sainsburys bank puzzle

Zedicus

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

If they do pay you the interest as well, it is a bonus, so take the money and run.

If that's satisfactory, fine.

However, some people will doubtless have been using CC debt that was in part caused by the unlawful charges so they would probably want to offset some of the CC interest by getting statutory interest on what the bank took from the illegally.

I think they need an opinion from a qualified lawyer rather than relying on well meaning amateurs who don't really understand the more complex issues.

Beate

I am sure Martin Lewis will be pleased to know that you call him a well meaning amateur. I for one will continue quoting his advice to people that you are only legally entitled to ask for interest once you file a court claim. If you cannot accept that you cannot award yourself interest before it goes to court, by all means, get an opinion from someone who is "legally qualified".

Moglex

Beate wrote: »

I am sure Martin Lewis will be pleased to know that you call him a well meaning amateur. I for one will continue quoting his advice to people that you are only legally entitled to ask for interest once you file a court claim. If you cannot accept that you cannot award yourself interest before it goes to court, by all means, get an opinion from someone who is "legally qualified".

I fear you are confusing yourself.

You see, you are going a stage further than Martin. He does not actually mention what to do if the bank make you an offer without the interest. You, on the other hand have decided that you must accept the offer.

BTW, You cannot actually award yourself anything. You can ask for what you like, and the bank can offer what it likes. Only a court can make an award.

What I would ask you to stop doing is dogmatically stating you cannot get interest if the bank offer payment without interest just because you infer that from Martin's article, and leave the matter for someone who is qualified.


Note, that I'm not saying you are wrong. Merely that unless you are legally qualified to make the statements you are making, people would be better to wait for advice from a properly qualified source.

nickmack

Moglex wrote: »

You see, you are going a stage further than Martin. He does not actually mention what to do if the bank make you an offer without the interest. You, on the other hand have decided that you must accept the offer.

I think Rex's post answers this:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=4285857&postcount=10

Zedicus

Beate wrote: »

I am sure Martin Lewis will be pleased to know that you call him a well meaning amateur. I for one will continue quoting his advice to people that you are only legally entitled to ask for interest once you file a court claim.

But that is nonsense.

What law prevents you from asking for interest?

You fall into a trap that many amateurs fall into when giving legal advice. You subtley change or expand on the source from which you gained your knowledge.

Martin is silent on the repurcussions of the bank offering you a sum that excludes interest and yet earlier you made a definite statement that you MUST accept such an offer.

Thus you have taken it upon yourself to tell people they must do something on the basis of an article (Martin's) which says no such thing.

This is what makes getting intricate legal advice from unqualifed folk a fool's game.

Moglex

nickmack wrote: »

I think Rex's post answers this:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=4285857&postcount=10

I've listend to Martin's video guide and read his article, but, again, Rex_Mundi goes further than Martin and out of nowhere comes up with the advice that you must accept.

Again, I'm not saying that he's wrong - I'm not qualified either.

All I'm saying is that if he's correct the rules are anomalous - and there's no doubt that there are occasions when the laws of the land are anomalous.

I would just like to see some advice from a properly qualified source. (I include Martin's advice in that since I'm sure he himself gets advice from a competant source).

nickmack

Zedicus wrote: »

Martin is silent on the repurcussions of the bank offering you a sum that excludes interest and yet earlier you made a definite statement that you MUST accept such an offer.

In all likelyhood, if you choose not to accept a full offer (minus interest under section 69) and it goes to court, the judge will take a dim view. There's a good chance your claim would be struck out completely.

Stephen_Leak

Zedicus wrote: »

But that is nonsense.

What law prevents you from asking for interest?

No law prevents you from asking. But you cannot demand it as a legal right.

In a way, it is sort of like the position the banks are in, but the other way around. You can claim back the charge (ie. your costs), but you cannot add anything on top as a "penalty", like interest. Only a court can legally do that.

I know I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a simple man trying my best to help others where I can. If you did get a reply from a lawyer, though, the chances are that neither of us would be able to understand it!

Zedicus

nickmack wrote: »

In all likelyhood, if you choose not to accept a full offer (minus interest under section 69) and it goes to court, the judge will take a dim view. There's a good chance your claim would be struck out completely.

So, are YOU legally qualified?

Can you state a case to prove that assertion?

The reason I'm very dubious about this, apart from the bizarre implication that you ARE entitled to interest but only if the case comes to court (where is the logic in that?), is that people are suceeding in making claims for the interest, and if you were correct, the banks could avoid those interest payments simply by making a last minute offer of the amount less interest.

We know that the banks HATE paying out, so if you are correct, they would seem to be habitually paying out money where they could easily avoid doing so.

Zedicus

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

No law prevents you from asking. But you cannot demand it as a legal right.

I can see that, but then the banks would have us believe that we have no legal right to have the charges returned.

If you did get a reply from a lawyer, though, the chances are that neither of us would be able to understand it!

LOL, that's probably true.

The only reason I keep questioning this is because Martin doesn't actually explicitly state it and it is so illogical.

Also, if it is true, why, as I ask above, would the banks pay out claims with interest when they could avoid doing so by making an offer without interest just before the case comes to court?

I'll admit I would not be staggered to find it is true. Weirer things are.