Contractual Interest Discussion

[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.

[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.

[bill-k]

Congratulations, Westy. A big jobbie well done, if I may say so. I'd give it ten minutes, if I were you, peeps !! :o

 

Mad Nick - thank you for bringing some sanity !!

 

Everybody else - thank you for commenting here. I'm glad this has not become a discussion of my embarrassing personal complaint, and the subsequent treatment thereof. I can confirm that the monstrous karbuncle that has been on my backside is slowly shrinking, now, thank you !!

 

I see that there have been some heated moments, and to me that is a sign that people are committed to their opinions, and not just indifferently chucking them in. Yes, indeed, as Caro says we must not be afraid to express our opinions, as we bring what we have to this forum, and take what we wish from it. However, if we are told quite firmly by some of our leaders that a particular idea or opinion is not to be expressed, and then by others that it is, then we are being given Hobson's choice. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If the mods are going to be policing us with regard to these opinions, then it must be (a) by consent, and (b) consistent and uniform enforcement.

 

To be effectively told to "shut up and do what we say" is not quite what a forum is about. But if such discipline is necessary, then further discipline is expected from our superiors. The "we" in the above must be a united ("Royal") we, and not a p1$$-up in a brewery !!

 

With regard to partial payments, I am personally not happy at this apparent acceptance tha the defendant can dictate the way that a claim progresses, simply by offering a reduced amount, which is equivalent to the penalty charges only. The claim is for "a fixed amount of money" and is not IMO open to dissection by anybody other than the Judge. The defendant can call their partial offer whatever they damn well pleasee, but that doesn't mean that's what it is, does it ? Is a GOGW really a GOGW just because they call it that ? If it were, then why don't we say "Aaaw, gee, thanks a bunch, guys, now what about my claim for charges plus CI ?")

 

I think what Molly has found is worth looking into before we all start rushing in the "accept" direction. It's this panic that stops us looking into these things, like Milly's point. Well done for keeping your cool, Milly !!

 

We must feel committed, yes. But we must respect each other and allow our differences to be discussed - calmly and without anger or panic. When we try and stop that by undue enforcement of opposing views, then we truly have civil war. We MUST have peaceful and free discussion here - albeit within reasonable limits, I agree - before we can truly regain the lost power that true unity brings.

 

If we are to Reclaim the Right, then we must now regain the power. We must find that unity, and must see it in our leadership.

 

PS My god, there's been some input since I started typing this - I hope it's still pertinent !!

[bill-k]

I feel empowered. No letters sent ...nothing.

Milly X

It's good news, Milly. Always welcome !!

[bill-k]

...you may find that the Judge would be non-receptive to the fact that you are pushing for CI.

At great personal risk, I repeat a para. from my previous post, Willow. I still think that it is not up to the defendant to dissect the claim. IMO, you are not pushing for CI - you are pushing for the remainder of the total amount of your claim, which remains intact until it gets into court.

With regard to partial payments, I am personally not happy at this apparent acceptance tha the defendant can dictate the way that a claim progresses, simply by offering a reduced amount, which is equivalent to the penalty charges only. The claim is for "a fixed amount of money" and is not IMO open to dissection by anybody other than the Judge. The defendant can call their partial offer whatever they damn well pleasee, but that doesn't mean that's what it is, does it ? Is a GOGW really a GOGW just because they call it that ? If it were, then why don't we say "Aaaw, gee, thanks a bunch, guys, now what about my claim for charges plus CI ?")

[unquote]

 

Caro, I recall spending time hiding behind the sofa while you passionately expressed your opinion, and when it became clear that you could do or say no more, then you courteously bowed out and wished the OP well. If that had been my experience, in a recent exchange, then I would not have begun this thread. I was not afforded any courtesy at all, and effectively told to sit down and shut up. I prefer your approach (& retreat) to the latter method, but if the latter is going to be the norm, then the imposed wisdom MUST be consistent across the board of mods. There is currently neither a uniformity of approach, nor a consistency of advice. We MUST have at least one or the other - preferably both.

[bill-k]

Bank Fodder is a hero,{ dictator good grief;)} in my book for opening this wonderful site

 

I, and I'm sure Willow and others here will agree with Caro and Milly on that point. We would not be here demanding his presence on the balcony, otherwise.

 

He will not forsake us.

[bill-k]

Hey Milly, cool it, matey !! You get upset too easily, methinks (yeah, I know -look who's talking !!). Have you Italian in your blood ?

 

Tanz is playing Devil's Advocate, here, putting himself in the Judge's place, and looking at it from the Judge's point of view. We have to do this role-playing in order to check what our arguments seem like to the other parties.

 

And...................................r e l a x...................

[bill-k]

Just re-subscribing. Well done for keeping cool, guys.

 

Not easy under the circumstances.

 

You have my respect for that.

[bill-k]

Thank you Maxine, not sure if I can safely join any discussions, yet, but lurking and learning !!

[bill-k]

Good God, MilkTrayMan, when one attributes a quote, one does so out of courtesy, and not to invite a lesson in history !! I do indeed appreciate your noticing my sig., but the quote is the important part - NOT the credit. If the value and meaning of that particular string of words depends on your received opinion of the perpetrator, then I fear that you are not able to see truth or logic at its' own face value, but are obliged to see it and judge it only as a product of its' source, and the opinions and observations of others thereof.

 

I make my own evaluation of things, regardless of their origin. I do not know your origin, and I do not require to, in order to determine whether or not I attach any value to your utterances. Whatever value I attach to you personally has no bearing on what I think of your words here. FWIW, I attach a fairly high score to both !!!

 

Similarly, if what you knew about me personally had any bearing on my words here, then you would not have even bothered to mention my sig, or my posts, as your contempt for me as a person would have overshadowed all. Believe me, my wife is never wrong, and just like the history books you have obviously read and believed, she will provide proof that I am indeed the wickedest barsteward that ever served drinks. So now, which do you believe ? My wife or me ? The rest is apochryphal.

 

Forget all that cr@p, and think for yourself. Do the words make sense or not ? If you have a brain (and of course I know you do, my friend) then you use that to decide. Otherwise, you listen to what others tell you. If I tell you the sky is pink and another says it's blue, then do you read up on our individual histories ? No, you make your own evaluation, using your own intelligence.

 

There have been some hateful people throughout our history, but if we ignore their utterances totally because of that general opinion, we deprive ourselves of the products of their (albeit misguided) intelligence. That, to me, is a form of prejudice. Every creature - and every cretin has something to say, and I believe their words deserve impartial judgement, even if they themselves might deserve a slow death.

 

Bill.

[bill-k]

Do we have a smiley for a handshake?

Well done, gentlemen. I personally think that was an important step, in that it might now enable the Tower of Babel to finally be constructed here, IMVHO.

[bill-k]

lol @ U...

 

Just knew that would get your fighting spirit back!

 

...btw...The sky IS pink if U stand on the Planet of the God of War, Mars.

 

MTM - you are one mean SOB, getting old grumpy to rise to that highly-held bait !!

"I am also Gluteus Maximus, and I will have my revenge !!"

Just you wait 'til playtime....:o

I stand here on Jupiter, but on the distinctly non-jovial dark side at present.

[bill-k]

BTW - is theleft hand taking money from the right? And knoweth not the right hand what the left ith doingth?

W

I prefereth to think of it as two right hands sharing a mutually well-earned gain !!

[bill-k]

Ever the optimitht!

That reminds me, I must make an appointment to see mine.

 

I'm reading with a pronounthed lithp !!