LLoyds TSB are defending my credit card charges claim...

Rick01

Hi all,

Lloyds have decided to defend my claim and I have received a copy of the defence. Their argument is basically this:

a) The charges are for credit card services, and are not damages nor a penalty.

b) There is no breach of contract; the charge cannot be a penalty, consequently there is no requirement that the charge be a pre-estimate of the Bank's loss. The charges are fair and reasonable.

c) The Bank is entitled by contract to impose the charges.

Do they have a case based on this defence? Any help would be grately appreciated.

Regards,

Rick

EDIT: The charges are 'overlimit charges' and 'late payment charges'.

natweststaffmember

To cover both bases let's see how the OFT have viewed these types of charges.....

"1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims"


To the OP, did they make any offer prior to you suing them?

Rick01

No offer was made. The reply said that they thought their charges were fair - I said in my first letter that if they replied along those lines then I would go to court.

natweststaffmember

Rick01 wrote: »

No offer was made. The reply said that they thought their charges were fair - I said in my first letter that if they replied along those lines then I would go to court.

Excluding your details what is he wording you have used to file the claim?

bengal-stripe

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set.........

It can only be a good thing, if the current mess gets sorted - once and for all.

Let the courts decide!

If the OP loses - so be it! --- If the OP wins - I hope, banks will put a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy in place.

natweststaffmember

bengal-stripe wrote: »

It can only be a good thing, if the current mess gets sorted - once and for all.

Let the courts decide!

If the OP loses - so be it! --- If the OP wins - I hope, banks will put a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy in place.

That is unfortunately the problem. They won't win because they are on a lot more dodgier ground than bank charges. The quote was the report from April 2006 from the OFT and they clearly stated that they set an amount where they would not take enforcement action of £12 in the hope that providers would not simply lower their charges to that level(excl. Egg btw). What did they all do?
That's right they went down to £12.00. They do pay it back cos they do not legally have a leg to stand on and the OFT's short term measure means that they won't do anything.

bengal-stripe

natweststaffmember wrote: »

That is unfortunately the problem. They won't win because they are on a lot more dodgier ground than bank charges.......They do pay it back cos they do not legally have a leg to stand on......

Fine - if the banks do not win, we will have clarity. - If the banks do win, we will have clarity as well!
'natweststaffmember' do you like your waters muddy?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

and the OFT's short term measure means that they won't do anything.

That 'short term measure' has been in place for four years, which is far too long. It's about time to clear that issue up.

natweststaffmember

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Fine - if the banks do not win, we will have clarity. - If the banks do win, we will have clarity as well!
'natweststaffmember' do you like your waters muddy?
It's small claims court so it is not precedent setting. I did think my response was a slight misread which I accept does come across slightly differently to what was intended. I think the OFT did show in April 2006 that when you simply ask for compliance from financial institutions it doesn't work. They learnt nothing.


That 'short term measure' has been in place for four years, which is far too long. It's about time to clear that issue up.

Tell the OFT that. They are, to be honest, becoming quite useless.

Rick01

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Excluding your details what is he wording you have used to file the claim?

Do you mean the particulars of the claim? If so, I used the template, which goes like this:

[FONT=&quot]1. The Claimant has a credit card account 5521 XXXX XXXX XXXX[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT][FONT=&quot] opened on or around [/FONT][FONT=&quot]June 2001[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Credit cards are not included in the Office of Fair Trading’s Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Since [/FONT][FONT=&quot]6th September 2007 t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]he Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Defendant is aware of all details as a list of charges has already been supplied. A copy will be sent to the court. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the breaches; (b) The Term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and at Common Law. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the amounts debited of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]£516[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; (b) Interest per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% per annum from the date they were deprived of the money [/FONT][FONT=&quot]£46.79[/FONT][FONT=&quot] continuing at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or payment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. Costs allowed by the Court.[/FONT]


If I lose, will I have to pay their legal fees?

natweststaffmember

Rick01 wrote: »

Do you mean the particulars of the claim? If so, I used the template, which goes like this:

[FONT=&quot]1. The Claimant has a credit card account 5521 XXXX XXXX XXXX[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT][FONT=&quot] opened on or around [/FONT][FONT=&quot]June 2001[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Credit cards are not included in the Office of Fair Trading’s Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Since [/FONT][FONT=&quot]6th September 2007 t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]he Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Defendant is aware of all details as a list of charges has already been supplied. A copy will be sent to the court. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the breaches; (b) The Term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and at Common Law. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the amounts debited of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]£516[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; (b) Interest per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% per annum from the date they were deprived of the money [/FONT][FONT=&quot]£46.79[/FONT][FONT=&quot] continuing at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or payment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. Costs allowed by the Court.[/FONT]


If I lose, will I have to pay their legal fees?

I don't think you'll lose so I cannot wait for them to settle.

ILW

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I don't think you'll lose so I cannot wait for them to settle.

With respect, that is easy for you to say. Its not your good self who could possibly be sued for defence costs into the tens of thousands.