Lloyds TSB

dunstonh

Basically, can they do this

yes

or does it fall into the category of unlawful charges that everyone is claiming back at the moment?

no and yes.

Basically, lloyds have adjusted their charging structure and packaged the fees on the basis that they will be lawful. Whilst this hasnt stopped people putting claims in and doesnt stop you, you need to be aware that it was the old penalty charge structure that the concern was over.

The court case is not going to put an end to fees. It is just going to stop penalty charges (if the banks lose). The packaging of service charges gets round that.

bengal-stripe

garyb1 wrote: »

........does it fall into the category of unlawful charges

elaina79 wrote: »

It would come under the unlawful charges.

Whether or not bank charges are ‘unlawful', hasn’t been decided yet. - At present they are ‘alleged unlawful’.

artha

dunstonh wrote: »

Basically, lloyds have adjusted their charging structure and packaged the fees on the basis that they will be lawful. Whilst this hasnt stopped people putting claims in and doesnt stop you, you need to be aware that it was the old penalty charge structure that the concern was over.

.

Just to clarify this point (which I wasn't aware of)
when did the old penalty charge structure change?
does this mean that charges that have been made by Lloyds since that change are not reclaimable?

dunstonh

when did the old penalty charge structure change?

Dont know. It was some time in 2008.

does this mean that charges that have been made by Lloyds since that change are not reclaimable?

Dont know. Its probable that you wont be able to reclaim these as the whole point of the excercise to remove penalty charges and replace them with fairer service charges. Whilst they have done this, the amounts involved still seem to be quite high for some people. So, there may still be some movement on that front.

What seems to have happened is that many people claiming have assumed that charges are totally unlawful (or will be if case won) and will cease to exist altogether and that just isnt going to happen and isnt expected to happen.

In past cases where financial redress has had to be paid, it has involved paying the difference what they were charged and what they should have been on. So, I wouldnt be surprised if the final outcome ends up being something like that. Banks losing but only being required to pay back any difference between the old style and the new style. For many people that would be zero. However, thats just a guess based on past rulings. We will have to wait and see.

Nathan_Spleen

dunstonh wrote: »

The court case is not going to put an end to fees. It is just going to stop penalty charges (if the banks lose). The packaging of service charges gets round that.

No it doesn't!

The April judgment gave the OFT legal jurisdiction to rule on the fairness of overdraft charges full stop, regardless of how they're packaged.

dunstonh

The April judgment gave the OFT legal jurisdiction to rule on the fairness of overdraft charges full stop, regardless of how they're packaged.

Thats because they are classified as penalty charges. Moving away from penalty charges to service charges should get round the issue. It will prevent them charging as much for certain things but it will not remove the ability to charge.

Nathan_Spleen

dunstonh wrote: »

Thats because they are classified as penalty charges. Moving away from penalty charges to service charges should get round the issue. It will prevent them charging as much for certain things but it will not remove the ability to charge.

They are not classified as ''penalty charges''. With the possible exception of Natwest's 2001 terms, J Smith ruled that all T&Cs, both historical and current, ''are not capable of being penal at common law.

The banks changed their contracts to the 'service' argument before the test case began. The service argument has already been thrashed out.

I suggest you read the judgments before mis-advising anyone else on the subject.

chipbeck

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont know. It was some time in 2008.



Dont know. Its probable that you wont be able to reclaim these as the whole point of the excercise to remove penalty charges and replace them with fairer service charges. Whilst they have done this, the amounts involved still seem to be quite high for some people. So, there may still be some movement on that front.

What seems to have happened is that many people claiming have assumed that charges are totally unlawful (or will be if case won) and will cease to exist altogether and that just isnt going to happen and isnt expected to happen.

In past cases where financial redress has had to be paid, it has involved paying the difference what they were charged and what they should have been on. So, I wouldnt be surprised if the final outcome ends up being something like that. Banks losing but only being required to pay back any difference between the old style and the new style. For many people that would be zero. However, thats just a guess based on past rulings. We will have to wait and see.

Lloyds changed their terms in the third quarter 2007. I know this because during the first month of the new 'fairer' terms I was charged £1200. I'm not moaning as it was my own fault but I do still have a problem with the word 'fairer'.

alfie26

just recieved statements from lloyds, and i was wondering if i can claim back unpaid dd charge....if someone can answer this question ,thank you in advance...

artha

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont know. It was some time in 2008.
Dont know. Its probable that you wont be able to reclaim these as the whole point of the excercise to remove penalty charges and replace them with fairer service charges. Whilst they have done this, the amounts involved still seem to be quite high for some people. So, there may still be some movement on that front.

Looks like I may have given false hope to my daughter then when I persuaded her to seek redress for outrageous charges in 2008 when it was admittedly her fault for not managing her spare current account properly but also Lloyds for never having tried to contact her (eg mobile) after she left her registered address (former partner sent anything back to Lloyds as "no longer at this address"), Lloyds claim no record of her changing her address, Lloyds removed her overdraft facility therefore without her knowing and then slapped multiple charges of £30each for returned Direct Debits. To add insult to injury the DD recipient was Esporta Gym (please avoid or be very carefull) who then fined her 15£ by direct debit which then of course was rejected by Lloyds and another £30 charge i.e continually bouncing back and forth while the cash registers of Lloyds and Esporta rang up income for very little effort and no contact. Is £30 now considered a fair/reasonable charge by Lloyds?