KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ post 15 & post 219 !!!!!!

[l33d5un1t3d]

Hi Kazzaw, what was the outcome when the deadline (18th) passed? Also I have received of Notice of Directions hearing for March 2007 - vs. Barclays Do you know if I will be able to quote this ruling "i.e. The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature etc..."......thanks in advance for any advice given?

[Jess17]

Hello everyone, I would like to get money back from Lloyds, in the past 3 months alone they have charged me almost £200, just because a cheque got bounced 30 seconds before I put the money in and then it was represented by Lloyds when there was no money in it to which they then charged me again, and so forth and so forth.

My worries are, I'm still paying off a loan with them , my last payment will be beginning of 2008.

Cause of my credit rating i'm not sure where I can open a current account as a parachute while I start my case. A friend sent me this template, is this sufficient to start

 

Sample letter one

[YOUR NAME]

[YOUR ADDRESS]

[DATE]

[bANK’S NAME]

[bANK’S HEAD OFFICE ADDRESS]

Dear Sir/Madam

Penalty & unfair charges – request for refund for [YOUR NAME, SORT CODE, and ACCOUNT NUMBER]

[iNSERT DETAILS of how charges were applied i.e. how much was charged, and the how this came about]

I am of the view that your charges represent a penalty and are therefore irrecoverable at common law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79.

Your charges do not reflect any actual loss, instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. In particular, charges were applied after I entered into a transaction(s) without sufficient funds in my account. However, payment was declined by you, and therefore, actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter. I would respectfully submit that is valued at no more than 50 pence.

UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. No-one has had to look at my account or telephone me. No one has had to collect anything. Your charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

On a separate note, your charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). My account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as

I am a consumer. Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. Because your charges include a large profit margin, in addition to actual loss, they are irrecoverable as an unfair term in contract. I believe that your charges require me to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for incurring a transaction(s) which was ultimately declined by an automated computer system.

In addition, it is unfair to require me to subsidise your global debt recovery costs and debt write-off.

Please refund these charges to my account within the next 7 days. I reserve the right to commence court proceedings without any further notice.

Yours faithfully

[sIGNATURE]

 

Thanks

Jess

[lola2sparklez]

Hi Kazzaw,

Congratulations on getting this far!!!

I've been quite nervous about my claim against LloydsTsb but am now at the A&Q stage.

Just a question for you please since you've braved that step - do you send copies of your statements or letters written to LloydsTsb (as more information for the Judge) re: Section G of the A&Q form when sending it to the Court?

Many thanks,

Nervous claimant!

[GuidoT]

Hi Lola

You will find everything needed to complete the AQ here, the new strategy should speed things up:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

 

No is the answer to your section G question, you will see what to insert when you read the above.

 

You really need to start your own thread so that we can help you more easily.

[lola2sparklez]

Thank very much!!!: -)

Not so nervous customer now:-)

[prushton]

Hi, I wonder what the latest is on your striking the defence out ordered by the judge ? Also I wondered if sending a letter similiar to the one below to the judge in my case might prove fruitful ? any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

 

Dear Sir,

We would respectfully ask the judge overseeing the above claim; to consider striking the Defence out as an abuse of process, on the basis that the defendant has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action, perhaps the court would consider asking the defendant to submit within a timescale the court sees fit to apply, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims the defendant has defended in court and all claims it has settled before the claims have reached the courts. This will make it abundantly clear that the defendant is abusing the court system.

The courts time is a valuable resource, and the defendant is abusing the legal process in an attempt to dissuade claimants from pursuing claims against unfair bank charges. If our letter to the court is inappropriate, then we apologise unreservedly.

Yours sincerely,

 

Well done by the way.

[Movingon]

Hi, I wonder what the latest is on your striking the defence out ordered by the judge ? Also I wondered if sending a letter similiar to the one below to the judge in my case might prove fruitful ? any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

We would respectfully ask the judge overseeing the above claim; to consider striking the Defence out as an abuse of process, on the basis that the defencehas settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action, perhaps the court would consider asking the defence to submit within a timescale the court sees fit to apply, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has defended in court and all claims it has settled before the claims have reached the courts. This will make it abundantly clear that the defence is abusing the court system.

 

The courts time is a valuable resource, and the defence is abusing the legal process in an attempt to dissuade claimants from pursuing claims against unfair bank charges. If our letter to the court is inappropriate, then we apologise unreservedly.

 

 

defenDANT. The defence is a document submitted by the Defendant.

[prushton]

Your right , a little tired.

[steven4064]

Jess17, Have you read through this thread from the beginning? If not, I suggest you do. You will find all the info you need, starting with the Subject Access request to find out exactly how much they have taken off you right through to getting it back.

 

Good luck

[gizmo111]

Hello everyone, I would like to get money back from Lloyds, in the past 3 months alone they have charged me almost £200, just because a cheque got bounced 30 seconds before I put the money in and then it was represented by Lloyds when there was no money in it to which they then charged me again, and so forth and so forth.

My worries are, I'm still paying off a loan with them , my last payment will be beginning of 2008.

Cause of my credit rating i'm not sure where I can open a current account as a parachute while I start my case. A friend sent me this template, is this sufficient to start

 

Sample letter one

 

[YOUR NAME]

[YOUR ADDRESS]

[DATE]

 

[bANK’S NAME]

[bANK’S HEAD OFFICE ADDRESS]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Penalty & unfair charges – request for refund for [YOUR NAME, SORT CODE, and ACCOUNT NUMBER]

 

[iNSERT DETAILS of how charges were applied i.e. how much was charged, and the how this came about]

 

I am of the view that your charges represent a penalty and are therefore irrecoverable at common law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79.

 

Your charges do not reflect any actual loss, instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. In particular, charges were applied after I entered into a transaction(s) without sufficient funds in my account. However, payment was declined by you, and therefore, actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter. I would respectfully submit that is valued at no more than 50 pence.

 

UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).

 

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. No-one has had to look at my account or telephone me. No one has had to collect anything. Your charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

 

On a separate note, your charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). My account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as

 

I am a consumer. Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

 

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

 

0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. Because your charges include a large profit margin, in addition to actual loss, they are irrecoverable as an unfair term in contract. I believe that your charges require me to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for incurring a transaction(s) which was ultimately declined by an automated computer system.

 

In addition, it is unfair to require me to subsidise your global debt recovery costs and debt write-off.

 

Please refund these charges to my account within the next 7 days. I reserve the right to commence court proceedings without any further notice.

 

Yours faithfully

 

[sIGNATURE]

 

Thanks

Jess

 

Jess can you please start your own thread in the bank forum that you are claiming from - that way all your information will be together, I don't know where you got your letter from but I suggest you read ours in the library templates - and have a good read of the site so you are sure what you are doing.

 

Good Luck

[kazzaw]

Sorry folks, no settlement yet

 

BUT...

 

I have been interviewed today by BBC Radio Four's Money Box programme.

 

They were very interested in this latest development eg the "abuse" Court Order.

 

The programme will go out on Saturday 27th January at 12.00 noon on Radio 4.

 

Bankfodder & another CAG member should also be making an appearance!!

 

Might be interesting!!

 

K

[GuidoT]

In case you missed it you may be interested to see that another one of these came from your local friendly judge today:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/32952-sean-lloyds-2.html#post512725

[stan5131]

This is great news for everyone. Perhaps the courts should also be seeking compensation for wasted court time lol

 

This would definately make them think twice about defending.

[Movingon]

Sorry folks, no settlement yet

 

BUT...

 

I have been interviewed today by BBC Radio Four's Money Box programme.

 

They were very interested in this latest development eg the "abuse" Court Order.

 

The programme will go out on Saturday 27th January at 12.00 noon on Radio 4.

 

Bankfodder & another CAG member should also be making an appearance!!

 

Might be interesting!!

 

K

 

I'm surprised the court haven't contacted you yet; might be worth giving them a bell, see what they say is happening? After all, the deadline's gone hasn't it?

[upton11]

Kazzaw, Hi

thanks for the tip re your radio spot - i shall listen with flapping ears!

 

Did you see in last Saturday's paper the bloke who sued, i think RBS? - well he sent the bailiffs to the bank, who entered a took away various computers, fax machines and other office equipment. Fantastic. RBS (?) said his claim slipped through the net. God I chuckled

 

Paula

[TideTurner]

Maybe this is a taste of things to come? You can guarantee, if the banks had any form of recourse, they would have stomped on this immediately, and defended themselves. They haven't done so, and there are lots of other posts where "winners / reclaimers" have a judgement and have then faced problems with recovery when they have contacted the Court bailiffs.

 

Court Bailiffs must act impartially.

 

If you believe they are or have been biased to any particular side, you should report it to the Courts via a complaint. In our area, this is the County Court Sheriff.

 

Also see thread Bailiff Discussion.

 

Why are the bailiffs not pursuing this matter as vigorously as with previous matters involving the banks?

[Guest bong]

just listened to the radio 4 moneybox programme. Lloyds claimed to have settled the claim, is this untrue Kazzaw?

 

Have to say I was enfuriated at their statement, that they look at each claim individually before deciding whether to settle and that they believe the judges decision was flawed because he made the order without a hearing and they didn't have the opportunity of having their views represented (I think thats more or less what they said anyway). They did have the opportunity of making a representation with the information that the judge requested within the time that was given and although I'm not a Lloyds claimant I believe they are treating all claims the same - with a standard defence. I'm wondering if a tape recording of this statement might assist Lloyds claimants at the AQ stage, in providing further evidence that these defences are issued in a bulk process and that they do not relate to individual claims, ie. what they have said on air is not actually the case.

 

I too wonder why nothing has been done by the court about them missing this court deadline. their defence should have been struck out by now according to that order.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Methinks Lloyds are protesting too much. They certainly told a couple of furfies in the interview. We know that from following the threads.

A transcript of the Lloyds statement in the interview wouod make an interesting attachment at the AQ stage. It's about time the OFT got off it's chuff and had the balls to make an announcement that the banks are acting unlawfully.

[sheepshead]

Hmm made great listening. I have a LTSB claim going and one for my sister and a NatWest one for brother, have had all the standard defence, submitted AQ's on all and awaiting court response. (They have got so slow at Bromley). Could'nt existing claimaints make a seperate application to the court in light of Judge T at Lincoln's court order for defences to be struck out or for a similar order to be made on all bank claims?

 

Kazzaw, let us know when you have been paid!!! shall have a beer on the strength of that!

[empowered]

Blast! Just missed the R4 talk and I always have the radio on but not this morning as I am just starting my prelim letter and have been trawling through all the posts and info to make sure I get it right! Anyway, absolutely brill site - will be starting my own thread as I know that I'm going to need some handholding on the way!

[Glenn UK]

Kazzaw

 

Im having trouble with PMs any chance you could pm me urgently please?

 

Thanks

 

Glenn

[TideTurner]

I have eight claims for my little bro who got himself into a bit of lumber whilst working away in London, he has just phoned to tell me that he has not been charged for a failed direct debit. He is shocked. Is this a climb down?

[nickyhutch]

I@ve notice this lately in my Halifax account. Where I've been 2 minutes late making sure funds are there, and they would usually have slapped a chage on instantly, they haven't lately. Fingers crossed.

[TideTurner]

This was when he was informed the DD would come out on the 14th Jan, it didn't so he withdrew some money. The DD came in late making him OD. I'm wondering whether the retailers request to the banks and the actual debit to the account could have affected many charges in the past, e.g.

 

10th Jan Retailer makes request to bank

12th Jan Bank receives instruction

14th Jan Customer expects DD to be paid

15th Jan Customer assumes debit made, checks balance and withdraws available funde

24th Jan Bank debits account making account OD

24th Jan Bank applies charge for unpaid DD & issues standard letter

24th Jan Bank commences application of interest at contractual rate

 

Maybe they are backing down where they consider the customer may have an argument with respect to time delays?

 

If this is the case, try taking out money from your account at your branch, then go outside and try making a withdrawal from the cash point.

 

Within seconds, your account is updated.

 

Also - why is the 3 working days clearance rule on cheques still in place?

[joneshousehold]

Blast! Just missed the R4 talk and I always have the radio on but not this morning as I am just starting my prelim letter and have been trawling through all the posts and info to make sure I get it right! Anyway, absolutely brill site - will be starting my own thread as I know that I'm going to need some handholding on the way!

 

I missed it too but you can get it on the BBC website. Well done everyone, it made for a good article. Anyone listening to the programme would have noticed a distinct trend - bank charges unlawful, mortgage redemption charges unlawful.... always seems to be the financial institutions trying to rip us off!