Accountant's court victory over 'illegal' bank charges
As legal contests go, it was something of a mismatch. In one corner, a minnow; Brian Mullen, a 29-year-old accountant with an overdraft. 
In the other, a rather large shark; Lloyds TSB bank, which took nearly £2,000 of Mr Mullen's money in penalties for bounced cheques, direct debits and standing orders when he exceeded his overdraft limit.
But with inspiration from an article in the Guardian which suggested that bank charges were not legally enforceable, the minnow, it seems, has won.
Mr Mullen, of Stockport, Greater Manchester, used an online court service to lodge a claim against his bank, arguing that penalty clauses are illegal in contract law and, therefore, the bank could not legitimately make money out of his overspend.
When Lloyds TSB failed to defend his action at Northampton county court last month, the judgment was awarded in Mr Mullen's favour.
But the bank failed to pay, and Mr Mullen - who represented himself - went to Stockport county court to get the judgment enforced.
Since Lloyd's failed to settle his bill, it emerged yesterday, Mr Mullen has now been granted a warrant of execution giving bailiffs the power to seize the bank's assets. "I'm not sure if the bailiffs
have arrived yet, but the court has authorised them to seize the bank's assets valued to an amount equal to my charges," he said. "If the bank doesn't settle they can go in any time they like and take assets to the value of the debt. I have always felt the charges were wrong because they don't just reflect the bank's costs, they are also penalty charges making them billions every year."
He added: "I remember I was charged £110 in one month a few years ago - and I was just a poor student. That's the thing, these penalties are directed at the poor."
He believes his success will inspire other bank customers to challenge their charges.
In a statement, Lloyds TSB said it had recently paid Mr Mullen the reimbursement he had claimed in court.
"We do have a right to challenge the default judgment but are not going to do so. Instead, we have paid Mr Mullen the monies he believes are owed to him," the statement said."We believe our charges are transparent and fair and to say these charges are unlawful is inaccurate."
From Guardian Online
Bbc Manchester News - Court Case Today
The Consumer Forums
Reply With Quote
