The issues raised by Llloyds bank defences and claiming beyond 6 yrs

[BankFodder]

Lloyds bank admits that their charges are not penalties.

In other words they are admitting that they make profits from their penalties.
They clearly do.
We have seen that Yorkshire/Clydesdale banks' charges are never more than £2.00. Lloyds will be in the same order but less because of their economies of scale.
Don't forget that the YB/CB figure assumes that a process has been conducted manually throughout.
In fact most processes are carried out automatically by computer. Even the preparation of a letter which is automatically inserted into an envelope is all done by a machine and costs only a few pence.

You can be certain that Lloyds uses a costing system probably even more sophisticated than CYNthesys.

Lloyds case is based upon their claim that they are merely charging a fee for a service.

This is nonsense, of course. Their charges are penalties - just like those of the other banks. All they are doing is dressing up the penalty to look like a fee for a service.

This is a well known trick. It has been tried hundreds of times in the 100yrs or more that the law relating to penalties has been around.

Lloyds trick is so well known that the judges even have a phrase to describe it. The say that it is "cloaking a penalty".

This merely means that the bank is operating an unlawful penalty regime but they are merely disguising it to look like a fee for a service.

Lloyds trick is so well known that the OFT in their April 2006 report even referred to it and warned that institutions should not so this. The OFT made it clear that the handling of delinquent accounts was not core business and that penalties should not be disguised in order to get round the law.

Disguised penalties
4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist.12 (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...cts/oft842.pdf

Despite this, Lloyds continues to cloak its penalties.




Warning:- the bank will try to say that this all only applies to credit cards.
This would be untrue. The OFT made it clear that there is a read-across to the banks and even said that they expected the banks to comply as well.
In any event, the law is the same for banks as it is for credit card companies.



When you prepare your case against Lloyds, this is the issue which you must keep in the forefront of your mind and which you must prepare to argue.

When a judge decides that Lloyds merely are disguising their penalties, then that is the end for Lloyds and their entire penalty regime.

Finally, it seems logical to say that disguising a penalty must amount to a concealment and therefore they lose the protection of the Limitation Act.

We would advise lloyds claimants that there is a basis for seeking the repayment of all of their money as far back as it goes.

A single finding against Lloyds will definitively remove the limitation period.

lloyds bank financial liability will be massive.

Now you know why it is not worth their while going into court.

BankFodder is there any reason why this only applies to Lloyds and not other banks using the same defence strategy? This might not be relevant to Lloyds forum as such but HSBC is using the same defence and is even stating that if the charges are found to be penalties they will counterclaim for loss/damage caused by the customer's breaches (as I believe are Barclaycard). HSBC has even amended its terms and conditions in Dec 2006 to remove the clause that said the charges were to cover their admin costs and to add in something about account breaches being an informal request for an overdraft, so entitling them to provide a service for considering it and to apply a "service" charge, or as we know it, a "cloaked penalty"! I used this argument that it amounted to concealment in my response to their defence, and they settled my pre-6 yr charges the next day!!

Are you going to be making a similar announcement in the other relevant forums?

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[BankFodder]

It applies to anyone who uses the fee-for-a-service argument.

HSBC are fools because by trying to move the goalposts now they are kidding no one and are even drawing attention to themselves.

HSBC have actually weakened their position by this shift. I really do think that they should get some better advisors as at the moment they are not getting value for money.

By all means link to this thread from other forums. It has a general relevance.
NatWest do the same thing.

If they think that we are stupid then they are stupid. If they realise that we are not stupid then they are even more stupid for trying it out.
Maybe they think that the courts are stupid.

[Fluffykaiser2]

Hi, I have just received a response from Lloyds Bank to my bank charges reclaim letter. Their letter states that I am not receiving my claim as my charges were charges for "extra services" and they feel it is fair to make these charges as it "causes them extra work". They also claim that they are completely open about their charges to new customers by giving them a guide to their charges. The letter goes on and on about only applying to credit card charges and that the guidelines are about "default charges" that people pay when they have broken their agreement and that I have not broken my agreement with them. My charges are for unauthorised borrowing, unpaid direct debits etc.! They finish off by stating that they cannot agree to cancel my charges and that they will put me in touch with the Financial Ombudsman if I do not agree.

Could somebody please advise on my next move..... Help!

Many thanks to everybody for the information on this site!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[GaryH]

Welcome to CAG

The letter you have received is totally standard.

Please start your own thread, here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...newthread&f=11

Then have a good read of the FAQ section as well as the LTSB 'successes' forum (up the top)

Best of luck, not that luck is necessary - just a bit of patience

[NascentPawn]

Is it your argument that concealment is deceit and thus within the twelve year limitation?

There's a much higher burden of proof for this

[meagain]

No. See S32 - in the case of concealment, the time limit is still whatever it would have been, but starts running until the claimant discovers* the concealment instead of running from the actual time of the breach. In effect, if you have discovered this today, you have six years from today to recover old penalties.

* usual qualifiers apply

[andrewwh]

Hi Everyone,

I have just joined the consumer group today. I am in the process of claiming back my excess charges from Lloyds TSB. I dont have all my statements etc and I guess the first thing is to send the letter Data Protection Act "list of Charges" to Lloyds TSB at Colmore row Birmingham?? or do you think it would be best to talk to my local branch first?

[Pen]

it's good news being able to claim beyond the six year limitation and i would certainly go for it giving the chance, but!!! getting post 6 yr statements from Lloyd's is a different matter. they wrote informing me that all correspondence older then 6 yrs has been destroyed therefor the only way of getting them is going down the court route which means more time wasting on their part. And more importantly a total waste of tax payers money if they do supply them due to a court order. If they have them they should just give them on request of the Subject Access Request not be forced into it by a court.

Pen

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

Originally Posted by Pen

it's good news being able to claim beyond the six year limitation and i would certainly go for it giving the chance, but!!! getting post 6 yr statements from Lloyd's is a different matter. they wrote informing me that all correspondence older then 6 yrs has been destroyed therefor the only way of getting them is going down the court route which means more time wasting on their part. And more importantly a total waste of tax payers money if they do supply them due to a court order. If they have them they should just give them on request of the Subject Access Request not be forced into it by a court.

Pen

Hi Pen can you post up the wording of their letter? are they saying they hold the statements but you have to get a court order to obtain them?

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[photoman]

Re: Lloyds. I have all my Bank statements on my Business account back to 1994, and all my statements on my personal account back to 1984.

I am claiming them ALL back !!

Perhaps a Mod would like to PM me, and I'll give you a bit more info on my game-plan?
Once further underway/ settled I shall post a lot more info for others to use.

[swayze]

Hi Pen can you post up the wording of their letter? are they saying they hold the statements but you have to get a court order to obtain them?

I have just recived my 6 years worth of statements I asked for ALL infomation and the reply i got was that further than 6 years was held in their archives and would take time to access it I wrote and told them i wanted it all and the 40 days was up and i would start court proceedings within 7 days that time runs out on thursday

hi swayze, I'm collating all this info. if you do get anything older than 6 years would you mind providing an update on my thread here please Please Post How Far Back You Have Managed To Obtain Statements

many thanks

[swayze]

Will Do

[Pen]

Hi Bong. when I sent the Subject Access Request i requested all information relating to all of my banking history. the letter i recieved back stated that they "could not comply with my request as our retention period for storing information is six years so we will not be able to comply fully with your request." if fact they complied with very little of it, ie 1yr

I did take lloyds to court for the information and they had until the 11th April to respond. I called the courts today nothing from lloyds so they have advised me to fill in a request for judgment which i will do today.
pen

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[pward33]

Interesting, will watch this one. I have already started a 6-year claim with Lloyds. Assuming they settle for the sum I have asked, in "full and final settlement" of my claim, is there anything to prevent me taking a second claim out for the pre-6-year charges? Presumably these would be two separate claims and so there is nothing in the phrase "full and final settlement" of the current claim that prevents me from subsequently starting another claim in reespect of the earlier charges?

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[Alison82]

There must be some way to get these statements, they have hidden theses charges for years!!! If we found out about them 15 years ago, what would they have done? they wouldn't still be charging us today!!!

[meagain]

Originally Posted by Alison82

If we found out about them 15 years ago, what would they have done?

Probably told you that actually there was some manual intervention involved. Had we found out 25 years ago, they would have pointed out that these decisions were indeed made manually (and cost you only £10-£15 - half an hour of someone's time). It's only been in the last 10 years or so that the manual element has been almost entirely eliminated, which is why the bank can argue the whole costs/service thing - at one point it may have been accurate, the banks can simply plead ignorance in forgetting to review the fees as their costs went down. Of course, ignorance is no defence when you're facing thousands of identical claims from your customers and have already been warned off it once by a statutory body.

[Pen]

Nothing to stop you from making a claim pre 6 yrs other then getting the evidence that you have paid chargers and it's in the banks interest not to supply us with them. I have heard of some cases whereby members have made estimated claims but!! i think this is a very tricky area and would not feel confidant if i did not have the prove in black and white to back up my case in court so to speak it's bad enough feeling confident when you do have the statements to prove the chargers have been taken unlawfully.

I just hope the judge when making his judgment decides the bank have to provide me with them all but! if they have destroyed them then thats it, I suppose I would then have to look at making a estimate claim and let the banks prove that the don't owe it to me and how would they do that if they did not have the statements.

but! if anyone knows of a way of estimating chargers based on your last 6 yrs bank statements please let us all know

Pen

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[meagain]

Originally Posted by Pen

Nothing to stop you from making a claim pre 6 yrs other then getting the evidence that you have paid chargers and it's in the banks interest not to supply us with them. I have heard of some cases whereby members have made estimated claims but!! i think this is a very tricky area and would not feel confidant if i did not have the prove in black and white to back up my case in court so to speak it's bad enough feeling confident when you do have the statements to prove the chargers have been taken unlawfully.

Don't worry too much about the estimates. If you have exercised due diligence in trying to obtain the evidence but the bank are withholding it, and you have then made a reasonable estimate (take an annual average and extrapolate it backward, for instance - the fees in the early days may have been lower, but since the bank is being obstructive you can't know that, can you?). The court is looking for two things: namely that you know you have been done wrong, and you have made a reasonable effort to find out by how much. If the bank is actively preventing you from doing this, the court will take that fact into account.