Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Tuttsi,

Here are the bones of what you need to incorporate into a reply letter regarding ststaute of limitations ( the six year scenario )

You may consider that since some of the charges were levied more than six years ago, part my claim may be time barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and you might want to rely on this to dismiss my claim. However, please be advised that should we not reach an agreement over repayment, I will proceed with the claim under either:

s.32 (1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that I could not reasonably have discovered the your deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to my right of action before the report of the OFT was published in April 2006, or alternatively,

s.32 (1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the payments were conceded on the mistaken belief that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties and that I could not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the OFT report was published.

Regards Budgie

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

And yes a compound interest claim on these charges, going back this far would probably equate to £67k when using an interest rate of 29.8%.

I see no reason to be suspicious or direspectful of this sort of figure.

Bear in mind that this is the extent to which Halifax have been unjustly enriched by being able to lend out over and over again the money they have unlawfully taken from Tuttsi.

It's a simple matter of mathematics !!!!!

Budgie

[TUTTSI]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Tuttsi,

Here are the bones of what you need to incorporate into a reply letter regarding ststaute of limitations ( the six year scenario )

You may consider that since some of the charges were levied more than six years ago, part my claim may be time barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and you might want to rely on this to dismiss my claim. However, please be advised that should we not reach an agreement over repayment, I will proceed with the claim under either:

s.32 (1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that I could not reasonably have discovered the your deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to my right of action before the report of the OFT was published in April 2006, or alternatively,

s.32 (1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the payments were conceded on the mistaken belief that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties and that I could not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the OFT report was published.

Regards Budgie

I like the above paragraphs thanks Budgie. Out of interest can they be used together on a POC!! or does it have to be one or other.

What do you think is the best way to tackle the £28 offer!!!! for hardship, as this is 100% of one charge without interest on the last charge before the statute of limatations came in. Do I refuse their kind offer! and ask for the balance on a 100% basis on the charges with or without the interest!!

At least they have confirmed that we are genuine hardship.

xxx

[Curlyben]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Tuttsi, this might give you some ideas.
I've been collecting information for my 10 year LTSB case.

XX. In so far as the charges relate to the period before xx/xx/xxxx, the Claimant seeks to rely upon s.32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980. The Claimant paid the charges in the belief that they reflected the true cost of administering the contractual breaches. The Claimant has now discovered, following revelations relating to a similar organisation, that the true costs are much lower and that the belief held by Claimant was in fact mistaken.

XX. It is thus submitted that in accordance with s32(1)(c) and s.32(2) that the time period for the purposes of the Limitation Act does not begin to run until the Claimant’s reasonable discovery. This was the 21st March 2007 when the revelations were made public.

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
And this as well for CI

XX. The Claimant seeks restitution of the time value of the wrongfully debited sums by way of an award of compound interest calculated at the banks standard overdraft borrowing rate of 15.87%.


XX. The Claimant contends that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to recovery of the wrongfully debited and fees and a compensatory award of simple interest at the statutory rate. The bank has been in wrongful possession of the Claimant’s funds for a considerable period of time and as a lending institution has earned profit by way of interest by re-lending those funds at its commercially compounded rates. Conversely, the Claimant having been denied use of its funds in the banks wrongful possession was forced to replace those funds by lending from the bank by way of overdraft at its commercially compounded rates. Thus an award of compound interest is necessary to provide full restitution and a just remedy.

XX. The Claimant in its submissions will rely on the recent case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Anor [2007] UKHL 34 where the House of Lords held that compound interest is available at common law where the Claimant seeks a restitutionary remedy for the time value of money paid under a mistake.

[Amy]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Thats what it comes to on the spreadie!

But not going to claim this amount! if I were to claim this you could be sure that they would send the best legal team against me. I am sticking to stat interest 8% and just need to send them a further letter LBA and just need help with this as i do not want to accept £28 now.

xxx

I think that's the right thing to do Tutts.

[Guest]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

And yes a compound interest claim on these charges, going back this far would probably equate to £67k when using an interest rate of 29.8%.

I see no reason to be suspicious or direspectful of this sort of figure.

Bear in mind that this is the extent to which Halifax have been unjustly enriched by being able to lend out over and over again the money they have unlawfully taken from Tuttsi.

It's a simple matter of mathematics !!!!!

Budgie

This is far from the whole story. Notwithstanding the fact that Tuttsi is not intending to claim this sum, there is case law that clearly shows that, even if the claimant could prove unjust enrichment (which has yet to be shown) that the claimant is not entitled to all the gains made by the defendant. (Boardman v Phipps [1967]) Not only that, Halifax could very easily show that they very rarely "lend" at 29.8% or anything remotely like that figure. Were that the case, they would not in the predicament they find themselves in right now.

I think this claim is interesting because it combines The Limitation Act 1980 and hardship and I am keen to see how Halifax deal with this now.

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Tuttsi had already decided, prior to writing her initail letter to the Halifax, that she wasn't going to pursue a compound interest claim at this stage. If the Halifax decide not to settle on the basis of her letter ( or the new letter she is going to prepare and send following the Halifax reply then she still has the option of pursuing a compound interest claim anyway.

CurlyBen's comments and suggestions on limitation act are basically the same as mine. However CurleyBen's conclusion is better worded so I would suggest using that inyour letter Tuttsi.

Have a go at producing a draft reply and we can than all chip in and add bits if necessary.

I deffo think it's worth a try at responding to their letter and see if they will reconsider. If they decline then we can regroup and discuss the best way forward.

Rgds Budgie

[Guest]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Celestine already posted, at post #13 on this thread, two paragraphs from a PoC that she had used which resulted in the recovery of all pre 6 year charges.

It seems that we are going round in circles, as that was written back in January.

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

This is far from the whole story. Notwithstanding the fact that Tuttsi is not intending to claim this sum, there is case law that clearly shows that, even if the claimant could prove unjust enrichment (which has yet to be shown) that the claimant is not entitled to all the gains made by the defendant. (Boardman v Phipps [1967]) Not only that, Halifax could very easily show that they very rarely "lend" at 29.8% or anything remotely like that figure. Were that the case, they would not in the predicament they find themselves in right now.

I think this claim is interesting because it combines The Limitation Act 1980 and hardship and I am keen to see how Halifax deal with this now.

The Claimant does not have to prove the actual amount of any unjust enrichment, only that a suitable vehicle exists for the Defendant to become unjustly enriched. It then becomes the Defendant's responsibility to prove that they have not been unjustly enriched to the extent argued by the Claimant or at all. Obviously if that can be proved then the Claimant's case would either fail ( as far as the unjust enrchment argument is concerned ) or the Court would accept the Defendant's argument regarding the lower extent of any unjust enrichment and might make a correspondingly lower award to the Claimant.

Bear in mind that the current state of English Law in relation to interest is in turmoil owing to the recent developments of jurisprudence in this area of law as evidenced in Sempra Vs Inland Revenue. Most of the old preconceived ideas and case law regarding payment of interest as damages, in equity or in restitution have effectivly been rewritten following this case. However very few claims if any have yet been judged where these new arguments have been used so it remains to be seen how such a claim might progress.

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to this claim ( at this point ) because Tuttsi is not arguing for compound interest.

Budgie

It is blatantly obvious that Halifax have been unjustly enriched by their actions and 29.8% compound interest is as good as any a rate for the Claimant to use.
29.8% is the standard rate that Halifax apply to unauthroised overdrafts so is obvioulsy a rate that Halifax do use in their normal day to day business.

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Celestine already posted, at post #13 on this thread, two paragraphs from a PoC that she had used which resulted in the recovery of all pre 6 year charges.

It seems that we are going round in circles, as that was written back in January.

Yep agreed.

Tuttsi, you have loads of material to use in your response to Halifax.

Rgds Budgie

[TUTTSI]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Thanks Cet and Bud,

My head is spinning with all the argument going backwards and forwards.

Can I ask what post13 written by Cel has anything to do with my present hardship claim. Because that was for the C1 interest. I had already decided not to go this route and this has been voiced on this thread many times.

But from what I believe Cet is getting at, is that he now thinks it would be interesting to achiecve C1 interest with the hardship - is that correct?

By the way this is an except from Cets earlier post on this thread:
It might be nice to think that you could sue them for £50,000 and win, but that is, in my view, wishful thinking and the risks far outweigh any benefits. If they chose too, Halifax could tie you up in litigation for years.

So you see I am totally confused. Has Cet changed his mind because of the circumstances. I do not want to be tied into litigation for many years, although it may well be with the OFT test case.

a very confussed Tuttsi xxxxx

[Guest]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Post #13 deals exclusively with The Limitation Act 1980 and how you might present your claim in order to defeat this. It has nothing to do with claiming any form of compound interest. My position remains unchanged on that issue.

I believe that your claim will be interesting because it must be heard, if you qualify under the hardship criterion and that is going to present Halifax and the court with an interesting dilemma.

[Guest]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

It is blatantly obvious that Halifax have been unjustly enriched by their actions and 29.8% compound interest is as good as any a rate for the Claimant to use. 29.8% is the standard rate that Halifax apply to unauthroised overdrafts so is obvioulsy a rate that Halifax do use in their normal day to day business.

Blatantly obvious or not, as I have stated above, restitution does not necessarily mean recovery of all gains made by the Defendant. Certain other factors are relevant to the measure of recovery. Where the Defendant made a substantial contribution, to which the Claimant was not entitled, it is conceivable that the Claimant will only recover the value of that which was taken from him or that profits will be apportioned or that the defendant will receive quantum meruit for his contribution (Boardman v Phipps [1967].) Halifax will have made profit with or without the charges taken from Tuttsi and the actual money they did take will have made little or no difference to their overall profit. Furthermore, they can show with sufficient clarity for the court, that they lend very little of their money at 29.8%.

I think we need to concentrate on The Limitation Act 1980 and the hardship element here and if you wish to discuss compound interest, this thread is not the place to do it, since Tuttsi has already stated that she is not going to claim it.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

It will be interesting now because halifax have offered 100% of one charge £28 - now if I can get them to accept the balance going back 18 years does that mean now they have made an offer they will be expected do the balance of the claim at 100%.

They also have not included any interest with their offer, I suppose it is because it is not yet in court.

[Guest]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Sadly no, because the offer has been made without admission of liability and as a goodwill gesture.

You are going to have to argue the limitation issue with them.