claim against Lloyds

blossom76_2

My claim against Lloyds over bank charges is still stayed with the courts, what should I do, should I go the financial ombudsman to see if I have a case of snowballing (at the time of the charges), plus the information recieved from lloyds regarding my charges of going over drawn, returned cheques etc, covers more than my request asked for and its difficult to see what is what, was this done on purpose and would the ombudsman help me sort out the wheat from the chaff?

natweststaffmember

If your case is stayed I would do nothing for the time being.

Premier_2

The ombudsman won't help you now you've started legal action.

You should really have taken up the offer of allowing the ombudsman to have reviewed the claim before you started legal action. (Even if you disagreed with the ombudsman's findings, you could still have decided to go to court).

Remember, you had (and still have) a responsibility to settle the matter before bringing the case to court. A judge will not look favourably on a claimant who fails to have done this. Of course, the justice of law will prevail, but even in the event you were to win the legal claim, your failure to act reasonably to have settled the dispute could jeopardise your subsequent claim for costs (which could far outweigh the cost of the claim itself)

natweststaffmember

Premier, can I clarify that bit about the FOS if there is legal action being taken? There has never been, AFAIK, anything that says you cannot go to the FOS(albeit under Financial hardship) even if you have commenced an action against the banks. In fact their own site does not agree with that....
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

You aren't the only one to have said that but I am intrigued where the information came from.

Premier_2

You can't take a claim for financial hardship to court afaik. It isn't a legal requirement, but a code of conduct that lenders agree to abide by. The ombudsman will rule in any dispute about the code of conduct.

The FOS will not consider a legally based claim for bank charges (not since the banks won their victory in the Supreme Court last November); the FOS complaint form asks for details of any pre-existing court claims.
You can take the claim to the FOS, but expect it to be returned if there is a court claim in progress.

As the OP suggested the claim is stayed, I presume the claim was filed before the banks won in the Supreme Court. At that time, the suggestion was, no matter what the basis of the claim, to take the matter up with the FOS if the bank didn't at first agree. That was because the FOS may have resolved the issue, and even if the OP didn't agree, the OP could still have raised a court claim (there is no obligation on the part of the claimant to accept a decision of the FOS)

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

You can't take a claim for financial hardship to court afaik. It isn't a legal requirement, but a code of conduct that lenders agree to abide by. The ombudsman will rule in any dispute about the code of conduct.

The FOS will not consider a legally based claim for bank charges (not since the banks won their victory in the Supreme Court last November); the FOS complaint form asks for details of any pre-existing court claims.
You can take the claim to the FOS, but expect it to be returned if there is a court claim in progress.

As the OP suggested the claim is stayed, I presume the claim was filed before the banks won in the Supreme Court. At that time, the suggestion was, no matter what the basis of the claim, to take the matter up with the FOS if the bank didn't at first agree. That was because the FOS may have resolved the issue, and even if the OP didn't agree, the OP could still have raised a court claim (there is no obligation on the part of the claimant to accept a decision of the FOS)

Premier, I asked the simple question which is where does it say that someone who has a stayed case ie one filed prior to November 2009 cannot ask the FOS and/or the bank to look at it based on financial hardship? You and I have both seen here, people who have filed a claim yet not even known(apparently) about financial hardship. The OP if they have a stayed case and still use their bank account has every right to look at a financial hardship case even if their case is stayed in court. In fact, if they are in financial hardship then I would advise the OP to do it this way. Just because they have a stayed case does not prevent them approaching their bank under financial hardship and going to the FOS.

EDIT: having spotted your edited bit. I have advised people to look at financial hardship even prior to the Supreme Court verdict and post SC verdict to go back to the bank and then to the FOS. Any refunded amount would have been taken off any settlement or otherwise of a court case prior to the SC verdict and on a stayed case as well post SC verdict.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Premier, I asked the simple question which is where does it say that someone who has a stayed case ie one filed prior to November 2009 cannot ask the FOS and/or the bank to look at it based on financial hardship? ....

If the original claim made to the bank partially included one based on the human argument (as per the latest template letters), then that can be considered by the FOS.

Claims that involved financial hardship should never have been stayed - there was an exemption for financial hardship cases.

Of course, if a claim of financial hardship hadn't previously been made to the bank, then the FOS will return it, suggesting the claimant first approaches the bank regarding the claim. The FOS will only consider claims after the bank has has the chance to consider it (or had the 8 weeks in which to resolve it)

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

If the original claim made to the bank partially included one based on the human argument (as per the latest template letters), then that can be considered by the FOS.
Can we not use the MSE term of Human Argument cos it is a pile of crap because that argument is called FINANCIAL HARDSHIP(which is probably why I didn't understand what people meant with "human argument")?
Claims that involved financial hardship should never have been stayed - there was an exemption for financial hardship cases.
Do you mean by the bank? Claims being stayed as above was by the county courts would not consider financial hardship whatsoever. With regards to Financial hardship under the FSA Waiver prior to the SC decision, they themselves have openly criticised the banks in the way that they handled complaints. Furthermore, banks would not have considered any complaints unless it specifically referred to financial hardship(many did not and that is not the fault of the bank, imho).
Of course, if a claim of financial hardship hadn't previously been made to the bank, then the FOS will return it, suggesting the claimant first approaches the bank regarding the claim. The FOS will only consider claims after the bank has has the chance to consider it (or had the 8 weeks in which to resolve it)

The FOS would not return the claim but they would send the claim onto the bank to respond to it(sorry Premier, but I knew someone who dealt with claims and that was what happened. The customer's complaint was sent to the bank directly from the FOS to the bank and not back to the customer).

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Can we not use the MSE term of Human Argument cos it is a pile of crap because that argument is called FINANCIAL HARDSHIP(which is probably why I didn't understand what people meant with "human argument")?

In your opinion

However, this is the MSE forum and I am using the same terminology as the MSE article on reclaiming bank charges uses.

If you read at the MSE article (which is where it advises people who have any further questions to post in this forum to gain the advice from others), you'd know what the 'Human Argument' was and also see that the 'Financial Hardship' is only 1 of 3 different scenarios that makes up the 'Human Argument', i.e. cases that the FOS will consider.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The FOS would not return the claim but they would send the claim onto the bank to respond to it(sorry Premier, but I knew someone who dealt with claims and that was what happened. The customer's complaint was sent to the bank directly from the FOS to the bank and not back to the customer).

Maybe that was what that particular employee did, but that is not always the case (although it may be decided complaint by complaint) . Either way, it's the same outcome; the FOS will not consider a claim unless the financial company has first had the opportunity to review such claim and propose and appropriate resolution.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

In your opinion

However, this is the MSE forum and I am using the same terminology as the MSE article on reclaiming bank charges uses.

If you read at the MSE article (which is where it advises people who have any further questions to post in this forum to gain the advice from others), you'd know what the 'Human Argument' was and also see that the 'Financial Hardship' is only 1 of 3 different scenarios that makes up the 'Human Argument', i.e. cases that the FOS will consider.

A month ago I read the "human argument" cos I didn't have the faintest idea about what MSE was talking about and found out that it was in fact Financial hardship reclaiming since they decided to get rid of that guide. To clarify scenario 1 and 3 would be Financial hardship and scenario 2 I would say is not necessarily going to go to the FOS as there are scenarios that I certainly would say would potentially lead to a refund of a charge or charges.
Maybe that was what that particular employee did, but that is not always the case (although it may be decided complaint by complaint) . Either way, it's the same outcome; the FOS will not consider a claim unless the financial company has first had the opportunity to review such claim and propose and appropriate resolution.

Premier, you stated the FOS will reject a claim if you go straight to them. The case in practice is that if a case is sent to the FOS they send them onto the bank for a final response if one is not with the initial complaint. They do not say NO, they say we want a response from the bank firstly. Just so we are clear how I read your response, ie rejection means they say have it back rather than what they do in practice which is to forward on complaints to the bank direct to provide a final response to the person who has complained should they have failed to do so previously.

Premier_2

The current guide to reclaiming bank charges which explains the principle of the 'Human Argument' was, iirc, first published the beginning of February 2010.

I've no idea why you hadn't seen it until a month ago; it was mentioned both on the forum and in the MSE newsletter at the time of publication ... not to mention the umpteen times I've quoted from and linked to the said MSE article in various responses ever since.

Do try to keep up!