Jump to content


Lloyds TSB


cp1949
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4670 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

Anyone had problems with LTSB in the way they handle Mini Cash Isa's?

A legal point perhaps, who is responsible if a staff member makes a mistake through failing to understand a customers instruction? Does the final responsibility lie with the customer to detect such a mistake by checking bank statements? (when you can get one!!)

ANY advice would be greatly welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

cp1949: Have complete sympathy with you on this "timing" caper. After a very hard days work,(10pm) i used to travel 12 miles to lodge funds in banks night facility, to cover cheques I new would be drawn on account the following day. On one or two occasions these cheques were bounced (25£ a time), until I created merry hell and eventually persuaded them not to bounce payments before confirming if funds had been lodged. This agreement only lasted until they changed manager. (usually about every 6 months). The same bank had the audacity to phone and ask advice to pass on to other customer, on best way to finance a certain project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy? I have no expectation of a computer drilling down to see the last credits (your words) but I do expect the bank to treat their customers fair and comply with the Banking Code that they subsribe to, as far as im concerned this is quite obvious.

 

So obvious that it doesn't happen! Do I think it is fair? No, of course not. However I'm a realist, and know full well what you expect of any commercial relationship far exceeds what happens out there in the 'real world'. The situation described requires forbearance by the bank, which is not a right, but requires a human (and by that definition, additionally chargeable) intervention. We have those supporting the commercial contention that it SHOULD cost less for those paying by DD than other methods, but when DDs go wrong because an 'expected' payment crossed some 5 hours after a debit, that should be OK? Perhaps, if debits were not taken before credits - so clearly it would be better if the OP switched to one of the other banks. No, wait! They ALL do this... so what now?

 

You'll need to remove those rose coloured glasses - you're giving the banking industry some credit for having a heart when there is no such thing. I dislike my bank, but they are no better or no worse than any other. Giving false hope that is its somehow wrong for the situation as described to happen is fine if you qualify it as being a moral wrong - but don;t sugar coat the obvious. They do it, and I'm unaware of anything in the Banking Code you refer to that specifically disallows this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Blah, Buzby we have had a disagreement before regarding accounts and claims at court and even after I confirmed what I told you by contacting the TS and the Court you still disagreed and again mentioned the real world and reality, you really would argue black was white!!!!!

 

 

To be honest your post didnt really merit a reply but I will respond one last time to you.

 

 

 

Your wrong again.

 

Sorry cp1949 your thread is back on track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For readers not party to the previous tirade - what a disrespectful and inflamatory post from someone who should know better (a moderator no less). You open the door to an unamed 'Trading Standards' (?) person and a 'Court' - is this relevant in the slightest to the current thread? So, because we've disagreed before, this somehow makes your point? Oh do dream on!

 

Or is your attempt to summarily dispense with a PoV that doesn't accord with your own so desperate that you cannot bring forth substantiation?

You've missed the point entirely, I'm not supporting the banks - simply pointing out that just because it happend does not mean a slam-dunk win to resolve the issue either informally with them, or should litigation commence.

 

But hey, you'll object to that too - and it beats me why you try to take credit for putting the thread 'back on track' when it was yourself that hijacked it in the first place! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cant take it dont give it out. Buzby for the record this is easily proved as it is written within not only the Banking Code but also in the judgement of the OFT test case. The OP can and will get this returned.

I will enlighten you with this information later by PM to avoid further hijacking this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judgment - Unarranged overdrafts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarranged overdrafts

64. Prima facie a customer is not in breach of his contract with his bank if he gives instructions to make a payment without having the necessary funds or facility to cover the payment (whether at the time when the instructions are given by the customer or when they are received by the bank or both). He is taken to be requesting overdraft facilities: Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd, [2000] 1 QB 110 at p.118G per Waller LJ.

 

Abbey’s terms say that the customer may "request an overdraft" by giving a Relevant Instruction, and refer to such a request as an "Instant Overdraft Request";

 

Barclays’ terms refer to the customer requesting overdraft facilities by giving a Relevant Instruction.

 

Clydesdale’s terms similarly refer to the customer making a request for "Unplanned Borrowing".

 

HBOS’s terms refer to the customer "making an informal request for an overdraft"

 

HSBC similarly refers in its terms to the customer making an informal request for an overdraft or an increase in an overdraft

 

Lloyds TSB says that it will "treat" an attempt to make a payment for which there are not available funds as a request for an Unplanned Overdraft (or an increase in an Unplanned Overdraft)

 

RBSG’s terms say that the Bank will "treat" Relevant Instructions as an "informal request for an unarranged overdraft",

 

75. Thus, apart from Nationwide, the Banks’ terms and conditions are couched in terms of the customer making a request of the Bank and the Bank responding to it, and in some cases they refer to the Bank considering the request. The OFT criticises this terminology as an artificial device recently introduced which disguises the true nature of the parties’ dealings when a customer gives his bank an instruction which would, if paid, take the account into debit. Similarly, the OFT suggests that the use of the term "overdraft" to describe the debit balance created in these circumstances has misleading connotations, and emphasises the differences between the debit balance resulting from such a payment and an overdraft facility that a bank and a customer might agree should be available on an account.

76. Certainly, this terminology has been introduced by the Banks into their documentation relatively recently. However, I am unable to accept that the references to the customer making a request for an overdraft when he gives a Relevant Instruction are inappropriate or create a fiction. On the contrary, they spell out what is, as a matter of legal analysis, implicitly done when a customer gives a Relevant Instruction. Of course, there are differences between any resulting overdraft and a facility arranged by a specific agreement between a customer and his bank. A facility for an overdraft typically, and as provided by the Banks under their current terms (to which I refer below), commits the bank to allow the customer to overdraw on his account for as long as the facility is in place and within its limits, and, while of course it is possible for a facility to be confined to use for a stipulated purpose, it does not typically cover only a specific payment by the customer. If a fee is charged, it is generally for the facility itself, regardless of whether it is in fact used by the customer to borrow or how much it is so used. (None of the Banks charges a customer for requesting a facility in advance if the request is refused.) However, none of this means that it is misleading to use the expression "overdraft" to refer either to a facility or to borrowing under a facility or to unarranged borrowing. To my mind the expression is flexible enough naturally to encompass all these usages.

77. However, the request which customers are taken to have made to their banks in the absence of any relevant agreement and also that which is made, or taken to be made, by customers under the standard terms of the Banks other than Nationwide, is for an overdraft to cover the particular payment. If the bank responds by considering the request and declining it, it has not provided what the customer was requesting. It is true that the customer might have realised that his request would necessarily have involved the bank considering it in order to decide whether to agree to it and that the bank might refuse payment, but that is very different.

 

They have a discretion whether or not they should pay in accordance with a Relevant Instruction, but they would be in breach of contract if they rejected it arbitrarily or capriciously or in bad faith. This is because, as it was put by Leggatt LJ in Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Co Ltd, [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397 at p. 404:

"Where A and B contract with each other to confer a discretion on A, that does not render B subject to A’s uninhibited whim. In my judgment, the authorities show that not only must the discretion be exercised honestly and in good faith, but, having regard to the provision of the contract by which it is conferred, it must not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably."

(The limits of this principle have been discussed in subsequent authorities: see Paragon v Nash Finance, [2001] EWCA Civ 1466, [2002] 1 WLR 685 at para 38 per Dyson LJ, Lymington v MacNamara, [2007] EWCA Civ 151, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 825 at paras 44-45 per Arden LJ, Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd, [2008] EWCA Civ 116 at para 66 per Rix LJ. The precise ambit of any obligation of this kind is not important, nor is it necessary to explore in this judgment what is required in order for a bank to deal with a Relevant Instruction in accordance with proper banking procedures.)

81. When a Relevant Instruction is received, some of the processes whereby the Banks deal with it are the same as for handling an instruction for which there are funds or an arranged facility. However, in the case of a Relevant Instruction some additional processes are involved. In the case of Abbey, for example, Relevant Instructions are handled by its Reject Referrals database, and both manual and automated processes are involved. The decision whether to pay or to reject the instruction involves an assessment by Abbey’s "risk personnel" using information from its "risk databases". The other Banks have comparable arrangements.

I do not overlook that all the Banks, as I understand it, subscribe to the Banking Code, under which the Banks expressly state, "Before we lend you any money or increase your overdraft, or other borrowing, we will assess whether we feel you will be able to pay it"

79. This does not mean that the Banks are under no contractual obligation to customers when they receive a Relevant Instruction. The terms of the seven Banks which make reference to a customer making a request in these circumstances, also refer to the Bank’s response to it, and it seems to me that the implication of their terms is that they are obliged to deal with Relevant Instructions in accordance with proper banking procedures.

 

If there was an assessment carried out when a request was made which complies with The Banking Code then why are we not getting those details through our S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s?

So without proof of such an assessment then it could be argued that the banks make those decisions on an arbitrary or capricious basis.

Especially in cp1949's case when funds were available that day proving no assessment was made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

HI, I sent the request letter for TSB and sent it to their head office in Edinburgh, Edinburgh Branch forwarded the letter to Andover who apparently deal with all customer complaints. I received a letter from Andover basically saying I have to wait till the outcome of the trial case. I sent the LBA to Andover and within 2days got another letter as I was claiming under the hardship rules and the cheeky beggers have told me they are sending my letter to another branch who specialises in hardship cases so they can tell me how I should deal with my finances. What should I do next, put in the court papers for small claims court or wait. I am just being fobbed off from one branch to another

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judgment - Unarranged overdrafts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarranged overdrafts

64. Prima facie a customer is not in breach of his contract with his bank if he gives instructions to make a payment without having the necessary funds or facility to cover the payment (whether at the time when the instructions are given by the customer or when they are received by the bank or both). He is taken to be requesting overdraft facilities: Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd, [2000] 1 QB 110 at p.118G per Waller LJ.

 

Abbey’s terms say that the customer may "request an overdraft" by giving a Relevant Instruction, and refer to such a request as an "Instant Overdraft Request";

 

Barclays’ terms refer to the customer requesting overdraft facilities by giving a Relevant Instruction.

 

Clydesdale’s terms similarly refer to the customer making a request for "Unplanned Borrowing".

 

HBOS’s terms refer to the customer "making an informal request for an overdraft"

 

HSBC similarly refers in its terms to the customer making an informal request for an overdraft or an increase in an overdraft

 

Lloyds TSB says that it will "treat" an attempt to make a payment for which there are not available funds as a request for an Unplanned Overdraft (or an increase in an Unplanned Overdraft)

 

RBSG’s terms say that the Bank will "treat" Relevant Instructions as an "informal request for an unarranged overdraft",

 

75. Thus, apart from Nationwide, the Banks’ terms and conditions are couched in terms of the customer making a request of the Bank and the Bank responding to it, and in some cases they refer to the Bank considering the request. The OFT criticises this terminology as an artificial device recently introduced which disguises the true nature of the parties’ dealings when a customer gives his bank an instruction which would, if paid, take the account into debit. Similarly, the OFT suggests that the use of the term "overdraft" to describe the debit balance created in these circumstances has misleading connotations, and emphasises the differences between the debit balance resulting from such a payment and an overdraft facility that a bank and a customer might agree should be available on an account.

76. Certainly, this terminology has been introduced by the Banks into their documentation relatively recently. However, I am unable to accept that the references to the customer making a request for an overdraft when he gives a Relevant Instruction are inappropriate or create a fiction. On the contrary, they spell out what is, as a matter of legal analysis, implicitly done when a customer gives a Relevant Instruction. Of course, there are differences between any resulting overdraft and a facility arranged by a specific agreement between a customer and his bank. A facility for an overdraft typically, and as provided by the Banks under their current terms (to which I refer below), commits the bank to allow the customer to overdraw on his account for as long as the facility is in place and within its limits, and, while of course it is possible for a facility to be confined to use for a stipulated purpose, it does not typically cover only a specific payment by the customer. If a fee is charged, it is generally for the facility itself, regardless of whether it is in fact used by the customer to borrow or how much it is so used. (None of the Banks charges a customer for requesting a facility in advance if the request is refused.) However, none of this means that it is misleading to use the expression "overdraft" to refer either to a facility or to borrowing under a facility or to unarranged borrowing. To my mind the expression is flexible enough naturally to encompass all these usages.

77. However, the request which customers are taken to have made to their banks in the absence of any relevant agreement and also that which is made, or taken to be made, by customers under the standard terms of the Banks other than Nationwide, is for an overdraft to cover the particular payment. If the bank responds by considering the request and declining it, it has not provided what the customer was requesting. It is true that the customer might have realised that his request would necessarily have involved the bank considering it in order to decide whether to agree to it and that the bank might refuse payment, but that is very different.

 

They have a discretion whether or not they should pay in accordance with a Relevant Instruction, but they would be in breach of contract if they rejected it arbitrarily or capriciously or in bad faith. This is because, as it was put by Leggatt LJ in Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Co Ltd, [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397 at p. 404:

"Where A and B contract with each other to confer a discretion on A, that does not render B subject to A’s uninhibited whim. In my judgment, the authorities show that not only must the discretion be exercised honestly and in good faith, but, having regard to the provision of the contract by which it is conferred, it must not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably."

(The limits of this principle have been discussed in subsequent authorities: see Paragon v Nash Finance, [2001] EWCA Civ 1466, [2002] 1 WLR 685 at para 38 per Dyson LJ, Lymington v MacNamara, [2007] EWCA Civ 151, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 825 at paras 44-45 per Arden LJ, Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd, [2008] EWCA Civ 116 at para 66 per Rix LJ. The precise ambit of any obligation of this kind is not important, nor is it necessary to explore in this judgment what is required in order for a bank to deal with a Relevant Instruction in accordance with proper banking procedures.)

81. When a Relevant Instruction is received, some of the processes whereby the Banks deal with it are the same as for handling an instruction for which there are funds or an arranged facility. However, in the case of a Relevant Instruction some additional processes are involved. In the case of Abbey, for example, Relevant Instructions are handled by its Reject Referrals database, and both manual and automated processes are involved. The decision whether to pay or to reject the instruction involves an assessment by Abbey’s "risk personnel" using information from its "risk databases". The other Banks have comparable arrangements.

I do not overlook that all the Banks, as I understand it, subscribe to the Banking Code, under which the Banks expressly state, "Before we lend you any money or increase your overdraft, or other borrowing, we will assess whether we feel you will be able to pay it"

 

79. This does not mean that the Banks are under no contractual obligation to customers when they receive a Relevant Instruction. The terms of the seven Banks which make reference to a customer making a request in these circumstances, also refer to the Bank’s response to it, and it seems to me that the implication of their terms is that they are obliged to deal with Relevant Instructions in accordance with proper banking procedures.

 

If there was an assessment carried out when a request was made which complies with The Banking Code then why are we not getting those details through our S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s?

So without proof of such an assessment then it could be argued that the banks make those decisions on an arbitrary or capricious basis.

Especially in cp1949's case when funds were available that day proving no assessment was made.

 

 

A simple "F**K OFF" would have sufficed :lol:;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI I still have not heard from anyone on what I should do regarding the last letter I received from Lloyds TSB Andover, should I file the small claims forms or wait to hear from the other branch where my letter has been sent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cp1949--buckie? Couldn't get near harbour on Sunday--roads all blocked off. Still no replies/help in dealing with missing ISA's. Would suggest that anyone having dealings with TSB should tread very warily. Check all paperwork and note date and time of all phone calls. This firm has serious communication problems!! Some staff don't know where to send complaints to. There seems to be a big problem between the letters TSB say they send you and the actual letters you receive. (can't all be down to postie!!) The people who write some of these letters have a problem with typing in the correct date (can be a year out) Standard letters they send out can be most confusing and provoke responses that TSB staff can't understand and therefore cancel arrangements made. If you do have to phone them, then suggest you confirm in writing. Senior staff seem incapable of understanding simply worded complaints. All in all a complete shambles. (there is a workforce problem here, but i won't comment on this)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed someone earlier mentioning that the bank took all of their benefit money in bank charges.

 

This is illegal under the terms of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which lays down provisions for an individual to state freely clearly what they spend their benefit money on i.e. they have a legal right to spend their social security money on their cost of living (right of appropriation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please tell me in plain english if I should file my claim at the sheriff court or wait till I hear back from the bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've asked Bigmac Versus to have a look.

 

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

I have sent a LBA which in turn they replied within 3 days telling me that as I have filed under financial hardship they would sent my letter to another branch to tell me how to handle my finances. Also as my branch is in Edinburgh and all my letters have been sent to Andover which branch should I put down in form 1 and 1a, is it Edinburgh or Andover who supposedly deals with all account enquiries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you file, there is the risk that they will apply for a sist and if the Sheriff agrees, you'll have an uphill struggle to argue otherwise. You might want to look at the Govan Law Centre's response to attempts by defenders to Sist cases. The decision must be yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is almost certain, however that bridge can be crossed at that time, you never know maybe things will have moved on a bit by then.

By starting the legal process before the test case is concluded you are at least making a claim on the judicial interest, should we win that is.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bridge crossing fee however (at £50) is a serious punt with no guarantee of success. A letter sent by recorded delivery notifying of the dispute and reserving the right to pursue at a later stage is possibly more cost effective. The idea of paying the full price for due process, only to have it short-stopped then not receive a refund is a scandal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...