Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

[crashbandicoot]

...thought I'd post in here to get some comments from you all. Am not completely up to date with what's happening on CI claims, so bear with me.

I successfully claimed CI on all my claims against Halifax, Barclays & Barclaycard, and since the wins, I've clocked up many more charges with Halifax.

Two questions (one of which I've asked a number of times, but keep forgetting the answer to lol)

1) Should I claim CI this time?

2) Should I start the claim now, or wait till this whole OFT saga is over?

Thanks for any comments in advance...

Crash

[Amy]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

1) Should I claim CI this time? I would only do it on credit cards.

2) Should I start the claim now, or wait till this whole OFT saga is over? Now.

Thanks for any comments in advance... and you're welcome xx

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Top points for speed Amy

[enaid]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

And a ditto to Amy's post from me :amen:

[Paule]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

1) Should I claim CI this time?
If you are up to speed on the arguements, and you have previously claimed CI against the same bank, I would do CI

2) Should I start the claim now, or wait till this whole OFT saga is over?
You may as well get it in the system, cos once the gates are opened, the courts will be booked up solid for a while

PKea

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Hmmmm...lol

[stevokenevo]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

...

1) Should I claim CI this time? I believe the arguments have changed after a loss by a claimant, the old mutuality and reciprocity angle is out the window, i believe it is the sempra case that is used now.

2) Should I start the claim now, or wait till this whole OFT saga is over? get your claim in asap ;-)

Thanks for any comments in advance... cant think of anything funny to add strangely?

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Crash, you will need to use Sempra as CI is now doable in common law claims.

Here is my final LBA to Barclaycard with part credit to Bel from CCS:

Barclays Bank PLC
Trading as Barclaycard
1 Churchill Place,
London
E145HP

5th February 2008

Final Notice Letter Before Action

Your Reference: 100*****

Dear Carol Jones,


I am writing in response to your letter of 23rd March 2007. I must admit that I have been very busy so this case has been on the back burners for some time now, however I do not consider this matter closed as you may have done by now. I am working to my timescales and not yours.

I would draw your attention one final time to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. Your Terms & Conditions also state: “16.3 We will charge you for any losses or costs we have to pay if you break this agreement. We will continue to charge interest on any late payments both before and after any court judgment.”, this clearly states (and I have a copy of this) a liquidated damage clause. I am not interested in the fact that you may now have changed the wording of your current Terms & Conditions to try and cloak or veil these penalties as service charges as this is not in any way relevant to my claim with you.

It is inconceivable that a large organisation such as yourselves with a dedicated legal team would be unaware that the charges which you were able to levy on your customer’s accounts due to the trust reposed in your organisation were not representative of your liquidated damages for the breach of any account terms or conditions but rather, were punitive in nature which is contrary to common law.

As an ordinary consumer I had no way of knowing that your charges were unlawful until the publication of the OFT report in April 2006. I therefore contend that you have concealed the nature of your unlawful charges for many years and continue to do so despite the report’s findings. You have been able to do so because of the imbalance of power which is inherent in your dealings with consumers and the relationship of trust which this engenders.

As mentioned in your letter of 23rd March 2007 you state, “we believe it is fair when customers’ break the terms of their agreement with us, we recover the costs”. If this again does not admit that your charges are for breach of contract and therefore should be representative of your true costs incurred as a result of any account breaches then I don’t know what does.

To merely state that your charges are fair and transparent is insufficient.

I contend that you have failed in your duty to me as a customer and allowed a conflict of interest to develop between the honest and diligent execution of your duties which you owe to me and your desire to make a profit from me.

It is unconscionable that you should be in a position to unjustly enrich yourself by the re-lending of unlawful funds at commercial rates and I therefore require the return of the penalty charges at a compound interest rate of 27.9% which is your current APR rate. I believe that this is a rate which is fair to both parties under the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and more recently the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as it is representative of the same rate which you reserve for yourselves in similar circumstances. In addition to this under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, there is, in law, an Implied Term that the fee for a service should be reasonable.

I must make you aware of a recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Anor [2007] UKHL 34 which has been published, which establishes a new ground for the awarding of compound interest at common law. The House held by a majority that compound interest is now recoverable at common law in restitutionary claims for money paid under a mistake. Lord Hope of Craighead stated in his majority judgment; “The time has come to recognise that the court has jurisdiction at common law to award compound interest where the claimant seeks a restitutionary remedy for the time value of money paid under a mistake.”

It is therefore no longer necessary for the claimant to invoke the equitable jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence and breach of a trust or fiduciary relationship between it and Barclays trading as Barclaycard in order that the court may be open to grant a restitutionary remedy of compound interest. This new authority provides that in cases such as the present compound interest is available at common law as a matter of right rather than being a discretionary equitable principle.

I calculate that you have taken £620 in unlawful penalties and further, I also claim interest at a compounded rate of 27.9% APR as set out in the attached list of charges. I believe this rate to be justified under the Sempra Metals, House of Lords ruling. Therefore, the total amount owed as of today’s date is £2609.40, please see the attached schedule of claim for charges.

I require repayment in full of this money. If you do not comply fully within 7 days then I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount. For the avoidance of any and all doubt I hereby state categorically that contractual interest is payable in full, prior to litigation should litigation prove necessary. Any settlement figure which is offered prior to or during litigation which is devoid of the contractual interest element will be made in the certain knowledge that it will be rejected.

Likewise, any offers made prior to or during litigation which offers settlement with interest at the statutory rate of 8% will also be made in the sure and certain knowledge of rejection as this rate would still allow for your unjust enrichment.

In addition the rate of 8% is only awarded in the absence of any other equitable solution which is not the case in this instance. Therefore, offers of this nature, if made, will not be considered by me, to be genuine and reasonable offers of settlement.

I hope that you feel able to give my correspondence your individual attention rather than a generic reply which will only further diminish my respect for your organisation and your methods for making profits.

I trust this clarifies my position fully.

Regards,

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Super stuff Tanz, I can see I will be pestering you all a fair bit more on this

Crash

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Pester away mate, if I can help I will.

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Tanz, would you happen to have a prelim somewhere?

Thanks,

Crash

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

My prelim was pretty basic in comparion to the LBA. I might be able to locate a good one for you though.

If not just simplify some of the LBA content and add in figures including interest at whatever the rate you are using is. Hint that you are going claim CI but don't go into to much detail save sempra for later in the LBA.

I'll have a did.

Tanz

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Fab, please let me know if you manage to find something Tanz.

Cheers hun,

Crash

[Sweetrevenge]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Can I just say, thank god I saw this thread and didn't go ahead with the old CI POC to RBS. :faint:

Also what a fab LBA:first:, will be cuttin' n' pastin' later I'm sure.

[crashbandicoot]

Re: Tis a bit quiet in here, so....

Ok I keep leaving this on the back-boiler and then remember I need to get a move on...charges have clocked up to over £2k now and getting a bit fed-up with it all.

Tanz, can I give you a nudge for that prelim if you have one somewhere? If not, I will try and knock one up as per the ideas you gave me in the previous post.

Thanks all,

Crash