Contractual Interest Discussion

[millymollymoo]

Hi Bong.

 

I have had an offer for the full amount + 8% from Egg... after they initially offered me a £4 refund on each fee.

 

I have rejected the offer. Egg have done nothing but mess me around. And... the charges I am cliaming for were fee's that snowballed out of control when I was at University.

 

Egg offered me a re-finance loan to pay the credit card and the snowballing fees off which I am still paying back now. Of course it has cost me a lot over the years in interest... and all of this could have been avioded if they hadn't of hammered me with fees at a time when I was financially struggling to pay my rent, feed my kids and pay my tuition fees at Uni.

 

I have been seriously thinking about the whole situation concerning CI. I have made a decision to go the whole hog, after all my claim was for full refund of charges + CI right from the beginning and so I don't see why I should accept less.

 

I know it may be a risk. However, I feel confident about arguing my case. And... if I have to state my reasons before a judge, then I will... I am happy to see what happens and I will accept the outcome whichever way the judge decides.

 

I am not worried about loosing. If I do... then at least we know the score eh?

 

 

 

Maxine this also is another good argument I have. I remortgaged and paid the 'fish' back.

 

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

maxine I think you have made the right decision. not saying anything about whether you have a good chance of winning it or not, cos that will depend upon the judge you get and the way in which you present your case and counter the banks arguments. the point is they haven't offered to settle your claim and if you lose - on the point of costs - you had a reason to be there, it was not unreasonable conduct to deem that you have a case to claim CI, and therefore should not be ordered to pay costs, in small claims track. presumably Egg also asked for small claims track. That is my opinion. GOOD LUCK.

 

 

 

Bong you have made me feel so much better cos I remortgaged to pay these Beep Beep Beep...

 

 

Milly XX

[millymollymoo]

sorry for my rude departure ...my fence is being put up due to them storms and my 2 year old thinks its fun and getting in the way. Bless him.

 

 

milly X

[maxine989]

No worries Milly... I had to quickly scarper too... more 2 year old shenanigans.

 

Yes... lets hope we do not get grumpy judges eh... but then again, it is a court of law... and the judge has to be fair, whether he/she has had a bad day or not.

[sn00psmum]

Hello,

 

I wonder if anyone reading this thread can help....I am in two minds as to whether or not to go ahead and file at court or take the money and run.

 

As you know on this forum there are considerably differing opinions on the subject of C.I. I have a thread running on this forum http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/64019-sn00psmum-dad-rbs.html#post594591 and also on another forum. On this one as far as I can deduct it seems to be that if you have requested C.I from the beginning then any settlement which does not include it is not in fact a full offer of settlement. I am having considerable problems on the other forum convincing people of my reasons for wanting to file, to the point that someone has actually said that I WILL LOSE- no question! Aaaarghh!! I don't want to direct anyone away from this interesting discussion or indeed from this excellent site, but if you're interested it's here sn00psmum (&dad!) v RBOS - Penalty Charges Forum

 

The RBS have made me an offer which falls around £250 short of the amount of charges claimed. They are adamant that they will not pay out on the interest side of things. However I do not see this as a reasonable settlement figure as I have requested C.I in my prelim letter, my LBA and my refusal of their "GOGW". Now what?? I understand that any decision is up to me at the end of the day and if it goes A over T then it's my own doing.

 

Any constuctive input or advice will be gratefully received, SM:)

[Guest bong]

snoopsmum, they have not offered you a full settlement, even if you take CI out of the equation, they are not offering all of the charges. You have valid grounds for making a court claim, without it you aren't going to get all of the money they owe you. Since you have grounds for filing a court claim you cannot be penalised for costs and I can't think of any reason for dropping the CI element if you're going that far.

[sn00psmum]

Thank-you Bong!

 

Not just because it's kind of the answer I was hoping for but because I finally feel like I can stop going around in circles, i'm dizzy!

 

I've read lots of your posts and you seem like someone who is on the same page but can put forward a fair and valid point far more eloquently than I! I just needed to get it straight in my head and also it's SCARY enough thinking about court without so many people telling you that you're wrong even when you believe you're right. Know what I mean?

 

Thanks for the boost, SM

[Guest bong]

pleased it helped you make a decision.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Just subscribing.

[Guest willowb]

Bong you have made me feel so much better cos I remortgaged to pay these Beep Beep Beep...:grin:

Yes, us too....it really turns my stomach that we lost such a lot of equity because of it.

 

I meant to say Milly, thanks for the click the other day, I really appreciated what you said!

 

 

Wxxx

[millymollymoo]

willow you are absolutely welcome you have a lovely nature and I respect what you say:)

 

milly X

[JustJon]

The dilemma I face at the moment (and I'm sure countless others do as well) is that I believe I'm entitled to claim back the money the bank has taken from me, including the interest they've already charged me. But then in addition to this, I believe I'm also entitled to at least some interest on top of that amount to cover the fact that this money has not been in the bank earning me interest for 6 years.

 

I'm not greedy, but the fact that the bank has been holding a substantial amount of my money for up to 6 years which could/would have otherwise been in a savings account earning me interest is not right and represents a genuine loss to me.

 

The dilemma comes into play when I consider how to get back this lost interest. I don't want to go to court but I also don't want to just give it to the bank as it adds up to quite a lot of money which should be in my account and would have been had it not been for the illegal charges.

 

If I don't put any contractual interest on my claim right from the word go, there is a very real possibility that the bank will settle in full before court proceedings start (which I will have to accept) and I will receive no interest at all. If I do put contractual interest on my claim I may end up in court having to use unproven arguments (which I don't want).

 

As I said before I'm not greedy, I would be happy to accept 8% statutory interest, but the fact that I can't claim this from the start is a real sticking point for me and is why I'm leaning towards claiming contractual. At least this way the bank can't "Settle in full" before court and leave me out of pocket. I believe this is why a lot of people are claiming contractual - i.e. They are doing it because they want the bank to settle before court, but they also want the "guarantee" of at least some interest.

 

It seems to me that its not a simple choice between contractual and statutory. Its more a choice between contractual and the possibility of nothing at all. Or, even more accurately: What is worse? Receiving no interest at all or having to go to court to argue on shaky ground.

 

Any input would be appreciated.

[sn00psmum]

Hi JustJon

 

Well said!! I agree wholeheartedly with the above post and i'm having the same dilemma, but unlike yourself I wouldn't have been happy with 8%, I want contractual as when I think what could have been done with the money they have taken it makes me so mad!! Nevermind a high interest savings a/c, we could have put a deposit on some land on which to build a house and sell for profit, we could have invested in stocks and shares and made a fortune (or also lost it all, but it would have been our choice!)

:evil:

[natwesttookmymoney]

The dilemma I face at the moment (and I'm sure countless others do as well) is that I believe I'm entitled to claim back the money the bank has taken from me, including the interest they've already charged me. But then in addition to this, I believe I'm also entitled to at least some interest on top of that amount to cover the fact that this money has not been in the bank earning me interest for 6 years.

 

I'm not greedy, but the fact that the bank has been holding a substantial amount of my money for up to 6 years which could/would have otherwise been in a savings account earning me interest is not right and represents a genuine loss to me.

 

The dilemma comes into play when I consider how to get back this lost interest. I don't want to go to court but I also don't want to just give it to the bank as it adds up to quite a lot of money which should be in my account and would have been had it not been for the illegal charges.

 

If I don't put any contractual interest on my claim right from the word go, there is a very real possibility that the bank will settle in full before court proceedings start (which I will have to accept) and I will receive no interest at all. If I do put contractual interest on my claim I may end up in court having to use unproven arguments (which I don't want).

 

As I said before I'm not greedy, I would be happy to accept 8% statutory interest, but the fact that I can't claim this from the start is a real sticking point for me and is why I'm leaning towards claiming contractual. At least this way the bank can't "Settle in full" before court and leave me out of pocket. I believe this is why a lot of people are claiming contractual - i.e. They are doing it because they want the bank to settle before court, but they also want the "guarantee" of at least some interest.

 

It seems to me that its not a simple choice between contractual and statutory. Its more a choice between contractual and the possibility of nothing at all. Or, even more accurately: What is worse? Receiving no interest at all or having to go to court to argue on shaky ground.

 

Any input would be appreciated.

 

JustJon

 

I'm surprised that you've posted more or less the same argument on this thread that has been thrashed to oblivion on the original contractual interest thread. I thought you had a group - albeit small - who were in agreement with you. I'm not sure of the point in going over exactly the same ground here and recreating the firestorm of confusion that reigns in the other place.

 

I must confess that I started to reply to what I thought you were saying and was going to get quite heated. Then I read more carefully and found that it was more thoughtful than I'd, at first, realised. But there are a couple of fundamental errors contained in it, which it's important you correct, soonest.

 

"If I don't put any contractual interest on my claim right from the word go, there is a very real possibility that the bank will settle in full before court proceedings start (which I will have to accept) and I will receive no interest at all. Correct If I do put contractual interest on my claim I may end up in court having to use unproven arguments (which I don't want)."

It depends what you mean by contractual and I very, very, very strongly recommend that you go back to the beginning of the other thread on the subject and read from the very first post.

"As I said before I'm not greedy, I would be happy to accept 8% statutory interest, but the fact that I can't claim this from the start is a real sticking point for me and is why I'm leaning towards claiming contractual."

 

If, by contractual, you mean attempting to double-charge interest you may say you're not greedy, and I will accept your word - but it looks a lot like you are. Either that, or something else. I find it absolutely astonishing that you're talking about being 'happy to accept' statutory interest - only statutory interest - on the one hand, and then looking for something over 50% (the two interest rates combined and compounded) on the other.

 

"the bank has been holding a substantial amount of my money for up to 6 years which could/would have otherwise been in a savings account earning me interest..."

 

Absolutely correct but can you point me in the direction of a savings account anywhere on the planet where you would have earned 29% interest rate, without suffering catastrophic loss of capital value due to hyperinflation? 29% is not your loss of benefit and bears absolutely no relation to it.

 

If you wish to go to court on what you concede is dodgy ground, then that's entirely up to you - go ahead, and on your own head be it. You have been advised against it but, as the case hasn't yet been tested in court, then you never know, you may win - especially if it's a small claim i.e., under £2000.

 

However, that's the point - you haven't been to court and you haven't won yet. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no-one has won a significant claim with this attempted double-decking that you refer to as 'contractual interest'. On the other hand, a lot of people HAVE won with a claim based on charges, interest levied thereon, and statutory interest in addition.

 

That, I would think, is a satisfactory level of compensation. It gives you your money back and a recompense for denial of benefit. You won't get rich, you won't be able to retire to the Bahamas but it does restore your money back to you.

 

My advice to anyone considering the ludicrous 'contractual interest plus contractual interest' approach is to tear your eyes away from the wonderful, multi-digit sum the double-interest rings up, calm down and return to the world of reality.

 

You know very well what the arguments are, Jon, they're very clearly made in the other thread. Claimants will be successful if they present a well prepared claim, using the Templates, following the FAQs and the step-by-step guide and - crucially - keep their claim within the real world. If claimants drift into the world of fantasy, where pink ponies play in the meadows with gambolling lambs, castles are made of barley sugar and judges smile as they award poorly-prepared claims huge doubled-up interest rate returns, then they will be disappointed.

 

It is unfair and confusing to newcomers to drag this pointless, circular discussion onto yet another thread. And it's severely misleading to posit your post as if it was your first contribution to this kind of discussion. You have already made your mind up, you have made that clear. You want to try something new, esoteric and - as you say - built on shaky ground, you go right ahead. Come back and tell us how you got on.

 

JMHO (had to edit that in - I forgot 1st time)

[sn00psmum]

Hi Bong, may I PM you? I'm in danger of getting lost again:-|

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Snoopsmum

 

You can also PM me if you wish, although I think my immediately previous post makes my belief blisteringly clear.

 

W

[sn00psmum]

Thanks Westy, will do! You appeared to be offline, but then so is Bong, duh!

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'm in haunting mode!

I actually have some work to do this afternoon so only want to get involved in that which I wish to get involved with...if you see what I mean!

[Guest bong]

Hi snoopsmum I'm not offline! yeah you can PM me although I have my little boy at home unwell at the moment so I may have to wait until later this eve to reply, depends how much thinking it entails!

[JustJon]

To be honest Westy, after reading your response I was completely lost for words. Beyond the reasons you've given above, you seem to take great offense at what I'm saying and I don't know why. Is there something going on that I don't know about?

 

I'm surprised that you've posted more or less the same argument on this thread that has been thrashed to oblivion on the original contractual interest thread.

 

Not at all. If you actually read the thread, the points made are quite different. In the post above I was merely trying to outline what is going through someones head (including myself) when deciding on what to claim rather than trying to ram my opinion down other peoples throat. I actually thought I did this in an easy to understand manner which was relevant and useful to the discussion.

 

I thought you had a group - albeit small - who were in agreement with you.

 

I'm sorry, this is going to come across as argumentative but: The only person who wasn't in agreement with everyone was you. Go back and have a look.

 

I'm not sure of the point in going over exactly the same ground here and recreating the firestorm of confusion that reigns in the other place.

 

I must confess that I started to reply to what I thought you were saying and was going to get quite heated. Then I read more carefully and found that it was more thoughtful than I'd, at first, realised. But there are a couple of fundamental errors contained in it, which it's important you correct, soonest.

 

I must confess I am quite heated. I find it extremely annoying that if someone (or many people - on the other thread) disagrees with you, then you brand them as "causing confusion" or even worse claim that the whole thread is causing confusion and is not worth reading. It totaly undermines the issues being discussed and in actual fact it is you who is causing the confusion.

It depends what you mean by contractual and I very, very, very strongly recommend that you go back to the beginning of the other thread on the subject and read from the very first post.

 

Please Westy, go and read it yourself before commenting any further. If you don't listen to anything else in this post then please at least acknowledge the following:

 

The contractrual rate of interest has nothing to do with the interest they have already taken from you

The contractual rate is what you are charging your bank for having borrowed your money.

So if you have paid £100 in charges + £29 interest, the bank has effectively borrowed £129 from you.

You will then claim the return of your £129 plus, say, 16.5% (or whatever their interest rate is) on the whole sum that they have borrowed from you. Because their charges are unlawful, and you have not authorised their seizure of your money, you may be justified in charging interest at the unauthorised rate - say, 29%.

 

This is from the guy who started the CAG site. The site you are reading now. It is on page 2 of the thread you have told me to go and read. It has already been pointed out to you once. If you don't believe it when I say it, then please believe it when he does.

 

When you refer to debit interest (the interest the bank has taken from us) as Contractual interest it causes confusion. Its one of the main reasons why the other thread is hard to understand.

 

When you tell people you have won your claim which included contractual interest, it is misleading them because your understanding of contractual interest is not the same as the vast majority of people on this site. As I understand it, you won your claim for charges + debit interest. Yes your debit interest may of been at the "contractual rate", but its not the contractual interest that everyone else is referring to, its debit interest. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that this may be confusing people you give advice to.

 

I'm sorry for repeating previous threads, but for the sake of people reading this that may be confused its important the definition is understood. This is what I posted on the other thread (if anyone knows of a better definition please post it, I'm only using this one because I know where it is):

 

My understanding is that we are arguably entitled to claim:

 

1) Our charges

 

2) Debit interest we have been charged on those charges

 

3) Interest on the whole amount either at Contractual rate (Authorised or Unauthorised) OR Statutory rate (8%) when at court

 

If I am getting this horribly wrong then please everyone speak up.

 

If anyones interested in the thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/18313-why-no-one-claiming-71.html

 

If, by contractual, you mean attempting to double-charge interest you may say you're not greedy, and I will accept your word - but it looks a lot like you are. Either that, or something else. I find it absolutely astonishing that you're talking about being 'happy to accept' statutory interest - only statutory interest - on the one hand, and then looking for something over 50% (the two interest rates combined and compounded) on the other.

 

This is a separate issue and the one we should be talking about. Yes I would be happy to accept charges including the debit interest they had taken, plus the statutory rate of interest. In court this is the most likely outcome is it not? Why do you think this is greedy?

 

They have taken money from you (charges plus debit interest). Why is it that sometimes you agree you're entitled to interest on top of what they've taken and sometimes you don't? You're not being consistent.

 

Absolutely correct but can you point me in the direction of a savings account anywhere on the planet where you would have earned 29% interest rate, without suffering catastrophic loss of capital value due to hyperinflation? 29% is not your loss of benefit and bears absolutely no relation to it.

 

Thats why I said I personally would be happy to accept 8% statutory interest. Unfortunately (as I said) there is no "pre-court" way to claim interest on top of what they have taken - Apart from contractual interest. I hope this is clear now.

 

On the other hand, a lot of people HAVE won with a claim based on charges, interest levied thereon, and statutory interest in addition.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but weren't you just calling this greedy? i.e interest added on interest.

 

My advice to anyone considering the ludicrous 'contractual interest plus contractual interest' approach is to tear your eyes away from the wonderful, multi-digit sum the double-interest rings up, calm down and return to the world of reality.

 

If claimants drift into the world of fantasy, where pink ponies play in the meadows with gambolling lambs, castles are made of barley sugar and judges smile as they award poorly-prepared claims huge doubled-up interest rate returns, then they will be disappointed.

 

Now you're just being ridiculous, which helps no one. You seem to find it incredibly hard to separate the interest they have charged you with the interest you are charging them. They are different things (which is why for clarity you should refer to them with different names). There is no "doubling up", you are charging them interest on what they have taken illegally. Thats it. Claiming contractual is no different to claiming statutory in this respect, apart from the rate used.

 

It is unfair and confusing to newcomers to drag this pointless, circular discussion onto yet another thread. And it's severely misleading to posit your post as if it was your first contribution to this kind of discussion. You have already made your mind up, you have made that clear. You want to try something new, esoteric and - as you say - built on shaky ground, you go right ahead. Come back and tell us how you got on.

 

I think I've covered this above.

 

I apologise for taking this slightly off topic and if I seem argumentative, but please go and read the other thread and decide for yourselves if you need to. I'm only responding because I believe its causing more and more confusion the longer it gets left unchecked.

 

Westy if you want to discuss this further please PM me or start a new thread and point me to it and I would be happy to talk further. I don't want to pollute this thread any more.

[Guest bong]

justjon, I don't think there is any need for another new thread. this is all relevant and on topic, as far as I can see. the thread was originally called contractual confusion compounded daily and was changed as we know. This is exactly the confusion that we need to discuss.

 

I was going to make a post along the lines of yours in response to westy anyway and what I was going to say was that westy seems to think that asking for interest on the claim is greedy. It's not a double layer of interest, the debit interest was just an unlawful debit like the charges, and should be returned with interest as the bank has had the use of this money and we have not.

[natwesttookmymoney]

JustJon

 

I will reply asap but am in the middle of urgent work. In the meantime, check out the most recent replies to my post on the other thread if you're puzzled as to the strength of my response, some of the Mods' signatures (I recommend Vampiress especially) and the 'won with contractual interest' threads in the successes forum.

 

Bong, I agree entirely with your first paragraph.

 

W

[LEECHTHEBREACH]

Originally Posted by natwesttookmymoney

My advice to anyone considering the ludicrous 'contractual interest plus contractual interest' approach is to tear your eyes away from the wonderful, multi-digit sum the double-interest rings up, calm down and return to the world of reality.

 

If claimants drift into the world of fantasy, where pink ponies play in the meadows with gambolling lambs, castles are made of barley sugar and judges smile as they award poorly-prepared claims huge doubled-up interest rate returns, then they will be disappointed.

I have never read on this site something so ridiculous as this staement.

There have been scores of people who have claimed and won compounded contractual interest including myself (donations shortly).

Any CAG member who is not claiming interest this way is short changing themselves in a big way.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Leechthebreech:

 

I quote from your Barclays thread:

 

i have charged Barclays in interest exactly what they charged me 0.79% per month,per item times the amount of months,it surely does bump the claim up.

 

I can't find any other claims you've made. Is that what you claimed back and won from Barclays?

 

Check back on my original post that included the fantasy land description and read the whole context, if you haven't already.

 

W

[maxine989]

Blimey Westy... it looks like you have had your work cut out explaining stuff today.

 

I think it basically comes down to the fact that people are clicking on this thread and instead of reading the whole thread to inform themselves, they are scrolling to the end and asking the same questions... which you said... we have thrashed about a million times over the past few weeks.

 

Good on ya for explaining yourself and the issues raised extremly well and keeping your cool.