Cool... on to the court then...

Hiya GuidoT, I remember you helping me before... I have had a CI claim paid before too. In relation to changing the amount (from 6880 to 5000) would that require another LBA? Or would it just be that I claimed a lesser amount? How would that work in terms of ammending schedule of charges... I am going to lob in what I have and see what happens, but it would be good to know what would happen if the amount I go forward is less than the amount I had LBA'd for would that compromise the claim at a later date?

Okay... well my approach to Lloyds is muddied by the fact that Lloyds, in an 'unrelated' action closed all my accounts. Lloyds have returned a standard letter saying that I do not have a claim for hardship (I do, but presumably a loack of an account and the fact that I asked for contractual interest means that they are willing to ignore that). I have written a LBA which asked for £6880.00. I forgot that there is a limit to how much one may claim in Small Claims of £5000.00. Here is what I intend to do... write a further LBA along the lines of 'I am disappointed by your response...' and give them a further 2 weeks and prepare to put in a claim of £5000.00 to the County Court... because I am not confident of navigating 'Fast Track' trials and cannot afford a solicitor... ... Another part of me think f*** it do the fast track... have a trial. The County Court has given me the number for some kind of free legal advice service... ... Anyone of the 'old sweats' advice greatly received.

12th October 2009. Lloyds TSB Bank Plc. 1-2 Market Place, Reading, RG21 2EQ. Dear Sir or Madam, Account number: I am writing to request that you repay all the default charges that have been applied to my account since 10th July 2000, stop any debt enforcement action being taken against me] and stop adding any further charges to my account. I do not believe these charges reflect the true cost to Lloyds TSB Bank Plc of going into unauthorised overdraft. I request that you deal with my case now rather than once the test case has ended as I am currently experiencing financial difficulties due to a loss of employment & disability and the FSA waiver states that you should continue to deal with hardship cases. My current circumstances mean that I have virtually no income and cannot pay my rent or utilities. I am currently receiving letters from bailiffs threatening action on a daily basis. I am unable to hold down a full time job due to medical circumstances and am surviving by selling off any assets in order to cover payments. Additionally, I rely on means tested benefits for my income and this has been set by the government as the minimum amount of money someone needs to live on. I calculate that, as at today’s date, you have taken a total of £1029.50 in charges plus £474.16 which you have charged me in overdraft interest for the sum which you have taken – a total of £1503.66. In addition, I also claim Contractual Interest (compounded) under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in our contract. As Lloyds TSB have taken unlawful charges from my account this constitutes unauthorised borrowing, thus the rate of Contractual Interest used is the Bank’s own unauthorised borrowing rate that was relevant at the time that my accounts were active. The standard rate for unauthorised borrowing set by Lloyds TSB, at the time that my accounts were active, was 29.8% (ref: lloydstsb.com, rates and charges, 12th March 2007), therefore this rate is added to the above amounts and will continue to accrue until this claim is settled. I calculate the Contractual Interest element at £5376.94 (up until 12th October 2009). This gives a total figure of £6880.60. I enclose two schedules showing the charges & contractual interest which I am claiming. I request that you refund this amount in full. Payable by cheque directly to me. Documents enclosed: A schedule of charges. A schedule of interest owed. A print out of Lloyds TSB account charges (taken from website) that states the unauthorised borrowing interest as relevant at the time that my accounts were active. I look forward for a full response to this letter within 14 days. Yours faithfully, Gavin Watson. Sorry about the size and font, but this is the letter than I am sending them... dunno if it will stick...

An added note; after a 20 minute conversation with Lloyds I have ascertained that they no longer charge 29.8% as of Nov 2007... however it is what they would of charged me at the time that the accounts were active... .... so am I still allowed to charge them that? Key question...

Hello, so way back in 2007 I managed to reclaim some bank money at contractual interest from Lloyds... with this I paid off my debts. Then the freeze came down... the test case started and I fell into a depression (as an illness rather than I felt sad). Time passed... Eventually it dawned on me that the Statute of Limitations might start to apply and freeze or no freeze I should put in the claim... Upon further investigation I found out that mid-2008 the FSA ruled that the test case freeze should not apply to those in financial hardship... So I am composing a letter to Lloyds. I decided, for simplicity, to use the one on MoneySavingExpert...and because I got contractual interest before to go for that again.... Questions: 1. It used to be that you innocently asked for only the charges back, safe in the knowledge that the bank would refuse and you would then add another letter demanding charges + interest. However MoneySavingExpert has one letter now that asks for charges + interest up front. Is that correct? Seeing as I am claiming financial hardship that would seem to be intelligent. 2. I can no longer find on Lloyds website a figure that they charge for unauthorised borrowing... it used to be 29.8%. Is it still? Were can I find this magical figure (links appreciated). 3. Do people still claim contractual interest? As I said I have had success at it myself, but perhaps times have moved on. Thanks.

Hi..... I had two claims that I could not see out at the same time and keep them within small claims.... so I had to pursue them concurrently. I managed to get contractual interest on one before the County Courts started to freeze them. The other I was not so lucky.... indeed the day that I went to put it in they froze all existing claims..... so I decided to tough it out and await the test case decision. Well now Halifax are caning me as well. I want to pursue that Lloyds claim and I want to put in for contractual interest again (although it looks as though that boat has sailed)..... Should I just go ahead and put the claim in? Where do I find out news on the test case? If I do put for contractual interest and the banks lose the test case but only at the standard 8% will my case get binned and would I be able to claim? I know that there is a process going now but I just feel as though momentum has been lost and that I am a bit out in the wilderness... I want to start up again but do not know if it is worth it and if by starting up again perhaps I am doing something unintelligent by not awaiting the test case outcome.

Well first off I am the king of the stupid question, they are kind of necessary (and to be honest yours does not seem that stupid). Second I cannot really help you here. I went straight to Grantham County Court and was not allocated there at all. I do not even know what an AQ is. Once I had issued my N1 they went ahead and dealt with it all quite normally sending it out to the bank. They did not ask that the bank commit before setting a hearing BUT we did not get that far. The bank did not post a defence in time (they were 5 days late) so I just won. I do have another case that I will be bringing once this one is settled.

Today the Judge at Grantham County Court passed judgement in my favour awarding me contractual interest @ 29.8%. The judgement will be issued towards the end of the week and sent to Lloyds. It remains to be seen whether Lloyds will ask for the judgement to be set aside in order to post a defence (they may claim that their failure to do so had mitigating circumstances). I hope they will not but we shall see. I have been a bit panicky about all this but this has largely been due to ignorance of the legal system and language, so to all you who I have annoyed I apologise and for all you who have been patient and replied nicely to my panicky missives I thank. This judgement is a massive boost and I feel much more at ease with just allowing the case(s) to run. Will update as to what happens with this case when I know.

Hello Lucid. I am reallysorry to ask this as I can see that you are totally snowed under but I may have to drop my case and need some advice. If you have time would I be able to run something past you. I totally understand if you will not have time. I have until 3rd June to make the decision, thanks.

Well if the form can be lost or the letter mislaid you can guarantee that it will happen to me! Basically I have followed everything to the letter BUT Lloyds posted defence 5 days too late and I was advised by the court to put in a letter for judgement, which I did. They basically said that I was going to have the court issue the judgement in my favour and I should go for that. Sounds good right? However they then realised that I was claiming for 29.85% interest and wrote me a letter saying the judge needs to look at it. Here is where the problem comes in. Every case that I know about the bank has settled before the day of the court date. Now I know that if you claim contractual you have to be prepared to go to court, and I am BUT I will not get to argue my case in court some Judge is just going to look over it and Lloyds will not be given the chance to settle. Now I am not the person to be testing these waters. I am unemployed for medical reasons and Lloyds have contributed so much to the poverty. If I get the 8% it will just about pay off my o/d. The only thing worse than losing this case would be to be awarded the 8%, which would have implications for the second case I am holding back on (in order to see how this one goes). I have 2 options, allow the Judge to look at the case on the 4th June or withdraw the entire case and start again. Advice and help needed. Any further info given gratefully.

Well they are a week late! They had until the 11th and it is now the 16th.

So Lloyds had until the 11 May to issue a defence to Grantham County Court and failed to do so. I have filled in a Request For Judgment which will be considered on Monday. I should be happy but I am not. In my Victor Meldrew life such things happen and they usually do not lead to happy endings. I think that Lloyds will claim that they did not recieve the Courts papers and the whole thing will take twice as long as if they had contested......the question.... Anyone else have experience of this? Any advice? What now? Could this actually be a further delaying tactic? Does anyone know what time Eastenders is on? Whatever..... down-hearted, I am off to inspect the inside of me gas oven. Take it easy.

So here I am back again. The situation with me was that I re-issued a LBA due to the fact that I intended to go for contractual interest. So now I am back at going to the County Court with my N1 claim and putting in the claim. So what I need is any of the old skool, Innocent, Lucid, etc, or indeed anyone who is welcome to come and focus my mind as I collate material for the going to court, which will happen tomorrow. In particular I would like guidance with the POC (mine is shown below). I am using Innocents POC with my own particulars inserted. My major concern with it (and this is not a criticism per se) is that I am not sure that it needs to be as complex as it is. It contains appendices which I would assume would need to be issued in the court bundle but not the POC. For example evidence of borrowing rates and different schedules of charges. Now I am no lawyer and I cannot write legal jargon half as well as Innocent has done so unless someone says 'Do not do that' my mind is not to change the content too much as it looks good. Opinions needed. Particulars of Claim. 1. The Claimant has an Account (Lloyds TSB Classic Current Account No. XXXXX318 Sort Code XX-XX-XX) with the defendent which was opened around the 20th of September 1994. 2. The Account is governed by the Defendants Personal Banking Terms and Conditions ("the contract"); 3. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "Late Payment Fees", "Unpaid Direct Debit Fees", "Overdraft Excess Fees", etc. on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied; 4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant; 5. A schedule of the charges and interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix x); 6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission's report entitled "Northern Irish Personal Banking" published on the 20th October 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Accounts defaults; 7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading's ("the OFT") statement of the 5th April 2006 concerning default charges on the credit cards contracts, as the OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements; 8. The Claimant thus contends that: a) The charge debited to the Account: i) are punitive in nature; ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) Further to 8. a, the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable. c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) section4, and the common law. d) In the alternative to 8. a, b and c, if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of the s. 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. e) Further the Claimant will vehemently refute any contention that the charges made by the Defendant are contractual service charges, which are as such not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the Defendant. The Claimant believes such contention would be an attempt by the Defendant to ‘cloak’ its penalties, in order to circumvent the statutory and common law provisions, which prohibit contractual penalty charges with a view to profit. f) Without prejudice to paragraph 8.f, above, in the event that the Defendant’s charges were accepted as a fee for contractual service, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, section 15. 9. Contractual Interest. a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the charges and overdraft interest applied thereon to the Claimant’s Account (“the principal claim”), at 29.85%EAR. This is the rate currently applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in the said contract. The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance. The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the Claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the Defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the Claimant’s account breaches. Since the Defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings and has refused, and since the Claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend ant other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trail dates, the Claimant deems the Defendant’s charges to the Claimant’s account to be indefensible, unenforceable at law and unauthorised, since it was clearly not the in the Claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the Claimant would authorise the Defendant to apply penalty charges and interest thereon to the Claimant’s account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the Claimant’s account breaches. For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the Defendant) where the is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the Claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows: “Unfair Terms 5.-(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer” Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account the bank (the Defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy. b) In the alternative to 9.a, should the court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the Defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the Claimant claims compound interest at the Defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7% EAR, based in the premise that the court finds that the Defendant’s withdrawals from the Claimant’s account were unauthorised; c) In the alternative to 9.a and 9.b, if the court is unable to agree that the Claimant is entitled to either of the two contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the Claimant avers that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched of the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest, in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the Claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the Defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 18.7 EAR; d) In the alternative to 9.a, 9.b and 9.c, if the court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8 % a year. e) Details of the interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows: Appendix xx – Compounded interest calculated daily @ 29.85%EAR. Appendix xx – Compounded interest calculated daily @ 18.7%EAR. Appendix xx – Simple interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00% Appendix xx – Evidence of the Defendant’s current borrowing rates. 10.Accordingly, the Claimant claims (having first contacted the Defendant about these amounts on the 10th January, 2007): a)The return of the amounts debited between 22nd June 2000 and the 9th February 2007 in respect of charges in the sum of £XXXX.50, together with interest charged thereon in the sum of £XXX.60 – totalling £XXXX.10; b) Any applicable Court fees; c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 29.85%EAR from the date of each transaction to 9th February 2007 of £1635.10, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier at a daily rate of £1.18; d) In the alternative to 10.c, compound interest at the contractual rate of 18.7%EAR from the date of each transaction to 9th February 2007 of £1635.10, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.77; e) In the alternative to 10.c and 10.d, interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to 9th February 2007, of £XXXX.10 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.36. 11. Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made to the Claimant.

I am on my second LBA to Lloyds. They have refunded £500 to my account. I have opened a new account with Halifax and do not use my Lloyds accounts, therefore that £500 remains untouched (eaten into only by overdraft interest). My thinking is that I do not accept that money as settlement at all. I am broke. I am facing financial ruin this weekend (not for any extravagent purpose, just food and fuel). Can I, shall I take that money? By doing so could I prejudice my case (i.e. Lloyds could claim 'well he took the money that is tantamount to accepting our terms you honour!') Help needed.