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

[BankFodder]

... and look up (in amazement)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..and believe me, not many people know that

[BankFodder]

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.

[trundlecat]

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).

[JonCris]

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?

[JonCris]

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

[Ihatebanks]

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

[JonCris]

Great!

 

To the Mod. Can this OFT name & address for complaints go into all the lenders threads?

[BaldyBaldwin]

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

[JonCris]

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.

[sharpcircle]

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

[kotum45]

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.

[JonCris]

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

[sharpcircle]

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 )I would like a link for my own personal feelgood benefit

[Janet-M]

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 )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

[thecornflake]

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.

[gbd]

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.

[Seminole]

I have spoken to Mrs Elliot and the case has been settled. There is a confidentiality agreement in place between Lloyds and the Elliots and so we do not have the details.

[thunderpuss2k]

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

 

 

[Ihatebanks]

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?

[thunderpuss2k]

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)'.

[thunderpuss2k]

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!

[Ihatebanks]

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

[thunderpuss2k]

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

[sharmal]

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.

[thunderpuss2k]

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