Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

The issues raised by Llloyds bank defences and claiming beyond 6 yrs


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5043 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

Lloyds bank admits that their charges are not penalties.

 

In other words they are admitting that they make profits from their penalties.

They clearly do.

We have seen that Yorkshire/Clydesdale banks' charges are never more than £2.00. Lloyds will be in the same order but less because of their economies of scale.

Don't forget that the YB/CB figure assumes that a process has been conducted manually throughout.

In fact most processes are carried out automatically by computer. Even the preparation of a letter which is automatically inserted into an envelope is all done by a machine and costs only a few pence.

 

You can be certain that Lloyds uses a costing system probably even more sophisticated than CYNthesys.

 

Lloyds case is based upon their claim that they are merely charging a fee for a service.

 

This is nonsense, of course. Their charges are penalties - just like those of the other banks. All they are doing is dressing up the penalty to look like a fee for a service.

 

This is a well known trick. It has been tried hundreds of times in the 100yrs or more that the law relating to penalties has been around.

 

Lloyds trick is so well known that the judges even have a phrase to describe it. The say that it is "cloaking a penalty".

 

This merely means that the bank is operating an unlawful penalty regime but they are merely disguising it to look like a fee for a service.

 

Lloyds trick is so well known that the OFT in their April 2006 report even referred to it and warned that institutions should not so this. The OFT made it clear that the handling of delinquent accounts was not core business and that penalties should not be disguised in order to get round the law.

Disguised penalties

4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist.12 (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

 

Despite this, Lloyds continues to cloak its penalties.

 

 

 

 

Warning:- the bank will try to say that this all only applies to credit cards.

This would be untrue. The OFT made it clear that there is a read-across to the banks and even said that they expected the banks to comply as well.

In any event, the law is the same for banks as it is for credit card companies.

 

 

 

When you prepare your case against Lloyds, this is the issue which you must keep in the forefront of your mind and which you must prepare to argue.

 

When a judge decides that Lloyds merely are disguising their penalties, then that is the end for Lloyds and their entire penalty regime.

 

Finally, it seems logical to say that disguising a penalty must amount to a concealment and therefore they lose the protection of the Limitation Act.

 

We would advise lloyds claimants that there is a basis for seeking the repayment of all of their money as far back as it goes.

 

A single finding against Lloyds will definitively remove the limitation period.

 

lloyds bank financial liability will be massive.

 

Now you know why it is not worth their while going into court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

BankFodder is there any reason why this only applies to Lloyds and not other banks using the same defence strategy? This might not be relevant to Lloyds forum as such but HSBC is using the same defence and is even stating that if the charges are found to be penalties they will counterclaim for loss/damage caused by the customer's breaches (as I believe are Barclaycard). HSBC has even amended its terms and conditions in Dec 2006 to remove the clause that said the charges were to cover their admin costs and to add in something about account breaches being an informal request for an overdraft, so entitling them to provide a service for considering it and to apply a "service" charge, or as we know it, a "cloaked penalty"! I used this argument that it amounted to concealment in my response to their defence, and they settled my pre-6 yr charges the next day!!

 

Are you going to be making a similar announcement in the other relevant forums?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It applies to anyone who uses the fee-for-a-service argument.

 

HSBC are fools because by trying to move the goalposts now they are kidding no one and are even drawing attention to themselves.

 

HSBC have actually weakened their position by this shift. I really do think that they should get some better advisors as at the moment they are not getting value for money.

 

By all means link to this thread from other forums. It has a general relevance.

NatWest do the same thing.

 

If they think that we are stupid then they are stupid. If they realise that we are not stupid then they are even more stupid for trying it out.

Maybe they think that the courts are stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have just received a response from Lloyds Bank to my bank charges reclaim letter. Their letter states that I am not receiving my claim as my charges were charges for "extra services" and they feel it is fair to make these charges as it "causes them extra work". They also claim that they are completely open about their charges to new customers by giving them a guide to their charges. The letter goes on and on about only applying to credit card charges and that the guidelines are about "default charges" that people pay when they have broken their agreement and that I have not broken my agreement with them. My charges are for unauthorised borrowing, unpaid direct debits etc.! They finish off by stating that they cannot agree to cancel my charges and that they will put me in touch with the Financial Ombudsman if I do not agree.

 

Could somebody please advise on my next move..... Help!

 

Many thanks to everybody for the information on this site!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to CAG:)

 

The letter you have received is totally standard.

 

Please start your own thread, here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11

 

Then have a good read of the FAQ section as well as the LTSB 'successes' forum (up the top)

 

Best of luck, not that luck is necessary - just a bit of patience;)

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. See S32 - in the case of concealment, the time limit is still whatever it would have been, but starts running until the claimant discovers* the concealment instead of running from the actual time of the breach. In effect, if you have discovered this today, you have six years from today to recover old penalties.

 

* usual qualifiers apply

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

I have just joined the consumer group today. I am in the process of claiming back my excess charges from Lloyds TSB. I dont have all my statements etc and I guess the first thing is to send the letter Data Protection Act "list of Charges" to Lloyds TSB at Colmore row Birmingham?? or do you think it would be best to talk to my local branch first?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's good news being able to claim beyond the six year limitation and i would certainly go for it giving the chance, but!!! getting post 6 yr statements from Lloyd's is a different matter. they wrote informing me that all correspondence older then 6 yrs has been destroyed therefor the only way of getting them is going down the court route which means more time wasting on their part. And more importantly a total waste of tax payers money if they do supply them due to a court order. If they have them they should just give them on request of the SAR not be forced into it by a court.

 

Pen

  • Haha 1

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's good news being able to claim beyond the six year limitation and i would certainly go for it giving the chance, but!!! getting post 6 yr statements from Lloyd's is a different matter. they wrote informing me that all correspondence older then 6 yrs has been destroyed therefor the only way of getting them is going down the court route which means more time wasting on their part. And more importantly a total waste of tax payers money if they do supply them due to a court order. If they have them they should just give them on request of the SAR not be forced into it by a court.

 

Pen

 

Hi Pen can you post up the wording of their letter? are they saying they hold the statements but you have to get a court order to obtain them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lloyds. I have all my Bank statements on my Business account back to 1994, and all my statements on my personal account back to 1984.

I am claiming them ALL back !!

Perhaps a Mod would like to PM me, and I'll give you a bit more info on my game-plan?

Once further underway/ settled I shall post a lot more info for others to use.

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pen can you post up the wording of their letter? are they saying they hold the statements but you have to get a court order to obtain them?

 

I have just recived my 6 years worth of statements I asked for ALL infomation and the reply i got was that further than 6 years was held in their archives and would take time to access it I wrote and told them i wanted it all and the 40 days was up and i would start court proceedings within 7 days that time runs out on thursday

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bong. when I sent the SAR i requested all information relating to all of my banking history. the letter i recieved back stated that they "could not comply with my request as our retention period for storing information is six years so we will not be able to comply fully with your request." if fact they complied with very little of it, ie 1yr

 

I did take lloyds to court for the information and they had until the 11th April to respond. I called the courts today nothing from lloyds so they have advised me to fill in a request for judgment which i will do today.

pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, will watch this one. I have already started a 6-year claim with Lloyds. Assuming they settle for the sum I have asked, in "full and final settlement" of my claim, is there anything to prevent me taking a second claim out for the pre-6-year charges? Presumably these would be two separate claims and so there is nothing in the phrase "full and final settlement" of the current claim that prevents me from subsequently starting another claim in reespect of the earlier charges?

If I've helped, please tick the scales at the bottom left of this message!

 

17th Sept: Found this site! :)

 

Lloyds TSB

 

22 Sept: Subject Access Req.

3 Nov: statements arrived. Charges calulated at:

A/c 1 - £2,178.01 + int of £1,206.54 (18.4% authorised)

A/c 2 - £206.11 + int of £211.07 (18.4%)

7 Nov - prelim.

3 Dec - LBA

13 Dec - £750 offered

23 Dec - £750 credited

28 Dec - rejection letter

2 March - issued

16 April - complained at court failure to forward defence

 

Halifax

 

22nd September: Subject Access Request.

4th November: No reply so LBA giving 7 days.

 

Cap One

 

22nd September: Subject Access Req.

5th October: Letter saying no record of account!

15th October: Replied telling them to try harder...

22nd October: Subject Access Req acknowledged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Alison82

There must be some way to get these statements, they have hidden theses charges for years!!! If we found out about them 15 years ago, what would they have done? they wouldn't still be charging us today!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we found out about them 15 years ago, what would they have done?

 

Probably told you that actually there was some manual intervention involved. Had we found out 25 years ago, they would have pointed out that these decisions were indeed made manually (and cost you only £10-£15 - half an hour of someone's time). It's only been in the last 10 years or so that the manual element has been almost entirely eliminated, which is why the bank can argue the whole costs/service thing - at one point it may have been accurate, the banks can simply plead ignorance in forgetting to review the fees as their costs went down. Of course, ignorance is no defence when you're facing thousands of identical claims from your customers and have already been warned off it once by a statutory body.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to stop you from making a claim pre 6 yrs other then getting the evidence that you have paid chargers and it's in the banks interest not to supply us with them. I have heard of some cases whereby members have made estimated claims but!! i think this is a very tricky area and would not feel confidant if i did not have the prove in black and white to back up my case in court so to speak it's bad enough feeling confident when you do have the statements to prove the chargers have been taken unlawfully.

 

I just hope the judge when making his judgment decides the bank have to provide me with them all but! if they have destroyed them then thats it, I suppose I would then have to look at making a estimate claim and let the banks prove that the don't owe it to me and how would they do that if they did not have the statements.

 

but! if anyone knows of a way of estimating chargers based on your last 6 yrs bank statements please let us all know;) ;) ;)

 

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to stop you from making a claim pre 6 yrs other then getting the evidence that you have paid chargers and it's in the banks interest not to supply us with them. I have heard of some cases whereby members have made estimated claims but!! i think this is a very tricky area and would not feel confidant if i did not have the prove in black and white to back up my case in court so to speak it's bad enough feeling confident when you do have the statements to prove the chargers have been taken unlawfully.

 

Don't worry too much about the estimates. If you have exercised due diligence in trying to obtain the evidence but the bank are withholding it, and you have then made a reasonable estimate (take an annual average and extrapolate it backward, for instance - the fees in the early days may have been lower, but since the bank is being obstructive you can't know that, can you?). The court is looking for two things: namely that you know you have been done wrong, and you have made a reasonable effort to find out by how much. If the bank is actively preventing you from doing this, the court will take that fact into account.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how far back could this go, does it stop at 10ys, or the life of the account. Lloyds will be skint:D Glad i'm not a share holder, i think I get more of a return on reclaiming my chargers

 

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bong, that is very interesting, in total contradiction to the letter they sent me, I wonder if I could use that information in court and maybe send her a pm asking her if she would supply me with a letter or something to back up my claim if need be. It's really a good form of reference that thread you started. How did Lloyd's fair in it, did many of their customers receive statements going back more then 6 yrs do you know? or is the information just that what is on the thread

 

anyway that is a great help, thanks for that Bong

 

Pen

:x if i have been off any help to you please click my scales

 

cases won

28th July Single Claim for bank charges against LTSB, £6,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement

 

18th July Joint Claime against LTSB £7,800 WON with CI to date of Judgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i am new to this site today after reading up on the martin lewis web site, i am currently reclaiming my bank charges with lloyds tsb £4100 in total i rang them yesterday and was offered around £900 but the man on the phone said that considering i have already started legal proceedings and the amount they could offer over the phone was much less than i am claiming advised me to carry on with the claim i have just filed a case with the small claims court they should reciece the papers by tomorrow i am feeling a little nervous now at this stage regarding the court process i have read that the next stage will be for the bank to put in a defence but then i am totally lost with it all any advice or comments would be great thankyou

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i am new to this site today after reading up on the martin lewis web site, i am currently reclaiming my bank charges with lloyds tsb £4100 in total i rang them yesterday and was offered around £900 but the man on the phone said that considering i have already started legal proceedings and the amount they could offer over the phone was much less than i am claiming advised me to carry on with the claim i have just filed a case with the small claims court they should reciece the papers by tomorrow i am feeling a little nervous now at this stage regarding the court process i have read that the next stage will be for the bank to put in a defence but then i am totally lost with it all any advice or comments would be great thankyou

Hi cyprusgirl

The next thing you'll probably receive will be an Allocation Questionairre.

Go to this link here and have a read up on them.

This link is also very useful for finding all others kinds of information so put it into your internet favourites.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

Have a read of some of the other sucesses on the site, and see how they responded to any defence the Bank sent in response to the Claim.

Some good ones are,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloydstsb-successes/26172-mindzai-lucid-lloyds-tsb.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/33005-bong-hsbc-contractual-interest.html

 

Good luck

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...