Contractual Interest Discussion

[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

[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

[Glenn UK]

Westy

 

just so you can warm your humble pie i have claimed interest i paid (what you have been calling contractual interest) and double decked interest (what i call contractual interest) on three occasions and been paid that money.

 

On one of my claims i didn't get it although i claimed it.

 

MBNA were the first and i highlighted the same issue you have done ie. that most people are only being paid back debited interest. If you look at the link in my Sig re MBNA its discussed by me in there some while back.

 

The latest were Barclaycard and they too paid out their cash advance rate on top of their debited interest and charges.

 

I think its pointless arguing over what we call something, my view is your in the minority with your description and you think i am with mine.

 

The point and the only point that we need to make, is to come to some consensus about what we all call these different things when discussing them.

 

It is to a large part irrelevant what an individual is claiming in as much as we need to have a common language to discuss these things.

 

There is no doubt that the thread starter was talking about charging interest on top of the original stake i believe but even that is immaterial now, because of the confusion which exists.

 

May i suggest we call debited interest just that and interest you wish to charge them contractual interest?

 

If anyone has a counter view or wants to call them something different then fine i can deal with that as I'm sure can everyone else.

 

Lets all stop arguing over language and move on, please?

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

i think they were, does it make any difference to what i claimed?

 

Incidentally the value of the claims in both the MBNA and Barclaycard was more than doubled by the use of contractual interest so whilst the value may have been small the impact is still signficant in percentage terms at least. ultim,ately they both ended up above £1k, mbna closer to £2K and Barclaycard £1500

 

 

irrespective of this, the point still stands we all need to come to a consensus about what we call things so we can all work on the same basis.

[Glenn UK]

Westy

 

i do agree that it would seem logical for the banks to fight larger claims, irrespective of the make up of that claim on the face of it.

 

however, my abbey claim had charges going back to 1997 and i would have thought that would have been worth fighting as well as the contractual interest. in truth they didn't really contest the CI issue in court, I effectively gave it way and so its not a good case to use IMHO.

 

Re the issue of fighting large claims, IMHO i think this argument looses most of its potency when one considers the large numbers of claims, it would be logical for the banks to have taken one, or a number of claims irrespective of their size to fight to discourage others from claiming many months ago now.

 

The cost argument would of course work well if there were one or two claims irrespective of size, however, i don't see it at all now.

 

Re the terms we should use, i think debited interest is perfect and i shall try to make sure i use it from now on.

 

contractual interest as you rightly point out has more than one meaning, perhaps we could call it Added or EXTRA CI since this would imply that it was over and above that expected by the contract.

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

LOL

 

ITS a deal then,

 

interest the bank owes you should be referred to as DEBIT INTEREST

interest you wish to charge the bank on top of the charges and interest should be called EXTRA CI.

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Are we really going to change this because of one persons opinion?

 

 

 

As a point for discussion it isn't only Westy who has used the term in the fashion he has used it.

 

As i said in my post it was prevalent in the MBNA forum and probably still is for all i know.

 

I also know that i have on many occasions clarified what i mean by contractual, etc.

 

So as much as Westy may be in the minority, and I'm not certain he is or if its relevant, i do agree that there is confusion.

 

I would prefer it if people concentrated on our objectives of bombing hamburg, sorry i mean dealing with the banks and not arguing the toss over terminology, which is only important in as much as it allows us to work from a common understanding.

 

If there is a consensus that EXTRA or Additional CI isn't right then lets look at alternatives.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS I was hoping to implore Westy not to respond for fear of escalation, and this time bombing Tehran, not having read his response yet ill wait to see if i need to resort to the shelter or not.

 

PPS I can see the sun shining and hopefully that bomber in the sky will fly away with bombload in tact.