Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

As Niddy says, penalty charge reclaims are now difficult, to say the least, since the Supreme Court ruling - so it is best to think in terms of court procedure from the outset, even if the court is the last resort. The Foster-Burnell case may become caselaw eventually, but as it stands, it is simply a one-off County Court judgement. Credit card statements usually show the interest rate(s) used, but current account statements may not do. I'm not sure what rules or regulations cover this, but it may be the Consumer Credit Act in the case of credit cards, whilst bank current account overdrafts may not be covered by the CCA - banks tend to set out their interest rates in their account T&C's.

If it is not clear what rate(s) of interest are being charged, then it may be better to:
1. check what the trigger level is for overdraft interest to be charged - this may simply be zero, but there is often an interest-free overdraft level set;
2. check how much of the overdrawn balance attracts interest;
3. check how much the accrued charges & interest are each month;
4. calculate what portion of the interest charged is attributable to 3 above.

I'll post a spready to do this, as well as one that calculates directly from the actual interest rate - they are essentially the same as the credit card PPI spreadies I have posted here:

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...Redress-Offers

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

As Niddy says, penalty charge reclaims are now difficult, to say the least, since the Supreme Court ruling - so it is best to think in terms of court procedure from the outset, even if the court is the last resort. The Foster-Burnell case may become caselaw eventually, but as it stands, it is simply a one-off County Court judgement. Credit card statements usually show the interest rate(s) used, but current account statements may not do. I'm not sure what rules or regulations cover this, but it may be the Consumer Credit Act in the case of credit cards, whilst bank current account overdrafts may not be covered by the CCA - banks tend to set out their interest rates in their account T&C's.

If it is not clear what rate(s) of interest are being charged, then it may be better to:
1. check what the trigger level is for overdraft interest to be charged - this may simply be zero, but there is often an interest-free overdraft level set;
2. check how much of the overdrawn balance attracts interest;
3. check how much the accrued charges & interest are each month;
4. calculate what portion of the interest charged is attributable to 3 above.

I'll post a spready to do this, as well as one that calculates directly from the actual interest rate - they are essentially the same as the credit card PPI spreadies I have posted here.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Ok - am home now so will check in a few mins.

EDIT: Nope - there is no mention of any interest rate anywhere - not on any of the pages which have the month's charge summary at the bottom, nor on the actual transactions.

These are "duplicate" statements and are not printed on headed paper like the originals - but they look identical to me, just printed on plain paper instead! Want me to email you an example NID?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Yep it should have the monthly rate.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Glanced at statements - and the couple of pages I did look at that had charges listed (in a summary at the bottom of page) had no mention of any interest rates - just the total interest for that period as a single figure.. should the rate be on there?

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Fully aware court is a last resort, and a long way off if it did lead to that.. just curious

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

As I said earlier, I'm really just a figures man, so I'll bow to Niddy's advice as regards sending a Prelim before we have the claim quantum set in concrete. If Niddy has got some updated templates ready to send, then I'm all for using those. Tempus Fugit - it's been a while...!!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

And...just to wind Niddy up a bit....

My own preference is to send the informal 'Prelim' letter as the first move, and then to concentrate on getting the figures right while that is being digested. IMO, even the 'LBA' and the FOS claim can be sent before the figures are finalised. I think we only need to have the figures sorted by the time we get a redress offer - so that we can evaluate it in a timely fashion.

It won't wind me up mate. Far from it; however why not ask Di30 how different her outcome was when I got involved

Point I'm making is go in strong and use the new templates I'll post up next week. Rush in and you'll likely balls it up. This is already proven in the OFT v Banks (loss) at Supreme Court as being a dead duck. The latest county court non binding judgment will likely be ignored by judges based on the Supreme Court judgment of 2009.

Just take it slow and get your facts straight (figures etc) and we'll hopefully help guide you to some form of successful outcome. Final point, an LBA needs to be created by a legal professional nowadays what with POC/PAP's etc. It's not worth ballsing any part of it up by rushing. It's a losing battle lets not forget. The Supreme Court wins. Hands down. It's the primary case law judges will hide behind.

So sending ANYTHING right now, IMO is bonkers.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

I also have a question for anybody who feels able to answer.. if Durkin was awarded £8,000 for the impact of a term of a default - which in Scotland is 5 years - can you break it down into £1,600 a year and actually request £9,600 in England and Wales to cover the extra year?

no. Simply.

Stop thinking court. That's a LAST resort based on a non binding court case. Remember that

You cannot claim any such damages from the bank as you're reclaiming charges. As to the lawfulness of them I guess only a judge can decide so don't be daft here. Just ask for a refund and let's see what they have to say eh?

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

LOL - I reckon you have got a good handle on this, Shad !!! Write your own letters by all means - but continue to do what you are doing, and check out what us forum nutters have to say, first. Apart from engaging a solicitor, it's a way of arriving at an 'informed decision' on this stuff.

Unless Niddy or anyone suggests otherwise, I'm all in favour of sending them a Prelim. You can cover all your accounts/claims within this, as it is informal. Meanwhile, I'll rummage in my virtual 'loft' for that penalty charge spready, and post it up ASAP.

On that subject, I must comment on earlier posts regarding O/D interest rates. If you can apply these rates directly to the spready that I intend to post, then please do so. Additionally - where a higher 'Unauthorised O/D' rate was applied, then this may perhaps be reclaimed. We may need to work on this.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Hahahaha.. probably not anything to do with that then! This is why I have learned to never write my own letters! :P

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Yes, I have such vague recollections - as if from a previous life - where such words as 'mutuality' and 'reciprocity' were bandied about, Shad. This was in the days when we were reclaiming 'Contractual Interest' instead of 'Statutory Interest' - where we effectively charged the lenders the same rate of interest that they had charged us. This ran for a while, but eventually became limited to business accounts because the lenders successfully claimed that their overheads were greater than those of us plebs - thus justifying their rates. If any of your accounts are/were business accounts, then this may still apply.

BUT - I would like to see an example of bank-to-bank lending that was based upon a rate of 4% SIMPLE interest. They just don't use simple interest - except when paying out to their victims/customers !!! I agree that 'mitigation' has to be applied to these claims, but where the claimant is the victim, then I believe that we should be looking at what the claimant would have had to pay in order to borrow that money - not the lender. That would most certainly have been a helluva lot more than 4% - and deffo not simple interest !!!

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

As for the 8% / 4% thing - I vaguely recall reading something on the topic of compound interest / interest in restitution which stated the rate needs to be based on the nominal rate at which the banks creditor could have borrowed (i.e. bank to bank lending) the sum of money in question at the time the money claimed was in their posession - or something to that effect.

I may have totally mis-interpeted something in this and be totally mistaken, but I am sure it was something along those lines... so perhaps this has something to do with it?

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Ah, good point - has been a while since I read it - I'll take a closer look at the wording when I have a few mins

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

First paragraph on page 30:

"I will also allow interest on that sum at the rate of 4%..."

Aah, thanks, Shad - missed it. I'm intrigued by the fact that he didn't explain his reason for using 4%, which I would have thought necessary. I guess they could have appealed and gone for 8%, but it would hardly have been worth it. I think claiming 8% in the POC is still correct.

I also have a question for anybody who feels able to answer.. if Durkin was awarded £8,000 for the impact of a term of a default - which in Scotland is 5 years - can you break it down into £1,600 a year and actually request £9,600 in England and Wales to cover the extra year?

That makes sense to me, Shad. Basically, it is a claim - so you need to be able to show that the claim 'quantum' is reasonable - and your suggestion of £9,600 seems reasonable to me. However, I'm not sure if the £8,000 awarded to Durkin was based upon the actual effect that the default marker had upon his subsequent financial activities - and that may need to be considered. For example, if the default marker prevented him from obtaining a mortgage or from obtaining it at a lower rate - then that may be considered. But if there is no evidence to show that the marker had any effect, then that might decrease the damages.