Lloyds victory in Birmingham - in perspective

[voyager9]

hi ds

i have just sent email to bbc lets see what they do now lol

voyager

[TUTTSI]

I agree! I do hope that they can help you!
DS

[alexpom51]

I'm in the process of claiming £944 from LloydsTSB (inc interest and court fee). I sent a letter before action and, as I got no response within 14 days, sent the N1 to my local county court.

In the meantime, LloydsTSB have already deposited a £750 pay off into my account in "full and final settlement". The money had gone into my account before I could even reply to the letter they sent. I was ready to send a sniffy letter back telling them that I will accept the money as a "payment on account", pending the outcome of the court case, but I am not willing to accept it as "full and final settlement".

I was about to write this letter when I heard for the first time about this one-off victory of theirs.

I would welcome feedback from others on this site about what they would do in my situation. As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it? (Obviously if I was claiming £thousands I wouldn't accept a paltry £750.).

Needless to say, when they turned down my original request, they mentioned the guff about charging £35 a time for providing the "service" of extending my overdraft etc etc - nothing about penalty charges. This so-called "service" charge was, I understand, the basis of their recent success in court.

Please let me know what you think

[TUTTSI]

Originally Posted by alexpom51

I'm in the process of claiming £944 from Lloyds TSB (inc interest and court fee). I sent a letter before action and, as I got no response within 14 days, sent the N1 to my local county court.

In the meantime, LloydsTSB have already deposited a £750 pay off into my account in "full and final settlement". The money had gone into my account before I could even reply to the letter they sent. I was ready to send a sniffy letter back telling them that I will accept the money as a "payment on account", pending the outcome of the court case, but I am not willing to accept it as "full and final settlement".

I was about to write this letter when I heard for the first time about this one-off victory of theirs.

I would welcome feedback from others on this site about what they would do in my situation. As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it? (Obviously if I was claiming £thousands I wouldn't accept a paltry £750.).

Needless to say, when they turned down my original request, they mentioned the guff about charging £35 a time for providing the "service" of extending my overdraft etc etc - nothing about penalty charges. This so-called "service" charge was, I understand, the basis of their recent success in court.

Please let me know what you think

In the Templates Library thre is a rejection letter which you should accept on a partial settlement only and advise them that you have already issued procedings and advise them the balance and that you are still expecting to be paid the full amount + court fees less what they have paid you on account, this is IMHO.
DS

[setmefree]

Originally Posted by alexpom51

As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it?

MMM no would they take £20.00 instead of £30.00 charges i think not, so why should you accept there offer.
you have asked for a true figure the same as they do when they apply the penalty charges.

[TUTTSI]

Quite right setmefree!

[alexpom51]

Thanks for the info.............A

[Iain Francis]

Re deadthings conditions with lloyds - is it possible for a scan of his t & c to go on to this site as I am claiming back to 2001 but have no t & c - i asked lloyds for a copy and have had no reply

Thanks

Iain Francis

[Kenny Haymes]

Originally Posted by Mistermind

My reading of Judge Cooke's Approved Judgment is that he did not dismiss Kevin's claim that the "fee" needed to be reasonable. He understood Kevin to say the fee was unreasonable because Kevin did not like it.

On his own initiative the judge suggested a pragmatic criterion: the price for the job was deemed not unreasonable because it was the market price, namely no significantly lower price was available from any other UK bank, to which Kevin agreed.

If Mr.Berwick 'agreed' with the judge on various points - is the Berwick case the 'right one' to appeal for the benefit of all ? Somewhat difficult to successfully appeal against fundamental elements of a judicial decision - especially if 'one' has initially agreed with them ?

An appeal can only be made based on the evidence before the lower court - and it appears that important evidence was missing in the county court in this case - the permission of the higher court would be needed to adduce further evidence - important evidence such as T&Cs - this permission may be refused - this could then mean any appeal may fail.

On the other hand, the judge granted 'permission to appeal' thereby 'inviting' an appeal - 'permission to appeal' should only be granted where there is a 'reasonable prospect' of success - 'permission' has already been granted by the presiding judge ! But is this a 'spratt to catch a mackerel' ?

Some element of doubt has crept into claimants since this perverse judgment - imagine the impact if an appeal were to fail - an appeal
'encouraged' by a judge who had just made a decison which 'the world and his wife' would know was misguided to put it mildly - and which decision the judge himself thought could be appealed !

The appeal [if any] would be heard in the same building as the original case - and not by a High Court judge - but most probably a local circuit judge - it would depend on how the listings were made.

After any appeal - if made - then 'permission to appeal' to the Court of Appeal would be needed - more than likely a circuit judge would not grant permission to appeal his own decision.

In any further appeal - the Court of Appeal would not normally allow 'further evidence' to be adduced before it - therefore is 'this' the correct case to be taken all the way ?

There can be little doubt that the banks are seeking the out 'the weakest case', from somewhere, to try and set some form of precedent in their favour, even if it means it is only a well-publicised judgment achieved on a procedural advantage or incomplete claim !

[Mistermind]

Kenny, a courageous post from you but one that needs to be made, in case the movement is suckered into an ambush.

Even more damagingly Kevin said at the trial he did NOT regard going overdrawn or overlimit was a breach of contract. This cut off the underpinning of Dunlop v Garage 1910 precedent and opened the door to thef first of two Lloyds documented defence points, namely that the charge was a service fee. Fatally Kevin challenged the existence not the quantity of this charge. Even if new T&C evidence is admitted at the appeal it is hard to see how a complete U-turn would be permitted, starting again from scratch, echoes of double jeopardy.

Contesting the "reasonableness" of the charge level may be a little easier, if less rewarding. New evidence could be introduced from EU etc and from past charge levels to question "reasonableness". The fact that the same bank AIB charges £3 in Dublin but £20 in UK could be adduced to suggest the "market price" has been manipulated by a UK-wide price-fixing cartel of banks.

In mitigation it could be argued the makeshift T&C admitted in court was contained in the bundle of neither the claimant nor the defendant. Lloyds did not bother to show up, while layman Kevin at a moment's notice had to think on his feet. With great novelty the judge presented the T&C evidence.

After thousands of similar cases were assigned for court hearing, only for banks to go AWOL, might judges entertain the excuse that the claimant did not expect a contest, so arrived underprepared? Being a layman he did not try to seek an adjournment.

If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants.

[Kenny Haymes]

Originally Posted by Mistermind

Kenny, a courageous post from you but one that needs to be made, in case the movement is suckered into an ambush.

Even more damagingly Kevin said at the trial he did NOT regard going overdrawn or overlimit was a breach of contract. This cut off the underpinning of Dunlop v Garage 1910 precedent and opened the door to thef first of two Lloyds documented defence points, namely that the charge was a service fee. Fatally Kevin challenged the existence not the quantity of this charge. Even if new T&C evidence is admitted at the appeal it is hard to see how a complete U-turn would be permitted, starting again from scratch, echoes of double jeopardy.

Contesting the "reasonableness" of the charge level may be a little easier, if less rewarding. New evidence could be introduced from EU etc and from past charge levels to question "reasonableness". The fact that the same bank AIB charges £3 in Dublin but £20 in UK could be adduced to suggest the "market price" has been manipulated by a UK-wide price-fixing cartel of banks.

In mitigation it could be argued the makeshift T&C admitted in court was contained in the bundle of neither the claimant nor the defendant. Lloyds did not bother to show up, while layman Kevin at a moment's notice had to think on his feet. With great novelty the judge presented the T&C evidence.

After thousands of similar cases were assigned for court hearing, only for banks to go AWOL, might judges entertain the excuse that the claimant did not expect a contest, so arrived underprepared? Being a layman he did not try to seek an adjournment.

If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants.

Mmm, duly noted Mistermind ! Sadly, even less chance of a successful appeal, in my view - certainly an even bigger risk 'for all' than appeared at first blush.

Whilst I agree with your last paragraph, viz. -

"If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants" -

maybe the 'lesson to be learnt' from all of this is - 'be prepared' - 'be very well prepared indeed' - if you are going to court - it is not a picinic by any stretch of the imagination - take your cases seriously - and claimants should play their 'documentation hand' for the long haul so they don't get caught out - i.e. include 'everything' in their submissions - in case there is need for an appeal - 'and' to avoid a 'judge' (?) formulating his own version of T&Cs and how he 'see's it' (or wants to see it)!

'If' we are back where we started, then so be it - a strategical retrench - at least it will not have jeopardised the many £millions of refunds that are still due to customers.

Let's at least not hand it to them on a plate !

Should Defendant banks refer to the Berwick case not being appealed or trying to score points off the purely County Court decision (to call it a judgment seems too much of an acknowledgement and/or compliment) - it might be useful to counter that by including a plethora of info on all the cases settled by the banks todate, thereby readily submitting such info for reference in court and to highlight the banks' weakness and unwillingness todate - save for a case where no T&Cs are properly submitted !

[photoman]

Kenny,

I could not agree more regards the need for preparation, and was a bit stern with some newbies recently (which they got a little upset about, but hopefully it made them wake up a to reality).
As I said on another thread:

"This is a serious business, and although everything is here online in templated form, it is still necessary to make some effort to understand what is that involved. It is obvious from some of the posts that some people have advanced way down the line without ever doing this.

I am just as willing as many others on this site to try to help them (and have very often done so), and the urgency that these crys for help are are so frequently made in means it must be done so quickly and without chastisement.

My post was meant more as a cautionary warning to those about to set off. To not get yourself in the same mess. To take some time and effort to do things. Read and understand, post and question, get advice earlier rather than later. Look at all the stages before starting even the first, because it is those rudimentary basics that will prepare you for the more difficult later stages."

Regards your statement about having a list of settled cases to hand.

PLEASE, TO EVERYONE that wins:

Do not just vanish off on some Caribbean cruise. DO please post details of your winning case. ESPECIALLY if it was a settlement AFTER the berwick case.

Regards

PM

[Mistermind]

Hear hear. What is more BankFodder wants to hear from those about to reach court. There are so many serious threads these days that the truly urgent get swamped.

There is a danger that opportunistic banks (more so than cards) could switch to guerilla tactics to pick on stragglers. When they can see from the bundle that the litigant is very obviously under-prepared, their barrister can suddenly arrive in court, to chalk up another win and discourage the movement.

When up against a strong bundle they continue to settle and go AWOL, lulling other claimants into a false sense of security. The phoney war could be turning into a war of nerves.



We Need Your Litigation Details!!!!!
http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....itigation.html

[TideTurner]

I couldn't agree more PM. I wonder whether some people understand the luxury they have in terms of information they can get from this site. We have all suffered loss as a result of the actions of the banks for over a decade.

By posting your experiences and Court details, you receive help and help others, and allow the forum to keep an eye on any dirty tricks which may be employed by the banks.

Saying that, I'm as guilty as the next man, and haven't revealed details (even going quiet) for a while, for fear the 'listeners' will know my next move.

I will contact the Mods now, as I'm determined to beat these bullies and would not like to make any mistakes which would affect others.

I'll publish the entire case on my thread when it's over - it will open a few eyes!

Tide

[TUTTSI]

Originally Posted by TideTurner

I couldn't agree more PM. I wonder whether some people understand the luxury they have in terms of information they can get from this site. We have all suffered loss as a result of the actions of the banks for over a decade.

By posting your experiences and Court details, you receive help and help others, and allow the forum to keep an eye on any dirty tricks which may be employed by the banks.

Saying that, I'm as guilty as the next man, and haven't revealed details (even going quiet) for a while, for fear the 'listeners' will know my next move.

I will contact the Mods now, as I'm determined to beat these bullies and would not like to make any mistakes which would affect others.

I'll publish th