Thread: koko vs LloydsTSB

Hi,

Your on the right track, don't be surprised though to receive a standard bog off letter in response to the lba. I submitted a MCOL and they left it exactly 28days before filing a defence. Don't be intimidated and be inspired by the many posts showing that this is how Lloyds do business. Good luck and keep us posted

Hi koko,

I think you may be getting your wires crossed slightly here. overdraft interest is completely seperate from s.69 8% interest.

Re-claimable overdraft interest is the interest that was applied by the bank on top of and as a direct result of each unlawful charge. This is quite complicated to work out, but there is a spreadsheet in the templates to help you. This typically would'nt amount to all that much and many (myself included) don't bother with it. If you do wish to claim this - which you are entitled to - then a figure for it SHOULD be included in your prelim and lba.

s.69 8% interest is the statutory interest that the County Courts Act 1984 allows you to claim on top of any money you are owed when you issue a claim for it. As such, this SHOULD NOT be included, or even mentioned, in the prelim and LBA. It is only claimable if/when you issue a court claim.

Its too late to worry about your prelim now, but you'll certainly need to have another look at your figures before you send your LBA.

Hope this helps clarify matters.

Rec'd sod off letter no 2 yesterday, Ms Musarat Siddique (wow she'e busy) informs me that bounced DDs, SOs, CHQs & Exceeding overdraft Limit are "charged-for services" and "the fees we charge ... are not any kind of default penalty". Well I certainly feel penalised so I guess we go to court now.

Actually I'm a little relieved as with the 8% interest added I can clear my Lloyds debts (except credit card which is another matter entirely).

One question: I am claiming for my personal account, ex-joint account and my sole trader business account (my name not a company name) can I lump all these together in one claim under the same legal argument or do I need to issue a separately claim for the sole trader account. I've seen conflicting points of view on this recently and don't want to make a mess of it!

Thanks Koko

I dont think there's anything stopping you lumping them together, but if all the accounts have different terms and conditions you may be better off keeping them apart.

Thanks Gary, I don't have the T&Cs for any of these accounts, they are so old, I found this Lloyds TSB - Classic Account for my personal acc, and this Lloyds TSB - Platinum current account for the ex-joint acc, but nothing for a simple business "current account". Any thoughts?

OK found the bit I was looking for above. Picked up N1 claim pack and ready to go ......

Tick tock tick tock .....

Should have filed claim yesterday, still (2 months) waiting for HMRC to sort out FTC so I won't have to pay court fees. I know I'd get them back eventually but I'm "managing my cashflow in a mature and responsible manner" Ms Siddique, so don't you be thinking you've scared me off.

Watch this space!

OK folks here are my Particulars of Claim form N1 to be taken to court tomorrow. I have lumped personal and business accounts together so comments most appreciated.

1. The Claimant has two personal accounts numbers xxx and xxx ("the Personal Accounts") with the Defendant which were opened on or around xxx and xxx respectively.
The claimant also has one sole trader account number xxx ("the Sole Trader Account") which was opened on or around xxx.
All the accounts detailed above "the Accounts" are conducted on the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions.
2. The Accounts have been operating continuously from the opening date until the present and during this period the Defendant debited numerous charges in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. The Defendant has also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant ascerts that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contracts between itself and the Claimant.
3. Details of the charges applied are set out in Annex A attached to these particulars of claim.
4. The Claimant ascerts that:
a) The charges debited to the Accounts are unlawful and are unenforceable because they constitute a disproportionate penalty. The charges are punitive in nature and are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant due to any alleged breach. They exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant caused by the alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant but instead unduly enrich the Defendant who exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit only.
b) With regard to the Sole Trader Account penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.
c) With regard to the Personal Accounts the contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is also unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
d) In the event that the charges are found not to constitute a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15 and as a result are not enforceable.
e) The claimant has repeatedly asked the Defendant to refund the charges or offer full details of the alleged breaches and the losses directly caused by them. They have declined to do so.
5. Therefore the Claimant claims:
a) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £xxx; in accordance with the details set out in Annex A;
b) Court costs;
c) Interest under section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from 24th October 2000 to 23rd October 2006 of £xxx and also interest at same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxx as set out on the attached list of charges or at such a rate and for such periods as the court deems just.


Koko

OK. I filed the N1 at court on Monday 23rd and it's now Saturday 28th and I haven't heard anything. I thought from reading other people's threadsI would have had my copy of the claim form back and a date by which Lloyds had to acknowledge pretty much by return of post. Notice of Issue I believe it's called. Is it just that it's faster if you use MCOL which obviously I didn't? Am I being too impatient? Is this just first time nerves? Does anyone have any valium? Koko

How fast you get a notice of issue depends entirely on your local court and how busy they are. Some process claims within a couple of day, mine on the other hand, Swindon CC, are currently taking anything up to 2 weeks! The target is 5 working days though. Now, deep breaths in........ and out......... in..........

Thanks GaryH just what I needed to hear! Thinking calming thoughts, waves gently rolling up a sandy beach etc.

What about some nice calming whale music? works wonders for stress, allegedly

Or a DVD of a crackling fire place ...

Have been AWOL for a couple of months, lots of normal life interferring with my internet time! Ah well here's an update!

Claim Issued 30th Oct 2006 Claim No 6LS10505
Service Acknowledged 7th Nov 2006
Case Transferred to Mercantile Court 7th Nov 06 New Claim No 6LS40694
(but paperwork to tell me this is dated 7th Dec 06)
Hearing Date set for 7 Feb 2007

NO DEFENCE HAS BEEN ENTERED

So if anyone out there knows where I stand please let me know. I was just about to apply for a judgement due to lack of defence when I received the transfer notification, I guess I should ring the court but am a little afraid of looking stupid! It's now over a month since the deadline for Lloyds to enter a defence. Any thoughts please? (apart from you slacker you should have done this a month ago!).

Koko

Hi Koko,

Your case has been allocated to the Mercentile court. You haven't received a defence? Very strange. I'm guessing this is an error by the courts - give them a ring ASAP.

What about an aq, have you filled in and returned that yet?

There is a mercentile court forum here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-cases-stays/. It might be a good idea to start a thread there also.