Bank Charges case upheld

Tozer

Scrudge wrote: »

I know a thing or two about defamation law.

What the poster said is that the decision is so perverse that he would not be surprised if there was a bribe exchanged.

He did not say or imply in any shape or form that he has any knowldge of the judge yet alone whether any bribery was in fact involed in this case.

What he did say is that he consider that the decision was very perverse. So perverse that he would not be suprised if there was a bribe involved.

No right person would think that the statement was made based on any factual knowledge of the judge or what might or might not have taken place. The statement is just a fair comment based on the facts of the case. If it implied (or could be interpreted to be implying) that the statement regarding bribery is based on any factual knowledge of bribery taking place - then it would be a different matter.

It would be mockery if the judge tried to sue for libel for someone saying that his decision is pereverse to the extreme. This would make a fool out of the judge (not that I have much respect for him anyway) and would probably result in him being removed.


My personal view is that there are mental cases amongst judges making decisions that even a fraudulent but sufficiently competent judge would not chance making even for a big bribe.

Clearly you know very little about defamation of character. The statement cannot be 'fair comment' as there is no evidence it is true or justified.

I find it outrageous that just because the impartial judge did not make a popular decision there is even a suggestion of bribery or corruption.

stavros_2

AlexisV wrote: »

I'm firmly with Lloyds TSB on this one - the customer broke his contract

A contract is overruled by the law, which states that penalties must be in proportion to costs incurred. Whether you agree or disagree with the law is irrelevant.

The judge is just a man and on this occasion he got it wrong. His ruling contradicts the laws of the land.

Actually, if you read the judgment, Lloyds claimed (successfully) that there was no breach of contract (and therefore no penalty charge).

JJWET

Hi everyone!!

I am currently pursuing a claim against Lloyds TSB for the amount of £1170...they have taken it all the way and have now entered a defence. I am currently waiting for a court date but not too happy with yesterday's ruling. I have heard this ruling has been made by a district judge, not a high court judge, so it may not be binding.

What impact will this ruling have on everybody claiming charges??????

Any help or tips (especially from Martin!) would be appreciated!

night3uk

I live in Scotland I dont think this will make any difference to the claims up here

But has anyone been to court in Scotland?

And i was wondering if the banks turned up here

Thanks

:think:

JJWET

EVERYBODY STOP WORRYING!!! This case was presided over by a District Judge and not a High Court Judge which means it is not binding and cannot be used as a bench mark for other cases.

CONTINUE WITH YOUR CLAIMS AS BEFORE!!!

We really need to start worrying when a High Court Judge rules against us.....

cuddly1

Knackered wrote: »

1) Why are you in this thread if you have such a high-and-mighty attitude?
2) Every other court and judge in the land has a different opinion, so you are wrong.

I am with you too Knackered...........I think what is being forgotten here is the fact that we all accept that there has to be some penalty for not looking after your own accounts, but its the AMOUNT they are charging when it has been made clear how little it actually costs the banks to charge us, therefore.........as I said in another post....in relation to stealing, If I was to go into my bank and steal..say £700 I would go to court and possibly do some time for it, soooo.......dont you think if it only costs the bank in the region of £2.50 per charge and some are charging as much as £40 isnt that stealing on THEIR part from us by charging excessive amounts ????? Even if they were to charge people £5 or even £8 say, they would still be making a healthy profit.......that is what is getting soo many people rilled !!!!

AndyLGR

Tozer wrote: »

Exactly the same argument I'm afraid. Its a penalty if it is not a "genuine pre-estimate of the costs likely to be suffered" by the bank. Sorry!

Tozer - Are you saying that the POC detailed on the CAG website shown below are incorrect? Should they be worded differently?

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant [has] [had] an account 1 ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2 [and closed on or around 2 ]

2. During the period in which the Account [has been] [was] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.
b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:
a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3 and any interest charged thereon;
b) Court costs;
c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest]

6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true Signed: DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IT

Knackered

MABLE wrote: »

So you think it is right for someone to help themselves to the banks money without permission. I remember reading a post on this site whereby the poster had claimed back more than £2,500 in so called unfair fees and then had the cheek to moan that after receiving the compensation she complained about the bank returning one of her direct directs for lack of funds.

If I need a cheque, DD or SO paid and I know I have unsufficient funds I ask in advance for help.

Well done Lloyds!

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The bank doesn't charge you for PAYING a DD when you have "unsufficient" funds, they charge you and then DON'T pay it for you.

If you love bank charges so much, stay out of this thread.

funkylala

I do feel a little depressed at some people's attitudes on this thread...I haven't felt the need to explain how I got into trouble with the bank because it's nobody's business but I am beginning to resent the implication by some that I and others are some sort of blood sucking parasite scum....this has lead me to conclude that the critics on this thread must work for a bank to make me feel the same way that banks have made me feel...

bushellmatt

Hi All

I made a phone call this morning to Barclays (former Woolwich) whiched had previously offered £1024 as a gesture of goodwill for my £1876 claim of which I declined and proceeded on with money claim, on 14th acknowledge and further 14 days entered a defence. Still waiting for court date to come though. But after hearing about yesterday’s events with tsb in court, decided to take the offer (cut and run).
But after making the phone call this morning to accept the offer, was told this would now continue to go to court due to yesterdays events of the bank winning.
Thought you guys might find this interesting.

Looks like im going to have to take this all the way

Good luck all
Regards