--

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/207/207808_how_one_man_beat_the_bank.html

--

YEEEE-AAAAAAH!!!!!

PS: The bailiff should stick to bailiffing (!) and not comment on things of which he has no knowledge

I was discussing this with my fiance last night and we both agreed it would be great publicity. Will they be able to simply take the cash from the tills up to the value of the judgement?

No, because the cash in the tills (theoretically speaking) belongs to the customers of the bank & also form essential tools for the banks day-to-day business (which are excempt from repossesion)

They could however help themselves to the BANK'S assets - computers, phones, desks etc that are non-essential.

The reality is the bad-publicity that a repossetion would cause is more than enough to inspire the bank to cough up the cash.

The reality is the bad-publicity that a repossetion would cause is more than enough to inspire the bank to cough up the cash.

You'd be surprised. We have discovered that almost all of the banks have substantial number of CCJ's against them going back some years. They are not concerned about it.

We will publish lists soon.

I defy you to find ANY sizeable business that doesn't have CCJ's against them - they're an occupational hazard; anyone with a greivance against a company can go thru the small claims procedure, get a judgement etc and in business terms it's rarely worth trying to defend them. You take a comercial decision as to whether you're going to settle or not and stick to that decision. CCJ's against business's don't have anything like the impact they do against people. The only reason banks are worried about a court judgement in the case of Fee's is because of the legal prescident it would set.

The publicity of a REPOSSESION however would be scary for the banks as that's a story the media would love (insert picture of balif carrying desks out of high-street bank)

The publicity of a REPOSSESION however would be scary for the banks as that's a story the media would love (insert picture of balif carrying desks out of high-street bank)

Yes. Very nice picture indeed.

Same story, Different Media channel:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4810490.stm

The spokeswoman for Lloyds TSB said: "In the normal course of action we would and do deal with any queries as and when they arise.

"Unfortunately Mr Mullen's claim wasn't picked up as it should have been and as a result he obtained a default judgment against us. "

Would Brian Mullen please phone BBC2 Working Lunch ASAP - they want to talk to him about his victory over Lloyds. 9.30 a.m. Thursday 16 March

Contact Pauline McDonagh on 0208 576 0914

Bob Egerton

Would Brian Mullen please phone BBC2 Working Lunch ASAP - they want to talk to him about his victory over Lloyds. 9.30 a.m. Thursday 16 March

Contact Pauline McDonagh on 0208 576 0914

 

Bob Egerton

He's been told

Am I right in thinking techically this is a bad thing for "us" though, now it's in the media spotlight Lloyds are going to be "On the ball" as it were, or am I just being paranoid ?

Hi Dave thanks for the reply.

I'm trying to work out how it would be possible to "lose" as it were.

If what I'm reading all over this forum is correct (which I have no doubt)basically the bank would pretty much have to give back whatever they have charged me for bounced DD's.

The only thing I'd have to be willing to do as a last resort is go to a small claims court to get this.

I can't see a "losing" part anywhere in this or have I missed something ?

It's not a last resort.

Start reclaiming with the idea that you might end up in court, and prepare accordingly. Any time they fold before that is a bonus.

All you have to lose is the money you've already lost that they took from you and your court costs.

Was I dreaming or did I see an item on BBC1 Look North last evening re this, at the end of which Gordon Burns stated that, shortly after filming the item at lunchtime, LlloydsTSB paid up? Please, someone, tell me it really happened![/url]

All in the world is good! I just heard Martin Shankleman confirm it on Drivetime. Most excellent.

Yes they really did.

Loyds TSB spokeswoman today:

"We believe our charges are transparent and fair, and to

say these charges are unlawful is inaccurate".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4810490.stm

To which I say, "Why pay up then? Why not see the matter through in the courts?"

We are left to draw our own conclusions! A confidence builder for the nervous amongst us!

WELL DONE, AND THANKS, BRIAN ! !

Great website & forum, I've just discovered it while researching for a post I made on this LLoyds case at :

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=26049

Glad Lloyds paid up, but a shame that they were not forced to face the music. is there a plan to force a bank to test it in law? (apologies if I've missed this elsewhere on forum , but did check Faq)

I'm a regular poster on http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum and think that the site has a similar cause / aims to bankactiongroup.co.uk

Story was on Working Lunch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=working_lunch

is there a plan to force a bank to test it in law? (apologies if I've missed this elsewhere on forum , but did check Faq)

Have a read here:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1713395,00.html

is there a plan to force a bank to test it in law? (apologies if I've missed this elsewhere on forum , but did check Faq)

 

Have a read here:

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1713395,00.html

thanks, repect to the litigant, but a

shame a guy has to be prepared to go bankrupt to prove the point. Its a scandal it has not been proved before.

Good luck to the guy - it is a shame he has to be prepared to go bankrupt but at least he can say i had the guts to do it weather he loses or not - all the best i say and good luck!!!!

my business has a ccj against us. to explain a customer violently threatened staff when offered a refund because he wanted additional money too and we said no. he then launched a DOS attack on our website. after that he went to court to get this additional compensation he believed he was owed, he had no legal grounds for doing so his letter before action was completely ignored.

the problem was we never got the summons, nor the judgement so he won by default! the court form said on it we had promised him extra money and then refused to pay which was a total lie, he'd only written about 20 words on his particulars of claim. had i had found out before there was a case i would have simply filed a counterclaim for all he did (this guy was even emailing our client list off the website and claiming we were being investigated for fraud by the police and DTI which is totally absolutely untrue and very illegal).

i could have appealed against it as we never got the summons or judgement but made a commercial decision not to because it costs money to do so plus it would have meant taking a day off and going down to woking... it was simply cheaper to pay out. what really irked me was this guy actually tried to refuse payment from us so he could send in the bailiffs and get a winding up order, we sent him a cheque and he refused to cash it and then said he was going to tell the court we hadnt done so, just as well it was sent by recorded delivery. in the end i had to pay a lawyer to send him a letter threatening him with criminal action if he didnt accept the money we were trying to pay him and leave us alone.

harassment of a debtor includes -

- implying action can be taken that is not legally possible.

- making threatening gestures or statements

- ignoring disputes about whether or not you are owed money

- telling a third party about the debts

- refusing to freeze action if the debt is disputed

- claiming collection costs when the original agreement did not allow this

- adding unreasonable charges

he also managed to do the following

- breaking section 40 of the administration of justice act

- breaking the malicious communications act 1988

- breaking the criminal justice act 1994 section 4a

- section 8 of the computer misuse act

the sad fact is the small claims system can easily be abused by anyone who has a grudge against you, its the sort of thing that victor meldrew would have loved because overturning an incorrect judgement is almost impossible. naturally he got the letter from the lawyer, took and banked the cheque and fucked right off. running a business sees CCJs as an occupational hazard... i really do wish they'd make the law with them a bit better.

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group