Thread: TSB Lose in St Albans

Landmark Case Topples Lloyds TSB Victory on Bank Charges


Pro-consumer judgement on unlawful bank charges won against Lloyds TSB with support from penaltycharges.co.uk



July 05, 2007 - Press Dispensary - Consumers fighting to reclaim money through the courts for unfair penalty charges levied by British banks received an historic boost today, when a St Albans county court judge ruled in favour of a claimant, awarding him over £4,000. This is the first ruling of this type to pass through the UK courts.

Thanks to legal support from consumer advice website, penaltycharges.co.uk, the case of Gregory Terry v Lloyds TSB Plc was brought to a County Court, in which Mr Terry made history by successfully winning his case against the UK bank.

The ruling kicks into touch a previous judgement made in favour of Lloyds TSB at Birmingham County Court in May 2007, in Kevin Berwick v Lloyds TSB. Mr Berwick had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim and it had been feared that other cases might not be successful in court if judges considered that a precedent had been set in the banks’ favour.

Any comments?

Similar Threads:

• Nothing to lose other than what I've ALREADY lost!
• What if I lose?
• I'm going to lose my job...
• What have I got to Lose?
• How to do this but not lose my car?

It was actually no different from any claim involving Lloyds were they don't turn up - the claimant got default judgement! The only court where this does not happen is Birmingham.

Still, at least its more publicity for the campaign.

Hi Gary, is it different in terms of a ruling given as opposed to judgment by default or defence struck out?

Bump

Judgement by default is just that - a win by default. It does not mean the court has approved the claim and it hasn't ruled on its merits or examined any evidence.

A proper ruling would hold weight in law (although not necessarily in a SCT case), whereas a judgement by default holds no relevance whatsoever.

A strike out is just an order that removes the claim or defence, which is usually made punitively - I.e for abuse of process or if a party has broken a CPR or not complied with a court order. If the court strikes out a statement of case then the other party is entitled to file for judgement by default.

Nope, in fact it happens on average about once a week in Lloyds cases - where they don't show the claimant always gets JbD. Obviously the one exception to this has been Birmingham.

There's a selection of 10 or so of the cases won in court - most by default, some having been heard - here;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...truck-out.html

Any publicity is good publicity and anything which gives confidence to claimants is great so in that respect the site concerned should be congratulated.

I'm sure it must just have been a freak coincidence that the case that was chosen out of all the other cases happened to be the day after our Hull cases - which, I might add, were of genuine significance and which made the press and rightly so.

Also you could argue that this gives the impression that, as the case chosen was the same as any other Lloyds case, it is now necessary to have a barrister present in order to win a claim. This is patently not the case and IMHO gives off completely the wrong message.

"So hard only a barrister can do it", perhaps?

Hi, Guess one of the alternative sites wanted to grab a bit of limelight

Do think that Judge Besford new exactly what he was doing even, it caused some initial panic. Given that Hull Court is self funding, they scooped a cool 37 x £120 in one afternoon, fame and fortune I ask myself

It will be very interesting to see what Yorkshire Bank do next, reach for the cheque book springs to mind.

A bit of a rambling but, will serve to bump the thread.

I just hope people are going for wasted costs orders.

If they can kill 37 birds with one stone, it might set a trend!

Unlikely. If that was the case then the judgement would probably have been reserved and formally handed down at a later date. Also, St. Alban's county court has granted the claimant JbD in the past when Lloyds haven't turned up, so I can't see how this case would've been any different.

I notice that the press realise has not actually made any press - or even the news websites - so that also suggests that this may not actually be quite as significant as some are making it out to be!

As you say, we'll find out for definate when the judgement/order comes out. I could be wrong.

This came from an article found on google alerts:-

Just days ago, the banks paid out to more than 200 customers whose cases were due to be heard at a court in Leeds. The judge there had indicated that he wanted to use some of the actions as a test case, but the banks chose not to defend their fees.

.....
*head desk*
wwrong thread, need more coffee