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.
Quote:
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.
The issues raised by Llloyds bank defences and claiming beyond 6 yrs 
Re: The issues raised by Llloyds bank defences and claiming beyond 6 yrs 
if i have been off any help to you please click my scales
