Contractual Interest Discussion

[bill-k]

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

Milly X

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

[TANZARELLI]

If we claim for contractual interest with statutory in the alternative - and that's the alternative that would be deemed appropriate by the Judge, not the bank - then surely an offer of charges + 8% interest is not a full offer. I personally don't think that a court would consider that as a full settlement, providing the contractual rate had been set out properly in the Particulars of Claim. The court may very well disagree with the rate but I don't see how rejecting an offer including 8% interest would be seen as unreasonable or would get you into any difficulties.

 

The issue comes in rejecting the offer entirely so that you are still pursuing the total amount inclduing charges plus contractual. But as I said in my above post you need to have a solid argument prepared for contractual and it is vital that you are confident.

 

Lucid

 

At last,

 

Totally agree, why should we let the banks move the goal posts.

 

Nice one Lucid

[thereshope!]

OK .

 

My light-bulb moment.

 

it is my choice and if it goes pear shaped at least I can take comfort from Knowing I gave it my best shot.

 

I am going to send a letter to NW declining their GOGW .

 

I shall also give them a time-barred offer of contractual interest at their authorised rate which will revert back to the unauthorised rate if they dont make me an offer within the timescale that I dictate.

 

For me this is a paper excersise in reality and I wont ever get to have the money, it will just reduce my debt to them.

 

I am prepared for the outcome, come what may !

 

Why should I accept less ?

The buggers owe me and i'm gonna collect !

 

Hope xx

[Guest bong]

The issue comes in rejecting the offer entirely so that you are still pursuing the total amount inclduing charges plus contractual. But as I said in my above post you need to have a solid argument prepared for contractual and it is vital that you are confident.

 

 

Hi Lucid just wanted to clarify what you meant here. Did you mean that you would recommend

 

a. rejecting the offer totally so keeping the claim intact for court hearing, or

 

b. accepting the offer in part settlement, and proceeding to the hearing just for the CI?

 

Just didn't understand what you meant by "the issue comes in.."

[Guest willowb]

Tanz that's not the point and I'm sorry I don't agree...

 

If we claim for contractual interest with statutory in the alternative - and that's the alternative that would be deemed appropriate by the Judge, not the bank - then surely an offer of charges + 8% interest is not a full offer.

 

The whole point is that if you rejected an offer +8% and fees before filing, you may find that the Judge would be non-receptive to the fact that you are pushing for CI. It's not a case of 'oh but if you don't agree Judge I have the alternative here' as the defendent would shout out 'actually we offered that months ago, before they even filed a claim!'......would he be happy? IMO NO.

 

Don't forget that s.69 is to be awarded by the Judge, it isn't supposed to be 'expected' but is requested. If you have been offered the full amount with 8% interest before making a claim then the arguments you are taking to Court are solely for CI. So yes....

 

But as I said in my above post you need to have a solid argument prepared for contractual and it is vital that you are confident.

That I agree with:)

 

After a claim has been filed and like Lucid says, properly particularised then (if it is small claims) I don't see why you shouldn't go all the way. I would be caucious in fast track or multi.

 

 

Wxxx

[Guest bong]

are you sure banks are commonly offering statutory 8% before you have filed a claim?

[caro]

For information, I have never expressed any opinion but my own on this forum, this site or anywhere, and BankFodder would never expect me to advise anything that I did not truly believe. As far as I know the same can be said of all mods and all site helpers. Just to make it doubly clear I have not been told to contribute anything at all to this thread. I just wanted to give my opinion.

 

BankFodder is not a dictator and welcomes discussion, opinion and views from anyone and everyone. That's probably why you find such a good mix of views on this site, and how we all learn from each other.

[natwesttookmymoney]

are you sure banks are commonly offering statutory 8% before you have filed a claim?

 

I'm pretty sure they're not.

 

I think that's a tactic deployed by Capital One and GE Capital on credit cards. Not aware of any others.

 

And now....

 

I must find out how my friend Jacky Daniels is getting on....

 

Westy

[lucid]

Hi Lucid just wanted to clarify what you meant here. Did you mean that you would recommend

 

a. rejecting the offer totally so keeping the claim intact for court hearing, or

 

b. accepting the offer in part settlement, and proceeding to the hearing just for the CI?

 

Just didn't understand what you meant by "the issue comes in.."

 

Hi bong,

 

Sorry I meant a - rejecting the offer totally so keeping the claim intact. By saying the issue comes in I meant to refer it to be a potential issue when banks are crediting your account without prior notice, as obvisouly it makes it harder to do - but not impossible in my opinion.

 

Lucid

[millymollymoo]

Hi bong,

 

Sorry I meant a - rejecting the offer totally so keeping the claim intact. By saying the issue comes in I meant to refer it to be a potential issue when banks are crediting your account without prior notice, as obvisouly it makes it harder to do - but not impossible in my opinion.

 

Lucid

 

Soory bong and lucid butting in:oops:

 

I did a] with no deposit put in account or cheque in hand. So I believe my claims intact.???? YES or No

 

I also bought up a point on the banks/credit cards mistake on acknowledgement and I think peeps could use that against them in CI only claims. They ticked my box 'Intend to defend the whole of the claim' WELL SO BE IT they said all. Full Disclosure then ma'am. I also bet they tick this box on everyones. They have a option to tick the other box 'Intend to defend in part' which in my opinion shows they have only one part of the calim to answer.. I.E when paying up full charges and accepted.

 

What do you think??

 

Milly

[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.

[caro]

My hero too Milly.

 

Bill, you might like to edit the last sentence of post 131 above. It's taken me this long to come out from behind MY sofa after my last foray into this tricky area. lol. I might even retreat back there now with dark glasses on, because I can't advise any more than I already have, and I can feel a headache coming on. I might strike up an acquaintance with this Jacky wotsisname too. Seems a popular chap.

 

I see your point about dissecting the claim by the way, and I don't disagree, but a judge just might disagree and think the claimant is taking the mickey, and that's where the danger comes that costs might get awarded. I'll let those more passionate about the other side of the discussion advise on what they suggest.

[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.

[redsonja]

For information, I have never expressed any opinion but my own on this forum, this site or anywhere, and BankFodder would never expect me to advise anything that I did not truly believe. As far as I know the same can be said of all mods and all site helpers. Just to make it doubly clear I have not been told to contribute anything at all to this thread. I just wanted to give my opinion.

 

BankFodder is not a dictator and welcomes discussion, opinion and views from anyone and everyone. That's probably why you find such a good mix of views on this site, and how we all learn from each other.

 

Caro,

If this reply was in reference to my earlier post, I wasnt suggesting you were a puppet. I was just asking if you have been told to say "accept charges plus 8%" until an announcement is made as it contradicts BF's original post about CI.

I just think there should be a clear message from the top, especially to help us newer people on the site who may not have such a large buddy list on here yet.

It wasnt meant to cause offense as I said in my earlier post :-|

[lucid]

Tanz that's not the point and I'm sorry I don't agree...

 

 

 

The whole point is that if you rejected an offer +8% and fees before filing, you may find that the Judge would be non-receptive to the fact that you are pushing for CI. It's not a case of 'oh but if you don't agree Judge I have the alternative here' as the defendent would shout out 'actually we offered that months ago, before they even filed a claim!'......would he be happy? IMO NO.

 

Don't forget that s.69 is to be awarded by the Judge, it isn't supposed to be 'expected' but is requested. If you have been offered the full amount with 8% interest before making a claim then the arguments you are taking to Court are solely for CI. So yes....

 

 

That I agree with:)

 

After a claim has been filed and like Lucid says, properly particularised then (if it is small claims) I don't see why you shouldn't go all the way. I would be caucious in fast track or multi.

 

 

Wxxx

 

Hi Willow,

 

I was actually referring to geting offers for charges + 8% interest after you file the claim at court. We were made an offer after we'd filed a claim at court and it was for charges plus a portion of statutory interest. The solicitors said that the bank "would not entertain 29.85% interest or our list of costs" and our response to that was:

 

I note your assertion that your Client will not entertain interest at a rate of 29.85% per annum. As I explained in my Particulars of Claim I am perfectly entitled to claim this amount and should your Client wish to settle I will not accept an offer that does not include interest at this contractual rate.

 

In relation to your point that the Bank will not entertain my expenses incurred by bringing this case due to the fact that it is allocated to the Small Claims Track I am entitled to claim reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this claim and it is at the Judge’s discretion as to whether these costs are applicable. The amount owed in relation to these costs is £9 to cover postage and stationary.

 

The basis for claiming contractual interest is different to claiming statutory. Check out Mindzai's post here . The whole basis for claiming contractual is different to that of statutory. You add it to your claims from the beginning - with the prelim. If you have got a confident argument then yes, I believe you should reject any offers that come before filing a claim if they're not for the full amount of your claim at that time. With contractual interest the full amount from beginning (prelim) to end (court hearing) is charges + interest. With statutory interest the total amount at the beginning is just charges and when you file at court the total then becomes charges + interest. If you haven't got a confident argument then you shouldn't claim contractual in the first place.

 

If on the off chance the bank do offer you total amount of charges + 8% interest before you file the court claim then it is obviously down to the individual. I still don't see how based on a solid argument for contractual the Judge would be annoyed at you rejecting that offer as it was not for the full amount. I'm referring to the full amount as charges + contractual interest - not any of the alternatives that you would later apply in your Particulars of Claim. But personally I'm very unconvinced that the banks are going to start offering total charges + 8% interest before you file the claim. If it happens then I think it is probably very rare and even if they do offer more than your total charges, how many of the banks actually breakdown for us what their offers comprise of. I know we were left calculating all of the possibilities and drawing our own conclusions with our initial offers (obviously after taking out that it wasn't for 29.85% interest and letter writing costs).

 

So my opinions still stand, and I don't agree that a Judge will look on you unfavourably in any of the above situations - providing you have properly researched your own case and put a lot of effort into your arguments. i think we all need to remind ourselves that contractual interest is to be viewed and approached differently to statutory interest.

 

Lucid

[Guest willowb]

are you sure banks are commonly offering statutory 8% before you have filed a claim?

No, but if the scenario arose! I got involved with this because of the TDollan thread where he had been offered this yet dropped the original claim and started a new one with a higher rate of interest (I think that's how it was....*oh Lord I need a lay down* )

 

The claim is for "a fixed amount of money" and is not IMO open to dissection by anybody other than the Judge.

Yes agreed....so, then isn't that why we are safegurading the argument to make it as Judge-friendly as possibe? IYKWIM!!!

 

and I can feel a headache coming on

I hear ya! lol

 

Hi Willow,

 

I was actually referring to geting offers for charges + 8% interest after you file the claim at court. We were made an offer after we'd filed a claim at court and it was for charges plus a portion of statutory interest.

Yes ok sorry I can see that now...............right, I think I've taken my brain as far as it needs to (can possibly) go right now:-| lmao....poor old thing!

 

If it's ok (and when my head has recovered:? ) with you all I'd like to try and construct a succinct 'point' post including all the issues raised in this thread, a guidance post that we could use as a way to help people who are finding it difficult to 'take it all in'.....what do you think? maybe someone else more knowledgable than me would be more suitable....anyone? what d'you think? (don't mean to 'play mum' or anything!:-| )

 

Wxxx

[lucid]

Yes ok sorry I can see that now...............right, I think I've taken my brain as far as it needs to (can possibly) go right now:-| lmao....poor old thing!

 

That's ok willow - I didn't actually make it clear that I was referring to that situation (getting an offer after you file the claim) as I was assuming that's what we were all referring to.

 

But unfortunately I have to make a correction to the following point you've made:

 

No, but if the scenario arose! I got involved with this because of the TDollan thread where he had been offered this yet dropped the original claim and started a new one with a higher rate of interest (I think that's how it was....*oh Lord I need a lay down* )

 

Dtollan was not offered charges + statutory interest and unfortauntely a lot of confusion and contradictions have arisen from that thread: dtollan vs RBOS.

 

Dtollan was always claiming for contractual itnerest from the beginning but they had miscalculated it when they included it in their initial prelim. They used one of the forum's non contractual interest spreadsheets and changed the interest rate from 8% to whatever their contractual rate was. This obviously produced simple interest which is incorrect - contractual is compounded. After sending their prelim they got an offer for the total charges but no interest at all and I believe at the same time they realised they had used the wrong form of interest. So in a new prelim they rejected the offer as it wasn't the total amount they had requested and recalculated their claim with the correct form of interest. Obviously it's not the best way of going about things but I personally don't think they've done anything wrong. They never got offered the full amount so the claim was still ongoing. Then later on it that thread I believe karnevil (I can't remember off the top of my head but I think i'm rightl) refers to getting offered total charges + statutory interest before filing a claim at court. Karnevil's opinion was that you should seriously consider accepting the offer if this happens. But this had nothing to do with TDollan's situation.

 

As for creating a summary post I think that's a very good idea as the threads on the subject are growing every day and there are a lot of pieces of conflicting ideas and advice. It's probably not the easiest subject for newcomers to grasp when they are faced with countless pages of a thread to try to understand.

 

Lucid

[millymollymoo]

Tanz that's not the point and I'm sorry I don't agree...

 

 

 

The whole point is that if you rejected an offer +8% and fees before filing, you may find that the Judge would be non-receptive to the fact that you are pushing for CI. It's not a case of 'oh but if you don't agree Judge I have the alternative here' as the defendent would shout out 'actually we offered that months ago, before they even filed a claim!'......would he be happy? IMO NO.

 

Don't forget that s.69 is to be awarded by the Judge, it isn't supposed to be 'expected' but is requested. If you have been offered the full amount with 8% interest before making a claim then the arguments you are taking to Court are solely for CI. So yes....

 

 

That I agree with:)

 

After a claim has been filed and like Lucid says, properly particularised then (if it is small claims) I don't see why you shouldn't go all the way. I would be caucious in fast track or multi.

 

 

Wxxx

 

 

hello willow:)

 

Im not going to disagree with you here even though you know I have rejected charges with stat BEFORE filing:eek: Reason incase you don't know is their were conditions and unfair and I had already broken Im afraid so as I said to the 'Fish' my term for them now. Your offer is deemed void and unacceptable.

 

Now what a judge makes of it I can only guess that they are impartial and have to hear both sides of the story. My total claim is under £1000 and should be allocated small claims on that amount.

 

Besides fish have to disclose there charges to succeed as I have not a penny of their money, no deposit no cheque given in offer letter. The question is whether they want to do that. I know that they are without predujuce save as to costs offers and can be shown at the end when the judge is summing up if that is all the judge awards me and in a attempt to say thats what we offered her ma'am!!!!!, however the offer letters will also show their conditions of offer threatening return of money and the it states thay bullying or threatening behaviour will not be tolerated by the judge so cat and mouse. ME BIG CAT EATING MOUSE HOPEFULLY!!!!

 

So Unless I have a judge who takes a dislike to me or is as grumpy as s**t then I do not believe costs would be awarded. {but either way I would of tried and fought for it if it did happen}

 

You know I have different circumstances to others also. I remortgaged to pay my debts back and have another 24 years to go carrying interest for these debts and I can assure you when I present the figure of consequential loss it is four times the contractual I have claimed for use of my money. So they will be getting off lightly IMHO.

 

 

So as I said and I cannot keep repeating it I am the ONE who was offered stat {no fees} + charges BEFORE court and before I rejected took advice under the 'goodwill gestures' thread to reject in full and yes by a mod!!!! So there you go, though I firmly believe that this was correct cos as she said good grounds were the conditions.

 

 

 

Milly XX

[TANZARELLI]

Tanz that's not the point and I'm sorry I don't agree...

 

 

 

The whole point is that if you rejected an offer +8% and fees before filing, you may find that the Judge would be non-receptive to the fact that you are pushing for CI. It's not a case of 'oh but if you don't agree Judge I have the alternative here' as the defendent would shout out 'actually we offered that months ago, before they even filed a claim!'......would he be happy? IMO NO.

 

 

After a claim has been filed and like Lucid says, properly particularised then (if it is small claims) I don't see why you shouldn't go all the way. I would be caucious in fast track or multi.

 

 

Wxxx

 

I can see your arguement here willow, but what if they offered you this after you have filed surely the same thing would be said then as well. I can see that it would seem to be greedy if you went ahead and filed after an offer of charges and 8%. But are you saying that as long as you can get to the MCOL and N1 stage without this offer, then its ok to carry on and leave it to the judge?

[millymollymoo]

Tanz thanks Im greedy now am I?

 

My opinion now as I have the hump...dont claim contractual then cos this rediculous and going round in circles here be happy and do the normal claim and then you wont be deemed greedy.

 

milly X

[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...................

[lucid]

No you haven't been greedy Milly (and the following isn't directed at you at all).

 

There is no point in beginning a claim for contractual interest if you are not going to see it through - in my opinion. The whole point in it is that you claim it from the start and the basis for doing so is entirely different to statutory interest. The banks really aren't going to be happy about paying it so you must be prepared for a fight, if not then you shouldn't have claimed for it in the first place. But I also believe the same when filing a "normal claim" in that if your'e not prepared to go to court and argue your case then you really shouldn't be filing a court claim. That may seem harsh but it needs to be taken that seriously.

 

Lucid

[TANZARELLI]

Tanz thanks Im greedy now am I?

 

My opinion now as I have the hump...dont claim contractual then cos this rediculous and going round in circles here be happy and do the normal claim and then you wont be deemed greedy.

 

milly X

 

Milly never meant that as a dig at you in the slightest. Was not even referring to your case. sorry if you have took offence, none intended.

 

What I was trying to say is in your defence if anything. But members are trying to get a conclusive answer here for something that I dont think is even tested. Yes I could see that a perhaps small minded judge who really was not at all that bothered with how important our cases were to us, may, if having a bad day cause he had got out of bed the wrong side, or felt he was wasting his career sitting in a room attempting to deal with small claims that never even showed up half the time cause the banks settled prior to the hearings and he was dreaming of bigger and better things for himself......may see the fact that someone who had already been offered a refund of charges and 8% before filing, but then continued to file purely for contractual, as being greedy.....

 

I am not clear however on what the difference is between the bank offering it before you file and you not accepting it and carrying on, or the bank not offering it until after you filed but before the hearing and you not accepting it and carrying on. Surely its the same thing and the bank would argue the same thing and the judge may say the same thing.

 

Perhaps I am being thick here. (Dont answer that folks) lol

 

Once again no offence meant milly your case seems different as you have explained.

 

I still dont think that we are any closer to the truth here because it is always going to be dependant on individuals case details, research, confidence in speaking in a court, the odd panic attack I dare say, the legals from the bank, and the big scary judge:-o , who may:) or may not:mad: be in a good mood:D .

 

Waffled enough and sorry again.

 

Tanz

[Guest willowb]

But are you saying that as long as you can get to the MCOL and N1 stage without this offer, then its ok to carry on and leave it to the judge?

 

Well, you all know how I feel about 'taking the risk' and I would seriously consider an offer before or after N1 if it included stat int and fees. But to me it seems that if they have offered it before N1 and you have refused then it is more likely to be frowned upon because as yet your claim has not been properly particularised and you haven't taken that giant step toward claiming the money back.

 

I really have to draw you back to this......

 

PRe Action Protocols

4.7 The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt. Both the Claimant and Defendant may be required by the Court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if this paragraph is not followed then the court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs;

 

There has been alot of discussion about what people have 'a right' to claim and I don't dispute that but what I would say is that isn't necessarily at the forefront of a Judge's mind. He may or may not think that you have a right to it, but if he thinks that there has been a complete disregard to pre-action protocols........where does that leave you? I don't in all honesty think a Judge would strike out because of it but he may reduce your claim or award costs to the defence....do you know? does anyone know? so, what do you do?

 

Wxxx

[Guest willowb]

I still dont think that we are any closer to the truth here because it is always going to be dependant on individuals case details, research, confidence in speaking in a court, the odd panic attack I dare say, the legals from the bank, and the big scary judge:shock: , who may:-) or may not:evil: be in a good mood:grin:

 

LMAO!!!!

 

Wxxx