Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • 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

Elliot v lloyds - the "test case" settled in full by Lloyds


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6387 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

... and look up (in amazement)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..and believe me, not many people know that

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Whether you like it or not, we need organisations like the Mail and we would prefer them on side.

I am in contact with james Coney and it was I who fed him the last story. Of course I can't influence how it is written.

if people are going to email him then it would be better for us and the whole campaign if it were done politely and helpfully.

It would be a catastrophe for us if a few angry Users offended the Mail so much that we started to get bad publicity.

You would not be helping us at all.

 

I think that we are getting a reputation as a moderate but robust and vigorous group which needs to be taken seriously.

 

We will soon be starting to get some dialogues going with various organisations.

Please don't damage our reputation.

 

 

We are only in conflict with the banks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news but I really do think this was all a stunt. The news of a test case going to the Mercantile Court will have put a lot of people off claiming & as no news spreads like bad news the case being cancelled & settled won’t be as hot a topic. I stand by my comments on the banks waging psychological warfare. They know legally they don’t have a leg to stand on so their aim is to deter as many claimants as possible (threat of a test case that in reality will never happen, tarring people who make a claim as irresponsible with their money, talking about the end of free banking etc etc).

Yorkshire Bank £2201.24 - Settled in full

My Abbey £731.34 - Settled in full

Hubby's Abbey £1239.49 - Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Bankfodders comments about the OFT & their disgraceful failure to act in the interests of the consumer.

Its clear to everyone with a brain cell that the money lenders have no intention of complying with the OFT recent findings & will try at every opportunity to circumvent them Also the lenders threats of there coming to an end "free banking" since when was banking free! so who on this site gives a toss. At least any such bank charges will be market driven. Someone will come along & reduce theirs as a means of attracting custom

 

What about a petition from this site to the OFT. After all there are a possible 45,000 signatures . Such a petition should get us some well deserved publicity & result in more members.

 

Any thoughts please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had another thought. When each of us receive a refusal how about a a letter of compliant too the OFT togther with a copy of the banks refusal to return monies illegaly obtained.

 

The OFT will soon get fed up with all of the paperwork coming at them including the publicity such a thing is bound to attract & just might be forced into doing something

 

I can't help thinking that if this where the States these bankers would now be in handcuffs & bright orange jump suits. Have they ripped off any American Customers in a simular way

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spent 20 mins on the phone to an advisor at the OFT regarding how LTSB are making life ackward (wont go into personal details but SHAFTED springs to mind)

I am putting my case in writing to them

I also mentioned the time wasting and wasting courts time as experienced by many users and was told that if enough people write the matter will be acted on

 

Letters to:

Marjorie Wilson

Office of Fair Trading

2-6 Salisbury Way

London

EC4 8JX

 

Its clear to everyone with a brain cell that the money lenders have no intention of complying with the OFT recent findings & will try at every opportunity to circumvent them

 

They also said that the maximum fee of £12.00 is not set in stone it would have to go through the courts to become law

  • Confused 1

Lloyds TSB - N1 claim issued 18/07/06 - £3440 Offered unconditional settlement 23/08/06

Vodafone-Information Commisioner assessment -default removal -25/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spent 20 mins on the phone to an advisor at the OFT regarding how LTSB are making life ackward (wont go into personal details but SHAFTED springs to mind)

I am putting my case in writing to them

I also mentioned the time wasting and wasting courts time as experienced by many users and was told that if enough people write the matter will be acted on

 

Letters to:

Marjorie Wilson

Office of Fair Trading

2-6 Salisbury Way

London

EC4 8JX

 

 

 

They also said that the maximum fee of £12.00 is not set in stone it would have to go through the courts to become law

 

Of course it isn't, but what is set in stone is that the "charge" must reflect the true cost to the bank. This they are fighting tooth & nail to avoid disclosing because not only will it show they are ecting illegaly but also profiting from the misfortunes of others & it's worth noting that the CEO's of the banks & card companies very recently lied to Parliament when questioned by the Finance Commitee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I can't find anywhere that this case has been settled - has anyone got a link?

 

If Bankfodder says it has been settled I would trust him.

 

BTW I wrote long letter to Marjories Wilson at OFT. I hope it won't just be another letter added on to loads of letters waiting to be actioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I can't find anywhere that this case has been settled - has anyone got a link?

 

I think we can assume Bankfodder (&the Daily Mail) are correct particularly on such an important matter which would have affected all of us

Link to post
Share on other sites

But where has the daily mail said that it is settled. Now while I trust a guy on a forums that I have never met as much as the next man (just kidding fodder, I know your telling the truth :D)I would like a link for my own personal feelgood benefit :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But where has the daily mail said that it is settled. Now while I trust a guy on a forums that I have never met as much as the next man (just kidding fodder, I know your telling the truth :D)I would like a link for my own personal feelgood benefit :)

Maybe it's not published anywhere YET and it's a case of just knowing the right people in the right places :rolleyes:

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any

doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news but a shame it didn't go all the way.

 

I think one of the reasons it went to Mercantile could have been that it was a claim for a business account? (I beleive Mercantile to be concerned with commercial cases although please correct me someone if this is wrong). This may have been viewed as more complex by the judge.

 

Firstly, the Daily Mail like all other newspapers will publish stories that they think their readers will want to read. And this will affect whether they publish a story at all, and also the text of the story. 'Oh well never mind LTSB settled so back to claiming as usual' isn't exactly as good as 'Shock! Test case on bank charges! Could this be it???!!!'

 

Secondly, with regards to BF's comments about the OFT -

 

1) BF or someone should write a standard letter and post it here and everyone should send a copy to the FSA - The OFT have already withdrawn their comment about their ruling applying to the banks and several emails of mine to Consumer Direct (the OFT won't answer any individual consumer queries) have been referred to the FSA who officially regulate banks)

OR

A petition should be signed (this would be easier to get people to just click a link and add their name, like Martin Lewis' petition against Carol Vorderman - 86,000 replies!)

 

3) The press should be notified, thus putting the FSA in the spotlight and hopefully pushing them into action.

 

 

This has to reach a point where something will happen although I'm not sure what. The banks best bet is to lower their charges right down, making them look good to a lot of people, and settling any remaining claims until they eventually die out over the next 6 years. I'm sure they'll increase everything else they can to cover the loss but I think it's their best option and I'd be surprised if they didn't do it.

 

The one I'll be watching now is Seminole vs Abbey.

 

EDIT: At the risk of starting loads of thank you posts that will make this thread even more time-consuming to read :) I think it's a good time to point out how much we owe to Dave, all the mods and all the others on this forum who have done so much to help us.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

A journalist called phoned lloyds and Lloyds told him that it had been settled a week ago and so I suppose that the Elliots haven't heard the news yet.

 

Something not quite right here - the claim could not possibly have been settled without the Elliots hearing about it - it is their claim; and it is for them to decide whether or not it is settled.

 

We aren't hearing the full story and I would suspect that the Lloyds press office has confused this case with another case somehwere along the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

radio 4 moneybox, what time is that on??????

Sort of 40 minutes ago :) Repeated tomorrow (Sunday) at 9.02pm. It's on 'listen again' as I write, about 5 minutes in. Just mp3'ing the relevent bit, PM me your email address if you want a copy.

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox

 

 

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listened to it online good piece bit of good publicity for CAG not so good for

LTSB

Can we start an action in the Mercantile Court?

Lloyds TSB - N1 claim issued 18/07/06 - £3440 Offered unconditional settlement 23/08/06

Vodafone-Information Commisioner assessment -default removal -25/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt the lady on programme from the banks just admit they are not going to defend any cases ? can't they be in trouble then for using the courts system and pretending they intend to defend when in fact they dont at all ? or is that too simplistic?

 

It was Ginny Broad from Alliance and Leicester, and yes she says 'currently we're not defending these (claims)'.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we start an action in the Mercantile Court?

 

Wouldn't recommend it.. sure someone can come up with lots of reasons why it's a bad idea, but off the top of my head all Mercantile cases are multi-track and not small claims track, which means the rule on only having to pay your own costs goes completely out the window. Also for under £15k it needs permission of a Mercantile judge to proceed in that particular branch of the Court system.

 

Lastly, if you're heading to Mercantile court, you might just find that unless you're a bit handy with your legal knowledge it'd end up being a job for a qualified barrister - which don't come cheap!

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't recommend it.. sure someone can come up with lots of reasons why it's a bad idea, but off the top of my head all Mercantile cases are multi-track and not small claims track, which means the rule on only having to pay your own costs goes completely out the window. Also for under £15k it needs permission of a Mercantile judge to proceed in that particular branch of the Court system.

 

Lastly, if you're heading to Mercantile court, you might just find that unless you're a bit handy with your legal knowledge it'd end up being a job for a qualified barrister - which don't come cheap!

 

Didn't mean to sound ignorant

I was working on the assumption that you could get a Judge to transfer proceeding to M/C

If this is a direction from a Judge would costs then be the same as in C/C i.e. neither party can recover costs

Surely Lloyds or other could not force you to settle and therefore a test case would be able to continue?

Just how much would they pay to stop it progressing?

Maybe there is some hotshot Barrister you would be willing to take on a case and make a name for him/her it would certainly go down in the history books when he/she won

Lloyds TSB - N1 claim issued 18/07/06 - £3440 Offered unconditional settlement 23/08/06

Vodafone-Information Commisioner assessment -default removal -25/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't mean to sound ignorant

 

Wasn't inferring that, so apologies if it was taken that way :)

 

Re: the other questions, certainly a lot to think about - hopefully it'll spark some debate and bring in some people who know more about Mercantile Court procedures than I do at the mo :)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this woman at A & L said they are not disputing the claims they are getting, why the hell are they still charging me every other day and finding new charges to put on and then telling me to go away and don't come back. Oh and here is a default just to add insult to injury. God they make me mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mad isn't it. Want to see exactly what she said in the original interview? Transcript follows..

 

BROAD: We’re talking about people who are very happy

to accept the benefits of an Alliance & Leicester current account but

aren’t happy to keep their side of the bargain, which is to run their

account responsibly, to keep their balance within the limits they’ve

agreed. So much so that they’ve actually taken us to court to try to

recover the costs, so they’re clearly not happy with the situation.

 

LEWIS: So the customers who are getting this letter are

not people who question charges or who ask for them back. They are

the people who’ve specifically said if you don’t pay them back, we’ll

go to court.

 

BROAD: We’re talking about people who’ve actually

issued court proceedings against us, yes.

 

LEWIS: And why is it that you don’t just refuse to pay

them? Why are you paying them and then closing the account?

 

BROAD: Well we believe that our fees and charges are

entirely reasonable, but that the cost of fighting the court case, of

having the litigation and so forth individually, is not worthwhile. We

can’t recover our costs from the court, so currently we’re not defending

these. So we’re repaying people the charges and then what we’re

saying is that we’ve reached a point where the relationship really isn’t

working and so really the best thing for both parties is to have a clean

break.

 

LEWIS: But the only reason people threaten to go to

court is because they believe that the charges are actually illegal.

 

BROAD: We’re saying that we believe that our charges

are both clear and reasonable. And also the other point to bear in mind

is they’re entirely avoidable.

 

LEWIS: Are you saying they’re lawful?

 

BROAD: We believe so, yes.

 

LEWIS: And just so I’m clear about it, when somebody

has exceeded their overdraft limit - you charge them £25 on day two,

£25 on day five – what costs do you actually incur that that money is to

recover?

 

BROAD: We’re talking about the whole issue of the

communication and management of the relationship with the customer.

 

LEWIS: So you’re saying that in every case if somebody

exceeds their overdraft limit for 5 days, it costs Alliance & Leicester

£50?

 

BROAD: I’m not saying that. I’m saying that our charges

reflect the overall level of these costs.

 

LEWIS: Right. So if it doesn’t cost you £50, how can it

be lawful?

 

BROAD: We believe that our charges are both reasonable

and lawful.

 

LEWIS: Do you think you’re going to have to close

more than a few dozen accounts because there is now a growing

consumer movement – there are websites about it, more and more

customers are trying to challenge what they believe are illegal charges?

Are you going to have to close more and more accounts?

BROAD: I sincerely hope not because we offer a really

good value account – the lowest overdraft rate in the UK, great credit

interest – and these charges are entirely avoidable if people run their

account correctly. And if they slip up, it’s very easy to check on how

things are or to pop some money in or extend the overdraft.

 

LEWIS: And wouldn’t it be better from your point of

view to simply go to court with one of these cases, get a decision that it

is lawful – which is what you believe – and then there’d never be any

argument about it again?

 

BROAD: We prefer to carry on with the way that we’re

doing it at the moment.

 

The rest is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/money_box/transcripts/10_06_06.txt

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6387 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...