Getting My Money Back. HELP!

hollydays

I think he means statute not statue.

dzug1

sce wrote: »

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 which gives you the right to claim interest at 8% above base rate on outstanding debts.

mm yes - but is it a 'commercial' debt?

I have my doubts - it's a retail one surely.

sce

yes, sorry, statute not statue!

Dillypea - I suggest you first send a letter of claim to Homebase, setting out your case and the statute you rely upon; give them 14 days to respond, but make it clear you will commence legal proceedings absent a satisfactory response or full payment within that timescale.

Thereafter, if your claim is less than £5k (which it will be) you can make a claim through the small claims court - if you Google "money claims online" it will give you a link to the court's online claim guide

sce

dzug1 wrote: »

mm yes - but is it a 'commercial' debt?

I have my doubts - it's a retail one surely.

The OP was renovating 2 properties - i assume that was in the course of a business?

dillypea

Sce- yes it was and still is a business enterprise.

dillypea

Sce: Yes it was and still is a business enterprise. I will write a second letter today as suggested, if no adequate responce is recieved in 14 days, I will follow the small claims court process.
Many thanks again for your input.

pinkshoes

sce wrote: »

Dillypea - you need to look at The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 which gives you the right to claim interest at 8% above base rate on outstanding debts..

8%???????

Why on earth am I bothering with my ISA?? Think I'll just go and buy something expensive from a company then pay them twice and hope they forget about it for a few years!

phlogeston

sce wrote: »

both parties agree that one party owed a debt to the other for a period of 4 years.

I can find nothing in the OP's post that says that Homebase acknowledged a debt was owed for 4 years.

Nowhere does the OP state that he dealt on a business to business basis with Homebase. It appears that he was operating as business, but the nature of the payments indicate he held himself out to be a consumer to Homesbase.

The OP made an overpayment, all due to his own mistakes. No a critisism, just a statement of fact.

Once the OP's mistake was pointed out to the store they refunded immediately.

So in answer to the OP's question, no you do not have a leg to stand on.

sce

pinkshoes wrote: »

8%???????

Why on earth am I bothering with my ISA?? Think I'll just go and buy something expensive from a company then pay them twice and hope they forget about it for a few years!

It's meant to be a punishment for withholding payment of an established debt. The Act primarily exists to encourage payments on time rather than provide a remedy to an injured party.

sce

phlogeston wrote: »

I can find nothing in the OP's post that says that Homebase acknowledged a debt was owed for 4 years.

Nowhere does the OP state that he dealt on a business to business basis with Homebase. It appears that he was operating as business, but the nature of the payments indicate he held himself out to be a consumer to Homesbase.

The OP made an overpayment, all due to his own mistakes. No a critisism, just a statement of fact.

Once the OP's mistake was pointed out to the store they refunded immediately.

So in answer to the OP's question, no you do not have a leg to stand on.

The existence of a debt is a matter of fact rather than a matter of admission. On that basis, the debt existed as Homebase had no right to the money in the first place. The OP could argue unjust enrichment, but he/she would then be relying on the common law and would have to prove his/her loss.

Similarly, trading on a business basis is a matter of fact, if the OP's primary business is construction/renovation, then whether he made that fact aware to Homebase or not is irrelevent, unless it is a limited company and the OP bought it personally.

Even if that was the case, the OP can still claim interest as specific damages, albeit he/she would have to prove actual loss and that it was reasonably foreseeable.