Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Look through statements mate. The rate will be there (from SAR info).....

Regards calculations; hold fire. Bill will sort you a spreadsheet in a few days I'd hope. From that you fill it in using details off the statements in the SAR.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Cheers I didn't notice it on statements when I filled these spreadsheets in, but it may very well be there in plain sight and I just didn't notice because I wasn't actively looking for it!

Fingers crossed - it would be a very welcome finale to the whole Lloyds ordeal... would it be worth mentioning when we do send the prelim letter that my last dealings with LBG landed me in hospital (heart issues brought on by the stress of trying to deal with credit card) or would that just fall on deaf ears? They did give me compo I never cashed.. £300 partly for an admin error and the rest as means of an apology for that!!

[ken100464]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Bill

The judge awarded 4% interest not 8% from when they had their mucky mitts on the claimants money. Dont know if that will make any difference to your spreadsheet. Shadow paid these off in 2008 so there would be some of this element within any claim one would think.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

The judge awarded 4% - but isn't 8% the general standard set by the courts?

I will go with whatever is recommended by those better placed than I to do so - but would it not make sense to request/demand 8% - and only take less if it ever got to court and judgement was for less (or perhaps if an acceptable offer based on 4% was proposed prior to it getting as far as court) - or would it be better form to be true to the judgement I am predominantly relying on for my case?

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

Blimey - that's the first time I have ever seen a DJ award even less than the Statutory 8%.

That needs checking out, dunnit ? Well spotted, chaps !!!

[Bill-K]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

I'm not too good at understanding legalese (slight pun intended), but I can't see any mention in the full judgement of 4% compensatory interest being awarded. Can Ken or anybody point me to this, or post up anything to show this ? It would be interesting to see what the Particulars of the Claim were, as that would usually state 8% Statutory rate - and Tom Brennan would have claimed that, I'm sure.

As regards the spreadsheet workings, I intend to keep the compensatory interest rate at the statutory 8% unless this is revised by statute. To my tiny mind, it is perfectly reasonable to claim this at the statutory 8% rate, but if the DJ awards it at any other rate, then I would expect to see a reason for this given in the Full Judgement.

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.

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

First paragraph on page 30:

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

[Shadow2981]

Re: Shadow2981 vs. Lloyds Banking Group

I have also been reading Foster's letters etc... the £1000 credit file damages were his requested amount and not DJ's valuation - so in the event it led to it, compo request could be in the region of £8K per account based on the other case (Durkin was it?)

[Shadow2981]

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?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

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

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.