Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

[TANZARELLI]

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.

I agree with you on that point Cetelco. Will they ignore the limitations angle and pay up or argue it causing financial difficulty.

Tutts is the whole claim outside of limitation or just part of it. If some is inside then they may just agree to pay part or all of that element and not other charges outside of limitation.

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

I cannot see anywhere in there letter which states it is made as a gesture of goodwill. They only state without admission of liability. Does that make a difference!!!

xx

No Tuttsi, LOL

However, you can always add a paragraph about it in the response letter if you like, it won't do any harm and / or we can build it into the POC for any resulting court claim. They will most likley comeback with a "without liability" comment in respect of their initial offer but hey, in for a penny in for a pound.

Have you managed to have a go at drafting out a response letter. I am around tomorrow morning if you need some assistance.

Budgie

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

No Cetelco is correct.

The initial offer has been made without liability and as a gesture of goodwill.

I cannot see anywhere in there letter which states it is made as a gesture of goodwill. They only state without admission of liability. Does that make a difference!!!

xx

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

I fully understand that I have to argue the limitation issue with them.... my question was once they agree to the limitations 6-18 years of my claim whether with Halifax directly or through the courts I should get 100% of my total claim on charges based on the offer they have already made and committed too.

xx

No Cetelco is correct.

The initial offer has been made without liability and as a gesture of goodwill.

[Amethyst]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Its not binding on them in any way ref any charges other than this one.

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.

I fully understand that I have to argue the limitation issue with them.... my question was once they agree to the limitations 6-18 years of my claim whether with Halifax directly or through the courts I should get 100% of my total claim on charges based on the offer they have already made and committed too.

xx

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

It wasn't actually me who started the present discussion on this thread regarding Compound interest. I was merely responding to the comments that were made regarding the Compound interest version of her claim being £67k and it developed on from there.

I of course agree that this thread is not the place to get into a discussion regarding Compound Interest, especially as Tuttsi isn't trying for it at present.

We had already sorted that situation out much earlier in the thread anyway. I will have a look at Boardman V Phipps over the weekend.

Tuttsi and i were chatting earlier in quick chat about what she should do in response to the Halifax letter and I had already suggested that she write a letter back presenting her arguments on the limitation act ( she has lots of material now to include in her response letter ) and attempt to get Halifax to re consider their initial offer. If this fails then of course Tuttsi should progress this into a County Court claim. Whether that claim is filed with compound interest or not is up to Tuttsi !!!

......... and yes I totally agree with you that a county court claim would be very difficult for Halifax and the Court especially as Halifax have already agreed that Tuttsi is in a financial hardship situation, combined with the limitation act arguments it would make for a very interesting court claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.