We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Reclaiming Lloyds bank charges
Comments
-
Isn't that recent case more about the bank refusing to give him hardship help and applying a default which destroyed his credit rating for 6 years rather than just "unfair" charges which the banks won the supreme court case over?
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Will be interesting to hear the outcome of an application hearing for leave to appeal Orfoster v Lloyds Bank :-
Before His Honour Judge Denyer QC
Bristol County Court
29th October 2014 @ 10.30am
Start of a long journey to the Supreme Court perhaps ?0 -
Will be interesting to hear the outcome of an application hearing for leave to appeal Orfoster v Lloyds Bank :-
Before His Honour Judge Denyer QC
Bristol County Court
29th October 2014 @ 10.30am
Start of a long journey to the Supreme Court perhaps ?
Unless I am mistaken, as I said above the case was separate from the "unfair charges" case.
Rather, his complaint was that the bank was wrong to ignore his hardship request (his complaint was that they didn't investigate) and kept defaulting him and he ended up in a DMP trashing his credit rating.
This is nothing like the 2009 case where the banks were ruled to have been ok to charge the fees (and despite the win, subsequently lowered the costs significantly).
At some point the courts need to draw a line in the sand over personal responsibility for not overspending or over-borrowing and only get involved if the banks do not take hardship responsibilities carefully.
An anti-bank agenda that harms us customers who spend within our means and do not run up debts is of little use to anyone but those with an axe to grind.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
A bit like the case that went against HSBC and they were told to refund charges. That wasnt about them being unfair. It was about the woman getting locked in the interview room against her will and being harassed. A very specific set of events unlikely to apply to the mainstream.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
-
Isn't that recent case more about the bank refusing to give him hardship help and applying a default which destroyed his credit rating for 6 years rather than just "unfair" charges which the banks won the supreme court case over?
No it had nothing to do with the bank not considering his hardship circumstances.
The court applied relatively recent European Court of Justice case law which held that price variation clauses in consumer contracts should have reason for and method in their calculation clearly set out from the outset, which Lloyds (and all banks) don't have.
Additionally and regardless of the above, any price variation should accompany an unconditional contractual right for the consumer to withdraw from the agreement.
As is standard with high street bank current account contracts you are contractually prohibited from closing your account (should you wish to avoid further charges) if you are in debit.
In Foster-Burnell's evidence to the court was a letter from Lloyds specifically telling him he couldn't close his account.
The court held that this was contrary to the requirement of good faith as it caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as per sec 5.1 of UTCCR.
As things stand and as the judge indicated the principle established in the judgment could apply to a great number of people who found themselves in similar circumstances.
And if the appeal is eventually successful it could apply to every current account regardless of whether the terms in question had any negative effect.0 -
Ah fair enough, the letter that was posted om the Consumer Action Group site by him suggested it was about his request for help with charges being dismissed without investigation, forced into a DMP etc, must have changed his angle.
I still hope it gets rejected or leave to appeal is denied to stop it being used as a precedent that will hammer people like me even more because of the greed of the irresponsible and those who don't read what they signSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I still hope it gets rejected or leave to appeal is denied to stop it being used as a precedent that will hammer people like me even more because of the greed of the irresponsible and those who don't read what they sign
I've got my head in my hands.
Read the judgment. Please.
[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn<img src=http://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/angel-smiley-002.gif border=0 alt= title=You are wonderful smilieid=16 class=inlineimg>Nd9GcQI3Q-tV6AqT84Vosuxsn7xKNh3o30_VWqwmm_FPmH-bT5y65OP[/IMG]0 -
In the 90's I complained to the Ombudsman about unfair overdraft fees. I was living in Australia and had let my property out in London. There were frequent problems with rent etc and it took so long to transfer money back to UK to cover it. Ombudsman did not uphold my complaint. Any value in reopening the complaint again with Lloyds?
Thank you0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »...As is standard with high street bank current account contracts you are contractually prohibited from closing your account (should you wish to avoid further charges) if you are in debit.
In Foster-Burnell's evidence to the court was a letter from Lloyds specifically telling him he couldn't close his account.
The court held that this was contrary to the requirement of good faith as it caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as per sec 5.1 of UTCCR.
As things stand and as the judge indicated the principle established in the judgment could apply to a great number of people who found themselves in similar circumstances.
And if the appeal is eventually successful it could apply to every current account regardless of whether the terms in question had any negative effect.
And presumably allow those with debts of >£500 to close their account with their energy provider.
Sick.0 -
In what way was the bank responsible for your tenant not paying on time?In the 90's I complained to the Ombudsman about unfair overdraft fees. I was living in Australia and had let my property out in London. There were frequent problems with rent etc and it took so long to transfer money back to UK to cover it. Ombudsman did not uphold my complaint. Any value in reopening the complaint again with Lloyds?
Thank you
I think you know the answer in particular if the ombudsman ruled against you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards