MSE News: Lloyds fined record £117 million for PPI failings

javorb

On the back of this announcement i received a letter from the FSA that after nearly 3 years lloyds will be making me an offer ,oh well another 3 years interest to be added .

brown1950

Nasqueron wrote: »

One of the mysteries of the universe. Why do you keep recommending people take banks to court over credit card charges in the hope the bank will not defend?

''In the hope Banks will not Defend''

Not a hope - its a fact Banks do not defend when faced with court action
when proceedings are issued for recovery of credit card fees !

Ask yourself the question - Why do Banks not defend these actions ?

beamerguy

brown1950 wrote: »

''In the hope Banks will not Defend''

Not a hope - its a fact Banks do not defend when faced with court action
when proceedings are issued for recovery of credit card fees !

Ask yourself the question - Why do Banks not defend these actions ?

In the days of the bank charges con, a few banks tried to defend in court and lost, then they sold debts to DCA's who were so thick they lost also.
The common factor was "give me a breakdown of the charges" .... Banks and DCA's would not do this hence they soon realised that if the same question was asked in court, they were on a loser. DCA's lost out big time but they are still trying there luck. Remember that the DCA's purchase debts from banks at knock down prices and most of the time they don't have a clue what they are buying. DCA's still think we are so stupid that we will not query anything. It is a magic situation for us as like the banks the DCA's cannot answer the question " give me a breakdown of the charges"
WE ARE NOW IN THE DRIVING SEAT and all thanks to sites like MSE.

The PPI scandal was actually fraud so no wonder banks would not go to court

The latest wheeze comes from private parking companies like Athena and Parking Eye who issue tickets for £90 plus if you overstay in say a Lidl car park by 5 mins, even though you were shopping at lidl.
This is covered byThe Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 56 and Schedule 4 which states ... "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken."

£90 is hardly reasonable especially if you were shopping. So, the same rule applies with these money collecting outfits ... " Give me a breakdown of the charges"

Despite all the stupid threats they make about debt collectors, solicitors, court action, if they cannot answer a simple question they just lost.

So, whilst there are still these cowboys around, we have to fight for our rights and again sites like MSE will help you win

Butterfly_Brain

And still nobody goes to prison for fraud.
The order to deny claims must have come from the top.
It is time we started jailing the CEO's and directors of these corrupt banks

beamerguy

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

And still nobody goes to prison for fraud.
The order to deny claims must have come from the top.
It is time we started jailing the CEO's and directors of these corrupt banks

100% RIGHT. With regards to Lloyds, the CEO, Osario either knew or not.
If he did know he should be disgraced and fired, if he did not know then he is an incompetent CEO and should be fired.

All in all it's another reason why not to trust Lloyds Bank, you will never know what prank they will get up to next.

What a movie all this will make ..
CARRY ON FRAUD BANKING

brown1950

brown1950 wrote: »

''In the hope Banks will not Defend''

Not a hope - its a fact Banks do not defend when faced with court action
when proceedings are issued for recovery of credit card fees !

Ask yourself the question - Why do Banks not defend these actions ?

And are all the usual suspects on this website on holiday or are they unable to answer respond to my points ?

Or perhaps why avoid my original question (ie) :-

Why do certain individuals on this site continue to defend the banks ?

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

'
Not a hope - its a fact Banks do not defend when faced with court action
when proceedings are issued for recovery of credit card fees !

Read about it here.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Read about it here.

That's about unauthorised overdraft charges, not credit card default fees.

Marty_Hopkirk

addedvaluebob wrote: »

SIMPLE ANSWER ask Marty to stop posting complete nonsense and comments about which they know nothing beyond their own case.

Some facts instead of fairy tales from you would be useful.

Marty...

addedvaluebob

You have no knowledge of PPI beyond your own case or what you have read on this site

From your previous posting

This is proof you know very little about contract law, look up NEC 3, GCW5 and JCT M/W and intermediate. I work live and breath and write and work with these contracts which are far more complex and detailed that the generic ones CMCs push out. One can write into a contract whatever one likes and get someone to sign but, that does not make it fair and equitible (thats the point you have totally missed). Granted one would have to legally challenge it.

and yet despite this mastery of contract law you managed to sign four contracts containing PPI and then must have claimed that you were mis-sold. How do you get to be so mis-sold with such contract law knowledge?

Other people can judge whether your complaint was valid or if you were indeed mis-sold