Contractual Interest Discussion

[millymollymoo]

well that just about sums up what I am going through at the moment. I am worried. I read a thread saying 'why are we taking a compromise on settlements' {or words to that effect!!} and now the opinion has changed...dramatically!!!

 

Something has happened me thinks.

 

IF so what and HELP you peeps started you must finish and see us through!

 

Milly X

[bill-k]

This looks like it, Milly:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/56572-why-people-accepting-compromise.html

[bill-k]

Ah - here it is. From GaryH :-

 

 

Bill,

 

First off, I've got no knowledge of your 'dispute' and to be honest I'm

not interested - and neither, I'm afraid, are 99.9999% of CAG's 110,000

members. Please be assured that I'm certainly not on anybody's 'side'.

 

Regarding the contractual interest situation - there is no u-turn. Look

at some of Bankfodders early posts on the subject. It was made patently

clear right from the very first post that there was no solid or

substantiated legal basis for claiming the contractual rate of interest in

reverse. A very strong arguement for charging the same rate as the bank

charge you was put forward in an open and frank way and comments were

even invited on the subject. There were no garentee's.

 

Since then we've had a few very good wins and, understandably, the word

has spread rapidly over the site. Subsequently the thing has snowballed

out of all proportion and we're now at a stage where claimants, often

very vulnerable claimants, are claiming contractual interest on the

basis of hearsay, believing it to be some sort of entitlement in the same

way as s.69 interest is. People are often highjacking threads and

advising people to withdraw their claims halfway through and stick thousands

extra in interest on top - Here

(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/51535-darling-2-takes-tsb-5.html#post549638)

for example. I do in fact take some responsibility myself in

contributing to this ferver as I shouted loud enough about my contractual wins,

too.

 

At the same time, there have been 3 claimants who have taken

contractual claims before a judge in the last few weeks and the responce has not

been at all encouraging.

 

Also in view of the recent ERC situation, I think perhaps people have

become slightly more cautious with regard to potential costs liability

and have tried to slow the whole thing down a little. This is completely

understandable - in some instances claimants with little or no

knowledge of the contractual interest arguements and principles are doubling,

tripling, or even quadroupling the amounts of their claims. In this

regard, the advice simply must be that if you recieve an offer of 100% of

the charges + statutory interest, you should accept it. To proceed to

court solely for contractual interest on the basis of an untested,

implied principle requires you to be 100% sure of your arguement, and 100%

aware that there is a costs liability in the event the judge dismisses

the implied term arguement. Costs can be awarded in the small claims

track for unreasonable behaviour and a major factor in this is the refusal

of a reasonable settlement offer.

 

I'm not sure I completely understand the in's and out's of the

arguements for the contractual rate myself, but it would seem that they are

very valid and very compelling. Some here have done some great work on the

subject and I'm sure people will be successful with it - even in court.

However, the fact remains that there is no solid or substantiated legal

basis - and in view of this I honestly can't see how it would be

responsible for any of us to advise users to go to court solely for the

contractual interest element.

 

That said, there hasn't been any 'decision' or 'change of policy'

regarding contractual interest, certaily not one which I have been party to

anyway - in fact I'm sure exactly the same advice would have been given

in the circumstances of a full refund of charges right from the start.

 

Its a shame it has come to the point where you feel the situation is so

bad that you can't go on giving advice to people. I know that you're

held in very high regard by everyone on this forum but I honestly don't

think all this is doing anyone any favours. Can't we all just get

along?!!

 

[unquote]

 

I appreciate the time and trouble you have gone to here, Gary, and I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I've had enough of that stirred up for me, by people who should know better. Thank you for your kind comments. I may not be not be the quickest draw in the picnic, or the sharpest sandwich in the box, either, and that is why I try and help those who are similarly challenged. These are the people who need to see some simple clarity here, for us common-as-muck Litigants in Person, who are still petrified that the SCC is full of guys looking like BF's avatar, and bellowing down at them from a wood-panelled bench on high.

There are posts from a senior Mod in the thread above as recently as January 29th, which I really think should be looked at before we deny that a U-turn has not occurred here. It's not a long thread, but work backwards if you like:

 

Why are people accepting compromise settlements???

 

 

Bill.

[Guest bong]

Where there is confusion and fear, may we please see some decent quality leadership ?

 

Where there are sincere questions being asked, may we please see some honest and straight answers ?

 

HEAR HEAR

 

BankFodder's initial post in the thread "Why is no one claiming the contractual rate of interest?" doesn't tally with the advice that's being given now that people should drop their claims for interest if the bank offers 8%, or even no interest at all, prior to starting a court claim. The only justification for claiming it then would be in the hope that you didn't get a response before entering a court claim.

 

It's really very strange to start off something of these proportions, by saying there are sound and fair arguments for this approach, and then advising against it.

 

I also think it comes across that not all mods and site helpers share the same views or understanding of the principles involved, and it can be difficult at times to judge which ones are offering the most sound advice. I don't think it is too much to ask for a statement from BankFodder.

 

I have asked (in another thread I have going which is looking at formulating a template for contractual claims) if BankFodder would clarify why he believes that there is an implied term in the contract. I have taken his silence on the matter to mean that he has chosen to ignore my request. I am quite annoyed by this ignoring that goes on, and I am not really interested in anyone coming forward with the response "people do have family lives to lead outside of CAG" - these are important issues and they are now causing much confusion and disillusionment, with the added effect that members are now doubting their own advice to others, and are reluctant to offer help to other members.

[bill-k]

I don't think it is too much to ask for a statement from BankFodder.

 

I have taken his silence on the matter to mean that he has chosen to ignore my request.

 

I have seen the excellent work which you and Karn are doing in your thread, Bong.

 

I guess it must be really difficult for both of you to feel like carrying on with it, when its' usefulness appears to be in question. Another demoralising example of this confusion, perhaps. I am so sorry.

 

To be taken for granted is something we take for granted !!

 

To be ignored when asking for help, is to be shown ignorance.

[Guest willowb]

If I could put my 2 pence worth in please?

 

Contractual Interest is not my area and I have never felt confident enough about it to actually go ahead and claim it. So as far as helping with the situation, I have very little to offer.

 

What saddens me is that the people who actually do know what they are 'on about' are too busy arguing about politics and differences to actually be of any benefit.

 

As I see it, if a person claims CI initially but between prelim and filing the bank offers charges + fees + 8% and the claimant proceeds to Court, then the claimant is going to Court solely on the issue of CI. If the Judge on the day disagrees with the argument for CI, then where does that leave the claimant when the defendant has already offered the full amount? The Judge will be not too happy that the case has been brought before him in the first place.

 

There is no doubt, as far as I can see, that a person filing a claim if the bank has only offered charges or partial charges plus fees and no interest is quite entitled to take it to Court (if they have added CI in their prelim). When in Court though, a back up 8% spreadie should be offered for the Judge's decision. Therefore it would not be just the CI issue in Court as the defendant did not settle the full claim or offer the interest at 8%. If I am getting confused here then please correct me.

 

What I would like is a link to a thread with firm advice and foundation for me to link to someone who I may come across and who is in doubt about claiming.

 

What is scary is that people with absolutely no inclination to research will see the added £££££ and think, 'what the hey! I'm going for it' and end up messing up.....it's bad for them and it reflects badly on CAG also IMO.

 

I wish people would stop bickering all over the forum and actually settle down to sort the issue out. Yes, I'm sure that BF has noted everyone's comments and is probably thrashing it out as we speak, he didn't start this site to let it become 'a sea of confusion', I'm sure he wants this sorted out.

 

I have spoken to BF in the past when I was a scared little newbie and I noted the passion in his voice when he talked about this site....about how angry he was that the banks were getting away with treating US (you amd me) like this. He helped me and he didn't have to, I don't believe for a second that he is ignoring anyone or not taking heed of anything being said.

 

I HATE bickering in the ranks it gets people nowhere and no one wins.....can we not just discuss the issues without getting personal?

 

Here endeth my rant.

 

Wxxx

[Michael Browne]

Completely agree with GaryH's and Willow's take on the present situation

 

As I see it, if a person claims CI initially but between prelim and filing the bank offers charges + fees + 8% and the claimant proceeds to Court, then the claimant is going to Court solely on the issue of CI. If the Judge on the day disagrees with the argument for CI, then where does that leave the claimant when the defendant has already offered the full amount? The Judge will be not too happy that the case has been brought before him in the first place.

 

There is no doubt, as far as I can see, that a person filing a claim if the bank has only offered charges or partial charges plus fees and no interest is quite entitled to take it to Court (if they have added CI in their prelim). When in Court though, a back up 8% spreadie should be offered for the Judge's decision. Therefore it would not be just the CI issue in Court as the defendant did not settle the full claim or offer the interest at 8%

This is exactly how I read the situation of these two scenarios and have been advising claimants precisely that. Most claimants are s**t scared of going to court at all, let alone arguing the principles about something which they (and I) do not necessarily fully comprehend and I think it's better to advise on the side of caution.

[Glenn UK]

FWIW

 

I have said for a long time that if the claimant is left to argue solely over contractual interest then they have to make a decisions whether to go into court or not based on their confidence about arguing their viewpoint.

 

I have also been advocating trying to maintain claims 'intact' to enable the claimant to have the maximum leverage when and if it does get to court to reduce or remove the possibility of being left only with interest to argue about.

 

I believe there are some templates now available for dealing with partial settlements/offers that assist in this area.

 

I have also said elsewhere that there has been a complacency coming about from many claimants about their claims and their 'right' to get it back.

 

The culture of simply banging a claim in and waiting to get your money back without having any understanding of what lies behind the claim has given rise to many problems of the kind being discussed here and elsewhere.

 

To be fair to BF, Dave and the rest of the site helpers/mods, the task of helping everyone and effectively moderating the board have probably grown beyond their expectations.

 

It is a difficult enough task only being a site member and trying to help those who ask me for help (some may consider them foolish but thats another argument altogether).

 

I am not certain what the answers are, but maybe its time to re-think about how some advice is disseminated and how that is supported by the team who run the site.

 

FWIW I would hate to see someone like Bill who has put a lot of effort into this site and helped many people to feel the need to stop posting because of this issue.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[millymollymoo]

This is exactly how I read the situation of these two scenarios and have been advising claimants precisely that. Most claimants are s**t scared of going to court at all, let alone arguing the principles about something which they (and I) do not necessarily fully comprehend and I think it's better to advise on the side of caution.

 

Ok Michael I did not get offered fee before filing and if anyone does that would amaze me and I wholeheartedly agree about going in on just CI unless you had prepared a valid argument. I did get offer though full charges plus 8% stat with further grossly unfair conditions.However in reference to Glenns post to ascertain what happened in my case.

 

 

I have also been advocating trying to maintain claims 'intact' to enable the claimant to have the maximum leverage when and if it does get to court to reduce or remove the possibility of being left only with interest to argue about.

 

I believe there are some templates now available for dealing with partial settlements/offers that assist in this area.

 

 

I believe he means total rejection and no money being cashed , received or otherwise deposited and used. If I am wrong in my assumption please put me right:) {without being rude:lol: }

 

 

I must add I had further conditions attached and I took advice on here to my offer and was told it was good grounds for total rejection and if any cheque had been received{not in my case} tear it up stating why,with the conditions listed. Am I now wrong to have taken this as good advice?

 

So as far as I believe my claim is intact {if not please correct me:) } no actual cheque or money was received. The further conditions had stated I must agree to them for this offer to be valid and if I broke their confidentiality then the money {none received} would become returnable and no set off. {well i basically phrased that right!!!]

 

So that is why I was confused and indeed still am. IS this just a CI claim now or the whole thing.

 

Milly X

 

AND DON'T GET ANGRY WITH ME PLEASE!!! I AM A CONFUSED POOR SOLE!!!

[Michael Browne]

The further conditions had stated I must agree to them for this offer to be valid and if I broke their confidentiality then the money {none received} would become returnable and no set off

It's one thing to ask for confidentiality , but it's completely different to insist that the money be returned if this is broken, so I think it would be perfectly valid to reject the offer on that basis

[Guest bong]

Willow, I suppose in an ideal world, we would all be telepathic and know what other people need so we could do something about it. However, in a forum, we don’t even get to see if someone is working on a reply, all we have to go on is the written word, or the absence of it. I didn’t see this thread as a bicker amongst posters, I saw it as an expression of what is lacking and what is desired.

I still think people in this thread who have posted today are skirting the issue. What is the difference between the bank actually paying you the charges element and you proceeding to court for just the interest, and you rejecting that offer and then them telling the court that they offered it and you rejected it, unreasonably? We need to resolve this.

Should we all have to swoop on a single post made quite some months ago, like pigeons descending on a handful of crumbs, pull it apart and see what is there for the picking, when a meaningful dialogue with the poster could take place? Honest to God, it is like waiting for God to appear through the clouds sometimes. Statements land, questions arise but alas the poster has gone!!

BankFodder made a statement many months ago, agreed it was given with no guarantees, but it was made nonetheless, saying that based on an implied term of the contract, contractual interest appears reasonable and should be achievable. To my knowledge, he has made no follow up posts about this. Now the team of mods and site helpers are saying if you get offered the charges you should not enter a court to pursue the interest aspect unless you have a very good argument. Presumably this means that the implied term in the contract is no longer seen to be a very good argument.

What are people supposed to think? Were we supposed to ignore the original post as if it was some frivolous wish not based in any reality?

For goodness sake, lets have some clarity and an admission, if necessary, that this isn’t as achievable as was originally suggested.

[millymollymoo]

Hello all you lovely peeps. Karne course I do not mind:)

and I thank you all for your input and well meant advice.

 

As I said to Karne and she will agree;) I will not be going down the CI route after this until this is thorughly tested. I am doing one heck of alot of researching and I feel have strong arguments about it as well as the law commission report that back up compound interest in the courts for peeps being available ...maybe..not yet however.

 

However, this is not common law at present and this is the whole PROBLEM in getting the judge to award it.

 

So for now agreeable to what I am reading from all you peeps, if I have got this wrong let me know..... I concur, to be VERY VERY sure you can put your point across constructively, the judge may agree, who knows it is not tested so far albeit a suggestion has been that if further borrowing had caused the claimant to become further indebted from these charges {in my case, though not sure if I can use this as I have not mentioned this on POC}or indeed {again from what I can gather } a STRONG well researched argument. {I will bore the pants of em... }Then it may warrant special circumstances and may get awarded, though not necessarily at the high rate. I also have to realise an others,this is ONE JUDGES point of view not others! I also read that a judge DID not agree to banks adding confidentiality clauses either, agin ONE judges opinion

 

If you just say about M& P then agreeable with all your sentiments,this is not strong enough without back up of what you mean and will cause problems.

 

Costs however are my BIG concern and I may feel I have a good reason but I now realise that it comes to what the judge thinks on the day and I cannot change that no matter if I think I am right.

 

As I have read on here,GREED agreeably is a terrible thing, JUSTICE to put you back to where you were before the charges,however is NOT and I think this reflects in the size of the CI. Glenn I heard this from you or was it ...oh never mind. Just agreeing thats all.

 

See you have all helped:)

 

 

This costs could wipe out the whole claim and more, depends what the maximum is that can be awarded.

 

So wholeheartedly agree as you know I am worried {but feeling alot better} however as you all know this could go one way or the other .

 

 

Milly X

[Calculator]

See the judge's views on contractual interest at the recent Directions Hearing at Leeds (Mercantile Court) 7 February 2007. See thread 'Directions Hearing Leeds', start at page 15 onwards.

[Glenn UK]

See the judge's views on contractual interest at the recent Directions Hearing at Leeds (Mercantile Court) 7 February 2007. See thread 'Directions Hearing Leeds', start at page 15 onwards.

 

but this can only be applied a) to cases heard by that judge b) to cases with the same arguments put forward c) maybe he/she was just plain wrong?

 

You will find that judges are like posters on the CAG forum, each has their own view, occasionally two share the same view, invariably though they have slight variations on a theme.

 

If you don't believe m, have a read through some case law and see what different judges say about the same case and the same evidence. They don't always all agree.

 

So its interesting but i don't think that this should deter anyone from trying contractual interest if they feel they have the time and can devote the effort to presenting their claim should it get to that stage.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[maxine989]

Suddenly, without warning, my advice and assistance in this respect on a certain thread was most abruptly contradicted by a mod who considered it incorrect. The remainder of this thread has now been turned into a general discussion area for members who are totally confused at what appears to be a U-turn by the mods with respect to contractual interest.

 

This is now spilling over onto other contractual interest threads, and unless someone can step in and CLEARLY explain to people (who are mostly just ordinary jerks like me) WHAT THE HELL HAS SUDDENLY HAPPENED to cause this sea-change, then I really fear that total panic will ensue.

 

Going back to the beginning and purpose of Bill starting this thread, I would like to make a few comments if I may.

 

I too feel a little confused by the whole debate regarding contractual interest.

 

Let me put it like this:

 

It seemed that we were all walking along the same path... then suddenly without warning or explanation, people are running the other way saying, 'No! Go back.. that isn't the way to go, you must go this way'. Now I am on the path unsure of whether to carry on or go back.

 

I feel for Bill K. he has given so much and tried to do the best he can to ensure people are walking along the right path... now it look as though has not only been passed by people running back the other way, but knocked down and squashed along the way too.

 

I understand that... going to court on just interest seems dodgy (if the bank have given you a refund part way through your calim. But surely if you started out cliaming for X amount (which included contractual interest) right at the beginning at the prelim stage, then you should be able to see it through to the end and go for the X amount at the court stage. Otherwise your letter at the beginning was pointless.

 

Also... Who has been and argued their case before a judge against the bank? I read somewhere on here that someone said it was three people. Well does anyone know what happened in these three cases? What was said? What was the result? Did it end it them being told to go home with nothing? Did the bank reveal their true costs?

 

I see it this way. If we start out claiming X (which includes contractual interest) amount and we get to the court stage... the bank are sure to offer a lesser amount first. After all they have fobbed us off with get lost letters, made us jump through hoops, confused some of us by making part re-funds, made us have to dish out court fees, AQ fees... all in the hope that it puts us off continuing with the claim. Now, if we endure all this and get a court date stage... then why should we settle for less that we originally requested? Surely during that hearing the bank will be asked to reveal their true costs to the judge and isn't that what they are trying to aviod doing?

 

So... it seems to me still very unlikely that a bank will let it go to the hearing stage, because they will not want to make public what their true costs are. If we are so wrong about the contractual interst, wouldn't the banks have counter claimed against this?

 

If we have no rights to claim contractual interest then why are some banks and card companies paying up?

 

And as for the way Bill K has been treated, I think it is a real shame that it has got to the stage where opinions are shot down in flames with discontent regardless of their imput to this site.

 

Aren't we all in the same boat? Aren't we supposed to help one another, not make a valued member forced to eat humble pie?

 

And the confusion? Yes, their is mass confusion about which way to go on the dreaded path.

 

It does need a well informed knowledgeable moderator to put an end to it in someway without ridiculing anyones past opinons or beliefs.

 

We need to know some facts. Or are we now at the stage with this where it is every man for himself and no-one really know which is the right direction to go?

 

I offer these opinions without any malice towards any other site member's beliefs and do not want to start arguing about it, after all I am no legal expert. I am just an average person walking along the path, but I am not going to tread on Bill as I pass him like many of you seem to be doing.

[millymollymoo]

Is this what may have caused the panic. I parcipated in this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/63596-contractual-interest-judge-doesent.html

 

And then maybe what has happened with mortgage ERC and the MASSIVE costs maybe. CAG may be just trying to protect alot of peeps like me thats all , however too late in my case cos that was the advice being given then, now changed , I will pay the piper, but unfortunately has caused this to worry current people in the claims for CI. Me especially and put me off too.

 

Thats what I am thinking at the mo andd don't have ago at me:o

 

Milly X

 

Milly

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, all

 

Bill, you don't need me to reiterate my high regard for you.

 

But I'll do so anyway.

 

Bill: I hold you in very high regard.

 

Now, about this contractual interest stuff. I agree there seems to have been a volte-face by some - but not, confusingly, all - mods. So it doesn't seem to have been a change in official party line.

 

The confusing thing is....there are misunderstandings about what is meant by 'contractual interest'. My understanding was that it was the interest the bank charged - simple as that. Then I'm told - no, the 'contractual interest' claim is the charges you've been charged, plus the interest they've charged you, PLUS contractual interest on top. And possibly at the unauthorised rate, too.

 

IMHO, that will not succeed. But I tell you what - the debates about it stopped being easy to follow a long time ago. Earlier today, someone posted on the other contract interest thread, terrified she'd got it wrong and was going to be smashed to smithereens.

 

What was she claiming?

 

The charges, plus the interest she'd been charged on them. Which seems to me to be perfectly fair and reasonable.

 

I also believe it's fair and reasonable to claim the above plus 8%, as recompense for loss of benefit - that's what I'm claiming.

 

I further believe there is a strong argument to be made for charges plus unauthorised interest, to include refund of interest the bank has charged the claimant and denial of benefit.

 

I agree some claimants have been getting a bit....shall we say....optimistic in their claims. I further agree that it's daft to stop a claim and start again, in the hope of 'cashing in'. I think that strategy is doomed to failure.

 

I acknowledge that different judges may take different positions. However, I think it's not good for people on this forum, apparently well-experienced ones, too, to be giving out conflicting advice.

 

And I particularly believe it's not good to advise people to settle for far less than they've lost. The interest charged to a claimant is part of that loss. 8% doesn't cover it.

 

However, what I believe most strongly is that if what we used to call in Scotland (when I wur a lad) 'they hy heed yins' are disagreeing, then they should take a bit of time out, discuss it amongst themselves and come to an agreement to promote a common line.

 

That will help everyone enormously.

 

And, just in case anyone's in any doubt, I hold Bill in the highest regard.

 

Best wishes

 

Westy

 

PS - my advice to the person who'd been confused on the other thread was....to stop reading it!!

[Mad Nick]

Dear Happy Caggers, I think it would help if the site had some ‘central’ guidance about interest (updating the current stuff which seems confined to 8% Statutory). So in an attempt to be constructive :

 

BACKGROUND. First, the Courts themselves say that their own guidance for claims involving interest is confused. My evidence for that : http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp167.pdf. and an associated draft Bill (not you Bill, a Parliamentary Bill) : http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc287bill(1).pdf

 

Secondly, we need to distinguish between interest they levied on the charges and interest we want to claim from them. They are completely different in law. So what are the various options open to us :

 

OPTION 1. Just claim the charges. You’ll either end up with no interest if the Bank settles in full prior to N1, or if you get past that point you should get 8% simple interest iaw the County Courts Act either in negotiation direct with the Bank prior to Court or awarded by a Judge (probably).

 

OPTION 2. Claim the charges and the (compound) interest they charged you iaw with the contract. The interest was levied as a result of the same “mistake of law” as the (unenforceable) default charges so under the law of restitution you are entitled to be repaid both. But let’s be very clear - that’s not interest on your claim per se; rather, your claim is actually for the charges+interest they levied – one total, inseparable. There might even be an argument to claim 8% Statutory interest on top – FWIW I wish I had.

 

OPTION 3. As Option 1 (just the charges) but seek interest at the unauthorised overdraft rate on the basis of “mutuality & reciprocity” – they were not authorised to take your money and they made profits from it, so they should “disgorge” themselves of that profit. This is seeking interest on your claim, and bearing in mind the BACKGROUND above, is probably one good reason why some Judges are expressing doubts.

 

OPTION 4. As Option 2 (ie charges + interest they levied) and seek interest on top at the unauthorised overdraft rate (comments as in Option 3 above).

 

FWIW, I have trouble with Options 3&4 (which IMHO are not very well backed up by Case Law, if at all, and rely to a large extent on Banks not wanting to enter Court to defend the basic charges) but what do I know.

 

Regards Mad Nick

 

PS Can I join the Bill Appreciation Society ?

[millymollymoo]

Just want to say earlier this evening I was speaking to Lucid:) She has me inspired with both her and Mindzais sheer guts and determination. Lucid said they never accepted any offers including a stat one before court . Full rejection kept it simple.This gave them the whole claim to go into court with , charges + interest. Their letters they wrote were fantastic. They as you all know won right towards the end and it never got to a hearing, but hey she said she was never worried about costs or apperaing in court cos they were quite clear what they felt they were entitled to.

 

Yes before you say it i not end up with a judge deciding what interest to award. It just shows perseverance is agood thing.

Milly x

[TANZARELLI]

Well that was a long read, still none the wiser, so here it is. I have had a lot of claims on the back burner and have been doing lots of reading into this issue. I started reading the why is nobody claiming contractual interest thread and to be honest stopped a while back as felt it was going round in circles without a clear route.

 

I have read lots of other thread on this site and have sometimes chosen to read more than comment as have sometime felt a tad out of my depth. However, i continue to spend vast amounts of time on this site reading up cutting and pasting bits and bobs into what i call my "Bank Battle Folder" (which I hasten to add is still with me after nearly loosing it, all backed up now, so no more near heart attacks). I decided last night to crack on with these claims and have today sent 2 prelims to Bcard (not before time, one mine one my partners), 1 prelim to HSBC, and a prelim to Barclays for my second claim. All these are with contractual interest from the outset.

 

Yes I could have waited longer, but I would prob have never bothered if I had read much more than this. So decided to go for it and will spend the next 14 days reading up even more info and working out my arguements until I feel I am ready, then if needed (probably) I will send the LBA, I will then spend even more time reading even more info and fine tuning my arguements until I myself not anyone else (as ultimately it will be me in that court room if it ever gets to that point) is confident that I myself knows what I am TW@TTING on about.

 

If after the LBA deadline is up I feel that I am still not 100% then I may even wait for a bit before filing (thats my choice and my choice only). If and when I am ready I will file. But if the Defendant thinks I will be willing to settle for anything less than what I set out to claim then they can think again.

 

If it goes to court and I loose and the judge awards costs I will deal with that when/if I need too.

 

I think we need to be carefull but I do also think we need to be strong.

 

Perhaps I am being greedy? Perhaps the FAT CAT Banks have been for years?

 

Sorry if thats just a load of babble. Feel free to comment, I may choose to respond, then again I might just watch and read some more.

 

PS Wheres the fighting CAG spirit we all know and love??

[Castlebest]

I’m a surveyor I can go into court pleading black is white and make people believe me (ish)... but I need support like the rest of the people here.... we all know no the lucky one will know on the day and god help us all when that happens.... it could be me lol

We need some guidance on interest.... now for my bombshell... vamps spreadsheets don’t work they calculate interest on a monthly basis not daily as the banks do and they rely on an arbitrary figure for their calculation of historical interest (the balance on the day interest is added to the account lets just say it don’t work).... don’t get me wrong they are as close as we have... but its not right... guessing vamp going quiet recently she has realised.... so vamp come back... wot we gonna do about it ?

Contractual interest... at today’s rate over the whole period of the claim is a non starter we need a data base of bank rates back to 2000.... anyone going beyond that its their problem but we need spread sheets that do that for the last 6 years and link into the data base for their particular bank oh and we need to ask people for more money because vamp will need professional “help” after this lol

[caro]

I really don't want to get too much into this, as I decided long ago that contractual/compound interest was not the way for me to go, although I respected that some of my fellow mods and many other site users were and are, in favour of it. Apart from maybe a few weeks at the very start of the discussion last year I thought it may be a good idea, but did not feel confident enough to go to court with it. I have urged caution for a long time, as bill-k may remember from when he first joined CAG, and don't think I have ever advised anyone to claim it, although recognise that some people have made successful claims. I just worry that so many people claim without understanding the risks.

 

Could I just point out that the link in the first post of this thread has nothing at all to do with compound or contractual interest. That links to a thread that BankFodder started in Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank forum, where it has proved difficult to get any interest at all, even the statutory 8%. Hence people were accepting less than the full amount to which they were undoubtedly entitled. Having recently settled my claim against YB, which took over 7 months from submitting MCOL I can testify that they are hard work, and I could have settled about 3 months earlier had I been willing to compromise. A lot of people around Christmas weren't willing to wait, especially if the claim was a relatively small amount, hence the post.

 

Life would be so boring if we all had the same opinions and ideas, and I see nothing wrong in people claiming in different ways as long as they understand what they are doing, and the implications. In the light of the mortgage ERC problems, I personally think it would be foolhardy to claim contractual interest outside the small claims court.

 

That is my personal opinion for what it's worth. Some will agree some won't.

[caro]

Vamp has never claimed that the spreadsheets were perfect, but were as near as could be calculated without the vast resources the banks have at their disposal, and she does not have access to the banks databases, unfortunately.

[thereshope!]

PS Wheres the fighting CAG spirit we all know and love??

 

 

I know Tanz.

 

My spirit got up and left me when this mass confusion reared its ugly head.

 

I wish I had your drive and confidence, but I dont .

 

I did before, but not anymore.

 

It feels like the rug been pulled out from under me.

 

Like you, I have also put a claim on the backburner, in the hope that maybe we would have some clarification.

 

GaryH amongst others, recently advised me to accept my offer without CI.

Then when I checked his thread yesterday,he states that he has won his claim with full contractual and will most likely do future claims in the same way, claiming contractual.

 

So why advise me to accept a payment that doesnt include contractual interest ?

 

I would understand it if I had only just decided recently that I wanted to claim the contractual interest,but that is not the case.

My claim with NW has included contractual interest from Pre-lim stage.

 

So yep,confusion has well and truly zapped my spirit:mad:

 

Hope xx

[TANZARELLI]

One last thing, don't you think that the Banks and CC Companies will be reading this any patting themselves on the back. I think we should be careful about showing weakness and confusion. JMHO