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

natweststaffmember

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Therefore it is high-time, that they should be tested in court.

I don't really care which side wins, as long as one side wins (without 'ifs' and 'buts') and that current mess will come to an end.

There is no mess cos they are paying out but I think we can both agree to this though.

I should add that the OFT have already been asked about this mess and they have said that they do not have any plans to do any further work in this area as it stands. Frustrating is not the word.

ILW

Rick01 wrote: »

My understanding was that by filing in a small claims court these massive costs would not be awarded. I guess I may have been wrong.

Who are the Cartel customers?

As long as you are going into this with yours eyes open, then good luck.

ILW

natweststaffmember wrote: »

There is no mess cos they are paying out but I think we can both agree to this though.

.

Was it not tested in court by the OFT and they lost?

natweststaffmember

ILW wrote: »

Was it not tested in court by the OFT and they lost?

No it wasn't. Bank Charges were the only thing that was part of the OFT Test case which was specifically about a group challenge to the charges ie whether you could say that the charges terms themselves were unfair. The judgement stated that the OFT could not make a collective challenge to the terms in the court system yet individual cases may be made which are specific to them. For example, one charge might not necessarily be unfair for returning one item when it does not take the account into excess, yet multiple charges which takes the account into excess and incurring further fees for being in excess could be seen as contrary to the requirement of good faith to the detriment of the customer.
OFT test case did not address Credit Card claims at all.

EDIT: a further reason for saying that they will pay out is here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=31402097&postcount=954

Rick01

I forgot to mention a part of their defence. They also claim that the following about the charges:

"...and pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness."

Here is Regulation 6:

Assessment of unfair terms
6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

• (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
  
  (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

Are they talking rubbish?

EDIT: Actually, I think several posts have kind of already answered this.

the_insider

Rick, just out of curiosity, did you exhaust Lloyds complaints procedure before you started the court proceedings?

Rick01

the_insider wrote: »

Rick, just out of curiosity, did you exhaust Lloyds complaints procedure before you started the court proceedings?

No. I asked them to repay the charges and wrote that if they replied claiming their charges were fair then I would immediately go to court. They replied with words to that effect, so I filed a claim.

the_insider

Do they mention in their defence that you did not give them the opportunity to look at it again?

Rick01

the_insider wrote: »

Do they mention in their defence that you did not give them the opportunity to look at it again?

No. The defence is just this: The charges are not penalties/damages - they are fees for services.

Alpine_Star

Rick01 wrote: »

I forgot to mention a part of their defence. They also claim that the following about the charges:

"...and pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness."

Here is Regulation 6:

Assessment of unfair terms
6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

• (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
  
  (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

Are they talking rubbish?

Complete rubbish.

(a) The definition of the main subject matter of the contract is for you to borrow up to a certain amount of money and repay certain amounts at certain times. It is not for you to borrow more and not repay it on time.

(b) The price in exchange for the services provided is the interest charged on the lending - not charges for defaults.

In April 2006 the OFT gave credit card providers an ultimatum: reduce default charges from circa £25 to £12 or face litigation based on the regulations Lloyds are quoting you and Lloyds reduced their charges. If they truly believed that the exemptions a & b applied they would have happily trotted into court.