Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

ok so they say i have a case BUT.....lloydstsb bank charges*****WIN*****


lenny100
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4657 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hi

just started out with my claim put over the last few mounths they have been chargeing me over £ 300 per mounths as i have become to sick to work and things have started to go wrong so i expetc i will be claming back quite a large amount

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Good on Ya Lenny and welcome to the site.

Spend some time reading up.....makes claiming much smoother if you have some understanding.

Help is never far away should you need it.:D

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 years later...

i have had a claim on hold for over 9 grand now since the stay was put in place and under advisment i put in a claim for hardship as my incomeings are made up from disability payment and my forces pension only and i pay charges every mounth now rangeing fromm $ 100 to over £ 300.

after not heraing from lloyds bank for over a year i did a full discloser on them and found out i was placed on their systems as a hardship case but look like nothing was done, so i put in a complant to the FOS.

now i have today recived this leter from lloyds bank but when i call the given number i am sent around the options then given there standard phone number to call as i am not on any repayment plan and it hangs up.

what should i do next.

 

2010-03-18-1506-49_edited.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, that letter is from thier collection dept, the 0845 n0 will send you to thier indian call center. i had a problem like this. i did go to my local lloyds branch and explained the situation. the branch manager made 1 phone call and i was indeed put in contact with the correct dept. it worked for me maybe you could try. good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would agree that you should probably go into the branch and ask them for a number for the right department. I know you have no hope of phoning them direct.:mad:

 

Don't be fobbed off by them trying to get you into any kind of agreement. This should have been dealt with under the waiver.

 

I would also write to them and tell them the number they are sending out is not the right one.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

i have a case in to the fos about my charges with lloydstsb as acording to there own sysatem i was a hardship case but was never even sent a acnoligment letter and this was before the long hold,

i found this information by pure accident as a read the other paperwork i was sent when i asked them for all the data they hold on me abiut a year ago now as i prepayed to isue another court case, when it looked like we were going to win.

now after nearly 6 mounths of the usual , "your case is in the cue" i recuved this letter today,

2010-06-17-1958-46.jpg

 

now if the adudicator has found them to be at fault and they have ignored her then why does it need to go further up the ladder, surly she has the power to make them pay up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, lenny.

 

I know when I dealed with FOS, it was always better to phone whoever was dealing with the case, I'd give her a phone.

 

Looks like she needs someone else to take it on from here, not sure why.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

a second letter which shows that the fos is truly toothless as far as the banks think

 

2010-06-21-0006-33.jpg

 

 

2010-06-21-0007-13.jpg

 

 

2010-06-21-0008-12.jpg

 

so even when they are told to pay up they just ignore the fos and it screw the customer as usual

 

and my reply to this letter

 

Thank you for your recent letters about my case

 

I have read through them and world like to make the following points,

 

I have tried to respond to both their voicemail and letter by ringing the number provided and after going through a complicated automated service. I was told that my accounts were not held by the customer support unit, by the automated system, and I must ring the general enquires unit.

When I did so they were unable to tell me why I was being asked to contact this unit as it was never in their letter why I had been asked to contact this unit, as they understood this unit only normally deals with accounts which have a” serious” debt with the bank such as overdue loans and mortgages or bankrupt accounts, and nothing was showing on the records that my account had been “ called in “ as they put it, on the information they were looking at, and they were very sorry but they were unable to help me.

Also I was recently in my own branch to talk to the bank to add my wife details to my current account, as recently when I was in hospital, she was unable to make a withdraw from my account.

At no time was I offered any advice or offered any help, in fact I was embarrassed when the person dealing with my request as they looked through my accounts records, that were held with the bank and my two loans I had out in the past with them, told me I was hurting my chances of obtain any further loans or any other services from the bank due to my account being in constant arrears and racking up quite large charges and I should stop wasting money.

I am still awaiting the outcome of this simple request to be made and my wife’s card to be issued after over 10 weeks.

The bank was made aware in January 2007 that I was going into finical difficulties when I was made redundant, as I went into my local branch , and informed them I had lost my job, and I was told they would send out a letter in due course for me to see somebody at a larger branch in Sunderland as they had nobody in my local branch who dealt with those issues. I never recived any such letter, and only when I had payed off the two loans late last year, I which I had at the time in 2007 did I find out I had PPI on one of the loans, which I could have made a clam against, for nearly 3 years which could have helped my financial position greatly as I was paying out £85.26 per month that I did not need to if I had been told I had the PPI to claim against.

I was not in a position to make a formal complaint about this at the time as I was unaware there was anybody to complain to, and believed there was nothing the bank would do to help me until I was in a really serious position and facing bankruptcy .

 

Yours faithfully

Edited by lenny100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lenny:)

 

Well done at getting the FOS to uphold your complaint about bank charges/financial hardship against LTSB and sorry to hear the bank is refusing to comply - typical blooming Lloyds!

 

The FOS upheld one of my complaints and when informed of this by the FOS the firm concerned refused to acknowledge/pay up. This also had to go before an ombudsman for a further investigation which took an additional 3 months approx. Once the ombudsman had also upheld my complaint and I had signed the acceptance form, at that point it became legally binding on both myself and the firm.

 

So I believe it is only once an ombudsman has ruled that it becomes legally binding and can then be enforced through the courts if necessary. Prior to that I believe a firm is (unfortunately) within their rights to refuse to comply with a FOS adjudicator's decision.

 

Hope you don't have to wait much longer to get your money from these scheming a***holes :-x

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2005 the FOS tried me to accept £50, he tried hard sell on the £50, so far the credit card company have paid a couple of thousand, nothing has changed, except they lied in 2005 and it's caught up with them. I'm sure they wouldn't like this to go to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although FOS decisions are legally binding, they dont have any means of enforcing their decision themselves.

 

It is up to you to do this through the Courts.

 

That would simply be a matter of showing the decision letter to the judge and its game over for the bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Well i am still waiting although i have gotten my monthly sorry you still waiting letter

i reckon that i am up to a payout of around £ 3750 at the moment pitty it dosnt go back to 2002 when i started to record these charges that would be around £13500

Edited by lenny100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think you can't go back to 2002? Is it because you (wrongly) think there's a strict 6 year limit under the Limitation Act? Also you only started to record your charges then - but the Bank MUST give you ALL records they hold on ALL your dealings with them - even back to year dot if they have them (and they do- of course they do!) if you spend £10 on a DSAR.

 

There are loads of posts on other threads about how the Limitation Act actually works. My reading of this is that you have 6 years from when you DISCOVERED you had a claim - not just the right to claim back for 6 years from now. Since you have only confirmed your claim (based on FOS adjudicator agreeing with you and LTSB previously not agreeing or accepting you had a hardship claim) my view is you may now have until 2016 to reclaim ALL LTSB charges - not just the recent hardship ones ruled on by FOS - AND any interest THEY have charged you PLUS 8% statutory interest (NB - not just the 8% - but also any unauthorised overdraft interste charged and compounded monthly.

 

Before "accepting" the FOS offer, I would do a lot more reading of other threads - some things about the Limitation Act's "limitations" (in some Capital One threads) - where the 6 years only started to tick away after the OFT report into unfair credit card charges was published in 2006.

 

It may be LTSB are only currently obliged to repay charges since you got into difficulties. However look at Martin Lewis's MSE site on what is "difficulties". It specifically mentions those who continue to rack up charges month after month. - as you seemed to do from way back. These bank employees who sniffily tell us "you're wasting your money" really get up my nose. As if we were TRYING to incur these extortionate charges!

 

It may be that you have to accept the FOS "offer" as a first step when LTSB finally give in - BUT if so, reserve the right to go back to 2002 (or earlier) pending someone getting some UCCTR decison that is different from the dreadful SC one last year. I really think this will happen - probably in the Glasgow Sheriff Court (Sharp v HBOS) - so ensure you don't sign your rights away to benefit further if this case goes our way.

 

If this case does go our way, it also might be better to split your further LTSB claim (after FOS pay out) into two - to stay below the £5k small claims threshold in each. First claim back to 6 years - i.e. to 2004 - and THEN (assuming you win) - use the Limitation Act rules to reclaim back to year dot. Don't ever sign any F&F acceptance without modifying it to limit its acceptance to the specific dates of your specific claim. Birmingham Midshires (also now part of LLoyds) tried this with me - offering me £150 but I actually got back £1700 in unfair late payment charges just by digging my heels in - no court case, no legal threats - just spelling out my rights and letting them see I wouldn't roll over as they wanted.

 

Maybe LTSB have done you a favour in dragging their heels?

 

Good luck anyway - and please keep us all posted. It's so unusual to hear FOS come down on our side!

 

BD

Edited by Bigdebtor
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have my spreadsheet up and running which goes back until 10/06/2002 as far as the data i got on my data request goes to and up to today including interest at 8% stands at £1307.31

they say they dont hold data older than that, pity since i have had this acount since 1990 and must have charges quite a bit as a serviceman who only way of getting cash most times was a cheque cash at the unit pay office and at times they dint process them until the end of the month meaning sometimes you were overdrawn for a few days, and got the £50 letter charge every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add interest at the rate THEY charged you compounded as often as they did (probably monthly) - then you can add 8% statutory (simple interest I think) on top of that!

 

I DO NOT BELIEVE they have no records from before 2002 - but don't know how it can be challenged - or if they are breaching any statutory anti money laundering duty etc.

 

Do you have any older statements or cheque book stubs etc.?

 

Presumably that means they won't have a record of the £100k you put on deposit with them in 2001? :wink: However I wouldn't want to be arguing with a judge on "balance of probablities" on that!

 

Good luck!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Limitation act - 6 Years is from the date of Breach. 6 Years from date of 'knowledge' only applies to Tort claims (basically and generally this is Personal Injury only). So you could only claim 6 years form when you claim. And even if it was from knowledge, the FOS upholding a claim would not be 'knowledge' - Knowledge is when you have some idea that you might have been wronged, and some idea of the identity of the wrongdoer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AK

 

Thanks for the post - valuable info if totally correct and I am not sure enough on the first point to argue, although many others have given me the info I have quoted earlier. Can you give some evidence to back up your views - and explain more about "tort" to the many laymen on this site?

On the 2nd point about "knowledge" - all creditors claimed their charges were "fair" and only changed their ways after the OFT report in April 2006 - so surely any layman could be forgiven for believing them until the OFT report - in which case the 6 years start from then - at the very earliest? Given the OFT report was hardly front page news then most laymen would still not have such "knowledge".

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Limitation act - 6 Years is from the date of Breach. 6 Years from date of 'knowledge' only applies to Tort claims (basically and generally this is Personal Injury only). So you could only claim 6 years form when you claim. And even if it was from knowledge, the FOS upholding a claim would not be 'knowledge' - Knowledge is when you have some idea that you might have been wronged, and some idea of the identity of the wrongdoer.

 

Further to the above specifically with regard to the Limitation Act - being a piece of legislation

 

Under s.228 of the Financial Markets and Services Act 2000 (and subsequently confirmed by case law)

 

The Ombudsman service is not required to determine a complaint based on law, this includes legislation and case law. Rather it is required to determine a complaint upon what it considers to be fair and reasonable.

 

This opens a number of avenues that should be considered.

 

1) Based upon the principle of fair and reasonable is a breach (be it a charge or other event) more fair and reasonable because it happened more than six years ago.

 

Of course, s.228 of the FSMA 2000 in itself confirms that the Limitation Act is not a valid argument. However, the DISP rules - being the rules within the FSA (the industry regulator) Handbook also confirms:

 

DISP 2.8.2 "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;"

 

So rather that 6 years as per the Limitation Act a complainant actually as three years from when they became aware they had cause for complaint. In theory they could say that they only became aware they had cause to complaint about an event that happend more than six years ago

 

Therefore, I would not be so quick to throw up the Limitation Act with regard to views/decisions made by the Ombudsman Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...