Lloyds win and Abbey consequences.

[noobrider]

No doubt many of you will have read the BBC website news stating that Lloyds have won a case in court and are now worried that this may have consequences on your claim.

Fear not. If you have received or are about to receive their standard defence one major point that the judge ruled on, Abbey have actually shot themselves in the foot and done us all a favour.

The ruling on the Lloyds case was fundamentally based on the fact that the claimant had NOT breached his contract with Lloyds and that they were not penalty charges.

Abbey's defence clearly states (usually in para8. The Claimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are "penalty charges" is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the defendants administrative expenses incurred DUE TO THE CLAIMANTS BREACH OF CONTRACT and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the defendant.

This is very different to the defence that was submitted by Lloyds. One other point was that although the claimant submitted his court bundle, Lloyds didn't and he should have actually claimed for a judgement at that stage for breach of a court order. That way it would never had gone to court. We had a very close call on the Abbey pages recently with Parkes v Abbey. Fortunately after having read his entire thread I spotted the fact that Abbey had not submitted their bundle on time and therefore advised him to talk to Abbey immediately which was just 2 days before entering court.

This leaves an important message to all newcomers.

1. Stick to one thread.
2. Keep a very close eye on your case
3. Understand the procedures to follow
4. If you are unsure...ASK

[Boobaby]

Excellent advice Noobrider!!

I've read an awful lot of threads recently where people just want to claim whatever (usually estimated) without putting in the work and are jumping straight to the Court stage with everything done via the phone etc....

Boo x

[noobrider]

I'm bumping this as I have answer 4 threads in the last 10 minutes that were all covered by this. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS AND WILL ANSWER ANY DOUBT YOU MAY BE HAVING

[bp]

Thanks for posting this noob. i've also read posts by people panicking over this. Part of the prob is that some people are not keeping the site updated and only bother to post when they get directions from the court or when there is a mistake which makes it difficult because we simply don't know what the whole history of the claim is.

[adamc6671]

Hi Noob - brilliant stuff - seriously suggest it should be a 'sticky' - can that be done?

Adam.

[brownie24]

Good call, so they have already admitted we have breached the contract!

Lloyds "Victory" - A View of the Judgement

This quote taken from the above link:

This case shows that it is for the Claimant to prove the claim. That means that you must have the terms and conditions in your court bundle. In fact, you really ought to have the terms and conditions that have applied to your account in various amended forms for the whole period for which you are claiming charges so that you can show that there has always been a contractual term that requires you not to go overdrawn or exceed an agreed overdraft limit.

Just to cover our backs should we also not be including t&c with our court bundles? Does anyone have a copy of these available?

Brownie24

[noobrider]

the problem is that most banks have reqorded their t's and c's to call them service fees. You really need to hop that someone has an old copy of them.

Personally I think we have enough evidence in so much that in their defence they have referred to the penalty fees and the fact they are a fair and true reflection of their costs in addition to the fact that we have breached the contract. Moving forward though they may change their defence to remove that part and play the Lloyds card. Then we will need the old terms etc. However I'm sure we will have other tactics to deal with the changes. What we need to be doing is enforcing the fact that changing the name to a service fee does not change what it actually is...as penalty charge.

[bp]

i had a few dating back to 2002 but i'm really gonna have to hunt round cause i got rid of them a few moths ago

[noobrider]

I think BankFodder is looking for copies of old T's and C's to scan them in for use as evidence.

[KnellyK]

I've just checked my filing cabinet! Lo and Behold there was a copy of Abbey T&C effective from February 2002, another dated Feb 05 and one dated Jan 07!
I've had a quick scan of them and, as far as I can see, they all refer to Interest and Charges!

[noobrider]

sounds good, get them scanned in and fired off to Bank fodder

[Pete-Rock]

Hi everyone,

Just joined the site.

I have recently written to my bank requesting a breakdown of all penalty charges over the last 6 years, but having now read Monday's decision re Lloyds Bank's win where does that leave me?

When I receive the documentation, shall I still proceed?

Pete
PS Been reading Noobrider's posts. Cheers! You sure give me encouragement!
Oh. I'm with the Abbey by the way.

[brownie24]

Hi Pete

Don't give up. Mondays decision was only the view of one district judge and sets no precedent whatsoever.

Just make sure that you're fully prepared if your case gets to the later stages and I'm sure with everybody's expertise on this site you will be more than prepared should needs be

Brownie24

[doo]

Will be interesting to find out how the old T&C's differ to the new ones. I have been told the T&C's on the website apply to my brothers account, which is well over 6 years old. I have printed them out but not had chance to go through them properly yet.

[FoxyFiona]

Hi guys,

My claim at present has been grated by the judge one months stay. Got a letter from abbey today - it didnt take them long to start quoting the Berwick v Lloyds case. Read this:

"We refer to the general form of judgement or order staying this claim for settlement,.

We also refer to the recent judgement of the court in the matter of Berwick and Houghtons vs Lloyds TSB where in it was found that "there was no grounds in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges he had paid to it"

In a final attempt to resolve this claim, Abbey National PLC is prepared to make a payment to you in the sum of £2400.00 in full and final settlement of your claim.

My total claim is £9660

[adamc6671]

Hi Noob & FoxyFiona

This sounds like very bad news - Abbey already quoting Lloyds 'victory' after only 3 days!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone have any ideas of how to argue against this in the Court 'bundle' (presumably in the Witness Statement).

Many thanks - Adam.

[Pete-Rock]

The was the letter a friend had sent to me in order to claim. She got back £980 from a £1200 claim.

Obviously in light of Monday's decision, I take it this will need amending?

Dear Sirs

[***********]
Due to recent media coverage on bank charges I am now aware that you, The Woolwich have been charging me, charges, that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.

furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, I request without further notice a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs In relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e)
I also hereby request a detailed report of which clause in your terms and conditions each charge has been applied against.

Your charges appear to be nothing more than a profit-making scheme. Therefore I require you to refund me at a total of £0,000.00, representing the total, unlawful during the last 6 years. I hereby give you 14 days to refund the charges back on to my account. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done within 14 days, I will commence my claim in the courts without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in additional costs.

Yours Sincerely


Is this what most people have been using?

Pete

[FoxyFiona]

Sounds good, i just used the templates on this website.