Heard from your bank/court about your claim being restarted? Please let us know.

littleeff

Thank you very much for your advice, it is always very sound. I'm sure im not the only one who feels this is an endless, uphill battle and on their own. thanks again,

natweststaffmember

littleeff wrote: »

Thank you very much for your advice, it is always very sound. I'm sure im not the only one who feels this is an endless, uphill battle and on their own. thanks again,

At the moment, I think a lot of people who have been around for a long time feel that currently we are walking in a sea of syrup. Financial hardship stuff I can do with my eyes closed but the non hardship cases are more difficult and we are kinda back to the beginnings of the bank charges campaign. It's scary and it's frightening but at the same time it is exciting and thrilling. The battle is ongoing and we will see where it will end.

littleeff

....im not sure i gave the right/enough evidence to the FOS, hence my dissapointment as it was rejected. I did my best.

Yes I agree, when they can justify £150 a time i want to hear about it!!! (is there a record for a single bank charge?).

onlypaddy

Do you understand the argument? Run past me briefly how you will argue your case(a bit of practice so to speak)?

Erm...bit of an early test but I'll give it a shot...I must admit that I'm not legally minded at all. My arguments at the minute pretty much follow the new template on MSE, they were drafted by a QC after all...

The charges are unfair under s.140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and contrary to the requirement of good faith, having caused a significant imbalance in our relationship and a detriment to myself, and under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the following respects (save for, in the case of the latter, those matters which relate to the level of the charge as against the service supplied in exchange):

(1) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the bank caused by my conduct which triggered the charges.

(2) The charges were set by reference to the overall cost to the bank of providing current accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of my conduct thereby effectively requiring me to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the bank to other customers.

(3) In the premises the bank did not deal fairly as between myself and its other customers.

(4) The existence and quantum of the charges were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to my attention either; when my account was first opened; when I gave an instruction which would result in the levying of a charge; or otherwise before any particular charge was applied.

(5) The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for the application of multiple charges and the levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges.

(6) The complexity of the charges and/or the circumstances in which they were levied.

(7) The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application was such as to cause me inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance.

(8) The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted my ability to chose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by your bank.

(9) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges.

In particular the burden of proof for the above rests onLloyds TSB Bank plc to prove that the circumstances of our relationship are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974)




You can probably tell I've pulled this straight from my letter to them...its early in the morning lol

onlypaddy

And being honest with myself, I don't expect to get them back. I'm in a position thankfully now that I don't need to get them back and will have the overdraft paid off by December.

It's just the principle that irks me now...I can't see any situation in which the charges have represented fair treatment. By all means, if I can get Lloyds to stand up in court and prove to me that their charge levels were fair then I will accept that...but I know this would involve forcing them to reveal the level of their charges....

So all I want now is closure - I want them to either prove to me (and to everyone else) that they were a fair representation of the cost to the bank, or give it all back (or to charity - TBH i don't need it anymore)

natweststaffmember

Devil's advocate response, ok?

onlypaddy wrote: »

Erm...bit of an early test but I'll give it a shot...I must admit that I'm not legally minded at all. My arguments at the minute pretty much follow the new template on MSE, they were drafted by a QC after all...

The charges are unfair under s.140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and contrary to the requirement of good faith, having caused a significant imbalance in our relationship and a detriment to myself, and under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the following respects (save for, in the case of the latter, those matters which relate to the level of the charge as against the service supplied in exchange):

(1) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the bank caused by my conduct which triggered the charges.
The Supreme Court decision did state that the charges did not have relate to the price for goods and services supplied.
(2) The charges were set by reference to the overall cost to the bank of providing current accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of my conduct thereby effectively requiring me to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the bank to other customers.
Why does what the money is being used for have anything to do with the fact that the decision or consideration was necessary to be done?
(3) In the premises the bank did not deal fairly as between myself and its other customers.
how does that relate to you. How do you know that the bank did not deal with other customers fairly or unfairly?
(4) The existence and quantum of the charges were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to my attention either; when my account was first opened; when I gave an instruction which would result in the levying of a charge; or otherwise before any particular charge was applied.
Did you not receive any of the terms and conditions? Do you not regularly receive updates on your account that you read? Give me an example of this happening to you
(5) The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for the application of multiple charges and the levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges.
Explain why this is unfair(this argument I DO understand).
(6) The complexity of the charges and/or the circumstances in which they were levied.
Explain this to me?
(7) The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application was such as to cause me inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance.
Explain to me what you mean?
(8) The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted my ability to chose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by your bank.
What has that got to do with you the fact that you chose to open a current account?
(9) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges.
Explain?
In particular the burden of proof for the above rests onLloyds TSB Bank plcto prove that the circumstances of our relationship are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974)




You can probably tell I've pulled this straight from my letter to them...its early in the morning lol

I am being devil's advocate here but in earlier judgements, Justice Smith had stated specifically that terms should be looked at on the micro level.
The lack of terms and conditions by LloydsTSB is dealt with by case law btw.

Don't be disheartened by my response but read more and more and try to understand the arguments and how you are going to argue it, ok?

onlypaddy

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Devil's advocate response, ok?


I am being devil's advocate here but in earlier judgements, Justice Smith had stated specifically that terms should be looked at on the micro level.
The lack of terms and conditions by LloydsTSB is dealt with by case law btw.

Don't be disheartened by my response but read more and more and try to understand the arguments and how you are going to argue it, ok?

Will do i'd rather understand these things now than have to be put on the spot in court

mattwilson_2

I recieved a similar letter as the earlier post from Lloyds solicitors (SCM) stating that they still rejected any claim and were not awarding anything. They also stated they would call to discuss my hardship conditions etc....

My letter to Lloyds initially was written after my case was rejected by lloyds following the test case and it followed the letter sujested by MSE to the bank explaining my situation. I initially claimed back in Noc 2006 and my case was due in court the same day the test case was announced - it was subsequently put on hold in 2007 and I have been waiting ever since! As sujested by MSE I also added all my charges to the letter since 2006 up to today.

The response from the solicitor seems as if they are expecting me to take this to court now - especially as they are stating that they expect me to pay the cost for amending the claim.

I made it quite clear on the letter that I was using the 'human' route and that if it failed I would take the matter up with the financial ombudsman but they seemed to have ignored this (no surprise).

Is this more bullying/scare tactics? - should I now just inform them I will be claiming through the ombudsman as initially stated in last letter?

I meet the hardship criteria only for the period of the claim and them up to mid 2009 - I have recovered from those hardships now through careful budgeting and hard work - how do I stand from the arguement that I WAS in hardship when I started the claim but now am managing?

I still fully plan to follow the ombudsman route and then maybe the court route but may wait for other cases to be heard first under the new arguements (chicken I know!). In total my claim is now in the order of £3500.

Hope someone can help - or has also recieved the same letter from the lloyds solicitiors (or furniture company - SCM.....?;))

natweststaffmember

mattwilson wrote: »

I recieved a similar letter as the earlier post from Lloyds solicitors (SCM) stating that they still rejected any claim and were not awarding anything. They also stated they would call to discuss my hardship conditions etc....

My letter to Lloyds initially was written after my case was rejected by lloyds following the test case and it followed the letter sujested by MSE to the bank explaining my situation. I initially claimed back in Noc 2006 and my case was due in court the same day the test case was announced - it was subsequently put on hold in 2007 and I have been waiting ever since! As sujested by MSE I also added all my charges to the letter since 2006 up to today.

The response from the solicitor seems as if they are expecting me to take this to court now - especially as they are stating that they expect me to pay the cost for amending the claim.

I made it quite clear on the letter that I was using the 'human' route and that if it failed I would take the matter up with the financial ombudsman but they seemed to have ignored this (no surprise).

Is this more bullying/scare tactics? - should I now just inform them I will be claiming through the ombudsman as initially stated in last letter?

I meet the hardship criteria only for the period of the claim and them up to mid 2009 - I have recovered from those hardships now through careful budgeting and hard work - how do I stand from the arguement that I WAS in hardship when I started the claim but now am managing?

I still fully plan to follow the ombudsman route and then maybe the court route but may wait for other cases to be heard first under the new arguements (chicken I know!). In total my claim is now in the order of £3500.

Hope someone can help - or has also recieved the same letter from the lloyds solicitiors (or furniture company - SCM.....?;))

Who did you write to, the BANK or the SOLICITORS?

mattwilson_2

I wrote to the bank - I have never written to the solicitors - this is the first I have heard from them. My letter in Feb (the last one I wrote) was written to the customer service recovery centre of Lloyds TSB.