Thread: 2 Cases LOST+advice on T&C's+breach of contract

OK I have seen two cases lost and did not want to high-jack their threads, but IMVHO they did not prove they were in breach of contract. I have my 1998 T&C's and they state "If you overdraw your account or exceed your overdraft limit without prior agreement, a higher rate of interest is charged on this unauthorised borrowing, this rate is displayed in all branches. We may cover the additional work involved in monitoring your account by charging the fees detailed below"...

Q. So if I have a bounced DD etc - Have I broken the contract? when I pay the FEE Edit Can someone please answer this please - is this the penalty charge ??

The following was posted here a few weeks ago by a VERY clever solicitor; is there anything in this document, especially her evidence, that will improve our chances of combating what the judges have said in both cases?

GaryH has already seen this - but a VERY useful link perhaps!!
Bank Charges - Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Similar Threads:

• HELP!!!!! Are Vodafone in breach of my contract?
• Links to cases lost?
• Proving breach of contract?
• Advice on breach of employment contract.

IMVHO they did not prove they were in breach of contract

Quite right.

We are working on a number of things at the moment which will prevent this happening again - we're compiling a T&C library along with a comprehensive witness statement which relates directly to the terms and demonstrates the breach of contract.

These things clearly take time, especially when there are many different Lloyds accounts with different Terms for each. In the meantime I'm asking anyone with a court date a week or so away to contact me - if you do that you will get what you need.

Even if the court was to find no express breach of contract, as a disguised penalty the penalty provisions can still apply anyway (Bridge v Campbell discount, Dunlop v New Garage) - but clearly its down to the claimants to argue it.

There is no bubble, and even if there was it has certainly not burst!!!!!

Very encouraging, Gary - thanks (again!). Very much look forward to the T&C's Library and Witness Statements - will certainly be a massive help to us all.

Very best regards - Adam

Gary - Hi,

Thank you very very much for this; so as I approach my N1 stage I will hold back until the new witness statement (which I presume will be for both private & all types of business accounts)

You cannot believe how much I and so many others are really stressed out over this

Thank you again for all your the hard work you and others are doing here to help others

Bump

Please see Edit in red.

As my account was opened in 1997 and the charges were referred to as Fees and I now see they call them service charges etc, I just need to reassure myself that Fee = Penalty Charge (which I am sure it is)

Not necessarily - but it doesn't matter what they call it really, the intention is to deter you from breaching the contract, so its a penalty.

Originally Posted by jansus

"" I'm asking anyone with a court date a week or so away to contact me - if you do that you will get what you need."


Does this apply to other bank threads as well? Or would one moderator for each bank post a current guide as to the most important pieces of evidence to use , in layman terms, to prove that these charges are penalties. I know you dont want to panic people and there are still many wins - but this seems to be the crux of the matter for the lost cases. For a judge to rule when the bank did not even appear will surely be flagged to other banks as well.We all want to be prepared to the best of our abilities.

Thanks

No - this is Lloyds only and becouse of the recent events.

Prepare your bundle as per this thread and drop me a PM if they still haven't settled with 3 days to go -
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...important.html

If its a Birmingham or Coventry hearing PM me with at least 2 weeks to go.

Its also important to remember that Lloyds have not actually contested any of these claims yet - and there is certainly no indication that they intend to start now.

The only danger is that they let some of them run to the hearing date without settling. In this situation 99% of the time the claimant gets default judgement, except obviously in the case in Birmingham and now the recent one in Coventry.

This is why you need to be able to point to the term of contract and demonstrate how and why it has been breached.

There is certainly no need to panic.

Even if the court was to find no express breach of contract, as a disguised penalty the penalty provisions can still apply anyway (Bridge v Campbell discount, Dunlop v New Garage) - but clearly its down to the claimants to argue it.

You make it sound easy and I am sure it is. Except I still don't get it.

......there is another case that looks much more promising.....

On the face of it yes, fortyniner, but tread carefully....the judge referred to this one in our hearing but then he came up with an opinion which discounted it, which I'm afraid I stupidly missed in my scramble to take notes on other points he was spouting.

That's why I was hoping to get a second opinion on it here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...Bank+of+Zambia

Originally Posted by notlam

he came up with an opinion which discounted it,

I suspect that your judge would have discounted a signed and sworn statement from the chairman of ltsb to the effect that their 'fees' were all penalty charges and that they were lying about the service charges thing.

I'll watch your new thread and will obviously be interested in any further opinions which may be added about its relevance to determining whether O/D and DD charges are penalty charges (it seems to my legally untrained and simple mind that it does just that, but some judges seem to feel free to decide what they like, regardless of the precedents and arguments the common herd are coming up with).