

PLEASE, Business account claimants or those that know about business claims ONLY !

Hi,

I was looking for the templates to try to start a claim against Barclays when I saw this

Unfortunately, following the decision in OFT v Abbey and others 2008, it is no longer advisable to reclaim charges from business accounts.

 

Heeeeelp

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Aroxy,

 

Im not sure where you have got this from, can you tell us please? In any case it is not true, banks are still paying out, often in FULL, on business accounts so it is definitely worth putting in a claim and you may have it settled before the test case is over.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited August 31, 2008 by TheyrCriminals

[MARTIN3030]

Looking into the notice above-where is it posted ?

[GuidoT]

Here. (and moderated)

 

I would imagine it was posted as a reaction to the the test case and the judges statement that the sums do not amount to penalties (it is of course not that clear) to protect anyone from the other sides legal costs if they have a claim for >£5K.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hello Again Guys,

 

It appears the post has now been removed, so what is the offical CAG line on business claims at this stage?

 

TheyrCriminals

[GuidoT]

Probably only fair to say that we do not have an official line.

 

We are however developing a strategy.

[photoman]

Okay,

 

I thought I would just make a post here regards the current situation for Business claimants.

 

Last week the judge (Justice Andrew Smith) made another announcement as part and parcel of the next round of the OFT case.

 

As you may all recall, the first round of the case involved the judge making a decision upon whether or not there are grounds for claimants to claim; under either the UTCCR99, or using the contention that the charges amounted to penalties under common law.

 

This first round was focused and concerned only with the Banks current T&C's that were submitted with regards the current OFT case (after all having been rather hastily changed) for the judges consideration.

 

The Judge ruled that the charges were actually subject to the jurisdiction of the UTCCR99. Good news for those using this, (although in typical stubborn manner the banks shall be appealing this) !

 

(Remember, this was only a judgement upon whether the terms were subject to such law, not actually whether they break such laws, as that matter will be determined later).

That was the good news. It could later give those claiming under UTCCR99 grounds for a claim, if the OFT go on to win the contention that the charges do and/or did break such laws.

 

The bad news was that the judge also ruled that considering the banks current T&C's, the charges did not constitute penalties at common law.

This was (potentially) bad news for Business claimants, as this is the basis of their claims, as their contracts were not and still are not covered by UTCCR99.

 

However, the last judgement was only focused upon the current T&C's, and a further analysis of historic T&C's then still needed to be done.

 

So, last week, this next judgement regards historic T&Cs was (sort of, and subject to a few T&C's still to be considered further) completed.

 

Again the judge has disappointingly declared that the historic T&C's did not make the charges amount to penalties at common law.

 

See here:

BBC NEWS | Business | Early overdraft victory for banks

 

So where does this leave Business claimants ??

 

Well, there are still a few contentious issues issues with regards this case, and how it all sits with business claims.

 

Firstly in the broadest sense:

Business claimants have always contended that the OFT case has no bearing upon Business claims. The grounds for the case are all based upon personal accounts.

Indeed, throughout the course of this case, many business claimants have used this argument to get stays successfully lifted, and have also then gone on to receive full offers and refunds.

 

So, this is an ongoing fact; that throughout this whole case, NOT A SINGLE Business account T&C has ever been looked at and considered, and we all know that Business T&C's, and the manner, name and method of application of charges are slightly different to personal accounts.

 

So those still with Business claims in progress could still apply to have this consideration applied to their own case.

 

BUT; Even though this is strictly speaking the case, many judges may now just take a laissez faire attitude, and apply the rulings made for personal account T&C's under common law to Business accounts too. They may then simply refuse to hear such claims.

Even if they don't refuse, and do agree that Business account T&C's should be considered separately. Even though when faced with such a prospect in the recent past this has been enough to frighten banks into trying to avoid such an analysis, and just settle, they may just now have a little more confidence to actually see a business claim case through to court ?

 

 

So, all in, this amounts to unsure times for Business claimants.

 

My advice is this.

Anyone with a Business claim in the pipeline that has been subjected to a stay should perhaps just leave things as is. Don't presently apply to have your stay lifted. Then as the OFT case progresses, and we have also had time to consider and compare personal account T&C's compared to Business account T&C's more, things may become clearer. After which time you may then be able to apply to have the stay lifted, or perhaps submit an amendment to your claim.

 

Other than that, there is actually some work going on behind the scenes by some very knowledgeable, legally experienced bods with regards some new approaches to business claims.

There is one particular completely new approach being considered which is looking highly promising and would be totally bulletproof (it'll also scare the pants off 'em).

 

That is all I am prepared to say on the final matter for the time being, and no amount of pleas, PM's, emails, prompting or threats of assassination will get me to reveal any more....... so don't even try !!8)

[gaz2006]

Photoman thats like saying half of a joke without the punch line or half an exciting story without the ending or the dance of the 7 veils without taking the last veil off Im intrigued and dont know whether to put new claim in or wait any idea how long ? Regards Gaz