Quick question re: interest on N1 please!

[yourbank]

Is the amount they are threatening legal action against you for the same as the charges you are claiming against them in court for (ie your overdraft) ? I(or might have been Esmerellda) mentioned on MSE about the overdraft I think. The overdraft is in dispute (if the charges claimed are more than they want that is) so you need to tell them that. Also with your stayed claim, I would check once more with the court whether the bank have submitted any applications/letters regarding your claim. (they appear to be asking for summary judgment without a hearing and forgetting to tell claimants)

[landy_alert]

Hi Yourbank:)

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

The amount of the overdraft is less than half the amount I am reclaiming in charges - before any interest is added.

 

Would the court not have to inform me if LTSB had submitted any applications or letters regarding my claim?

 

BTW another letter has arrived from the DCA regarding the overdraft today asking for either -

 

a) Payment in full

b) A down payment of roughly 25% followed by monthly instalments

c) Monthly instalments

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy x

[johnnymitch]

by landy: Would the court not have to inform me if LTSB had submitted any applications or letters regarding my claim?

 

This was going to be my question too, YB ..... how can the courts dispense Summary Judgement without referring to the claimant ?

[landy_alert]

I've now re-read the letter from the DCA and the first option is to call them and a discount settlement can be arranged - whoopee:lol:

 

However I still have no desire to repay this o/d balance when the amount consists entirely of charges, but would welcome further opinions on how I stand with this please.

 

I also have further reason to believe the amount of our balance is incorrect, but due to possible prying eyes of LTSB's spies I'm not keen to divulge why on the forum for the time being............

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

I received a letter from Jatin Patel LTSB Director of Personal Current Accounts this morning which was worded as follows -

 

'I promised to keep you up to date about any developments that affected your complaint about unplanned overdraft charges. Your complaint has been on hold while we and some of the other major UK banks have been in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) about the level, fairness or lawfulness of these charges.

 

These legal proceedings came to a conclusion on the 25th November 2009 when the Supreme Court decided that, as long as they are clearly set out, the level of unplanned overdraft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under the consumer fairness legislation known as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

 

What this means for your complaint

 

We understand your complaint is that the charges we made are penalties and/or are unfair because you believe they are too high. The outcome of the legal proceedings means that the bank charges you've complained about are not penalties and the Supreme Court has also decided that the consumer fairness legislation means that the level of the charge is not a reason for finding them to be unfair.

 

As a result of these rulings we will not be upholding your complaint or be providing a refund of the bank charges that you complained about.

 

We hope this answers the points you raised with us about your bank charges and you feel that there is no need to reply to this letter. If you come back to us and we cannot come to an agreement, I'll give you the details of the Financial Ombudsman Service in case you want them to consider your complaint independently.

 

If there's anything other than the level of the charges that you're concerned about, or if there is anything else we can do to help, please contact us. If I haven't heard from you by the 9th March I will close your file.'

 

I've already seen that one other Cagger has received the same letter and I'm sure we are not alone - LTSB has no doubt been gleefully sending these out in droves over the last few days:eek:

 

Landy x

[yourbank]

All banks are sending out decline letters so I would expect that a lot of people are getting the standard letter.

You have to be more concerned with the case in court and the terms of any stay so as ever, don't worry

[landy_alert]

All banks are sending out decline letters so I would expect that a lot of people are getting the standard letter.

You have to be more concerned with the case in court and the terms of any stay so as ever, don't worry

 

Thanks for putting my mind at rest:)

 

Do you have any further thoughts re: the outstanding overdraft balance referred to earlier please Yourbank?

[yourbank]

It depends if you want to cover your arse if it turns out you cant reclaim the charges. Personally I'd negotiate an affordable repayment plan with them pending the conclusion of the dispute under terms they dont continue any action against you or wreck your credit rating.

 

Yes the court should inform you but it never hurts to check, we KNOW what county courts are like. Yorkshire bank for one are telling courts that they have sent the docs to the claimants as well, and well havent done. Most courts are ignoring requests for summary judgment and holding general application hearings. You have a diff situation in that you have a specific stay to negotiate - you wrote to the bank asking them if they wanted to didnt you so your job is done in that respect. (read next post in conjunction with this too)

Edited January 16, 2010 by yourbank

[yourbank]

Also

 

3. If no application to lift the stay is made by 4.00pm on 26th February 2010, the claim be thereafter and without further order Struck out

 

If you hear nothing by say 14th Feb then you obviously don't want your claim to be struck out so you need to tell the court you want to continue with the claim, else the bank will be quite merry to see it struck out. the court have basically given you time to sort out your case.

 

Its Lloyds so you have the no T&C's pre 2007 arguments to use as well as the CCA/5(1)/misrep etc arguments. and before the 26th you need to ask for stay lift and amended particulars to be served.

[landy_alert]

It depends if you want to cover your arse if it turns out you cant reclaim the charges. Personally I'd negotiate an affordable repayment plan with them pending the conclusion of the dispute under terms they dont continue any action against you or wreck your credit rating.

 

Thanks YB your opinion is most appreciated.

 

However, my latest thoughts are thus -

 

This particular account serviced several loans over the years, all of which had PPI applied. The various PPIs were sold on the pretext that they were a condition for approval for the loans. All these PPIs are currently subject to investigation for mis-selling by the FOS and offers have already been made to refund 4 of them, which is an implied admission that they were mis-sold. My view is that if these loans had not had PPI attached, many of the direct debit payments for other items which were returned unpaid and subsequently incurred charges, would have cleared and the overdraft balance would have not been so high. In fact the PPI premiums paid on all loans roughly equate to the same figure as the o/d itself - ie, if they hadn't been charged, our balance would have been zero. That's without taking account of the charges which would never have been levied.

 

My argument therefore, is that the balance of the o/d itself is open to dispute...............

[yourbank]

Yes of course if there are other reasons the charge shouldnt have been incurred and why the overdraft is in dispute other than the legal arguments its another matter.

 

I've posted on your thread on Bagles too re a way forward for before 26th Feb ref a hearing on 17th Feb re Lloyds

 

Legally wise, Consequential's I guess is a difficult argument to make as you would have to show a direct link from the PPI being paid and the charges being incurred.

 

Ie. If you can show that it was solely that PPI amount that you were short by to cause the electric bill not to be paid thus incurring a charge by the bank, and probably by the electric company, and that if you had only paid the loan amount without the PPI the electric bill would have been paid.

 

I think its an argument in part and is kind of consequential losses - an argument which is one of the things which was being looked at for after test case if the OFt had won and was also a difficult argument (ie had the bank charges not been taken you would have kept up mortgage payments and not lost your house type thing ) you still have to show a direct relationship and all other factors would be taken into account to get the argument accepted.

 

So look at statements and work through examples where the PPI was the cause of the other charges - I guess that would be a good place to start strengthening that argument ?

 

A direct loss is a loss that arises directly from a breach of contract. The leading case of Hadley -v- Baxendale established that:

 

Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either:

 

(1) arising naturally, ie according to the usual course of things from such breach of contract itself; or

 

(2) such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it.

 

Consequential loss is any other type of loss that arises from a breach of contract.

 

To take a simple example:

 

You have a coffee table and the day after you buy it it collapses. You have it repaired. The shop must pay for the repair. The loss is direct.

 

You have a coffee table and the day after you buy it it collapses with your collection of Ming vases on it. You cannot claim the value of the Ming vases. The loss is consequential.

 

(Aequitas explained that quite clearly I think) You can also look at the British Sugar case and I'm not sure on the Terms and Conditions of the PPI limiting consequential loss liability ( as thats where the claim would have to be made rather than against the bank account - that is you sue the bank for the consequential losses of incorrectly charging you the PPI )

Edited January 16, 2010 by yourbank

[landy_alert]

Hi YB:)

 

Many thanks for your lengthy and very informative post - consider your scales well and truly tipped!

 

I will have a thorough read through of your words of wisdom again tomorrow when not affected by wine! Then I will take the time to thoroughly peruse my statements (yet again, yawn - but all in a good cause so well worth the effort) to see whether any direct links can be discerned.

 

Thanks also for the reminder for me to check my seagulls thread - I keep forgetting to pop back there. Have just done so and once again will have good look at the recommended thread in the morning.

 

Thanks again,

 

Landy x

[yourbank]

thanks Landy how you getting on now ?

[landy_alert]

Hi YB:)

 

Thanks for popping by and checking up on me!

 

I've heard nothing further from the court/SCM although as Mr L is off work suffering from exhaustion (he has a 3 hour each way commute every day so no wonder!) I've been rather pre-occupied this week and haven't really thought much about this.

 

I have started to go through statements to identify direct links between PPI paid and bounced items and there are definitely signs of this. Once identified I will send a further letter to the DCA asking for the account to be returned to LTSB so it can be looked at by the bank themselves as I firmly believe the o/d balance is incorrect.

 

In the meantime LTSB have (via the FOS) offered refunds on the 2 outstanding PPI complaints, so now all have been upheld which must surely add further ammunition to my dispute?

 

I have been trying to keep an eye on what's happening over on seagulls and am very impressed by the amount of excellent help and advice being distributed by yourself, amethyst etc over there!

 

Thanks again for your help, it's very much welcomed!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Also

 

3. If no application to lift the stay is made by 4.00pm on 26th February 2010, the claim be thereafter and without further order Struck out

 

If you hear nothing by say 14th Feb then you obviously don't want your claim to be struck out so you need to tell the court you want to continue with the claim, else the bank will be quite merry to see it struck out. the court have basically given you time to sort out your case.

 

Its Lloyds so you have the no T&C's pre 2007 arguments to use as well as the CCA/5(1)/misrep etc arguments. and before the 26th you need to ask for stay lift and amended particulars to be served.

 

Hi YB:)

 

I know I've still got a couple of weeks till 14th Feb, but as the time approaches I have a few queries which I would appreciate your help with please!

 

1) If I'm going to ask for the stay to be lifted and amended POCs to be served, assuming I ask for the stay to be lifted sometime between 14th and the deadline of 26th Feb, at what point will I need to have my new POCs ready?

 

2) Is there anything in particular, other than reading around the various recommended/obvious threads, that I should be doing to prepare?

 

3) Will there be some help available with this please?

 

4) Also, will I be best dealing with this over on seagulls?

 

Many thanks as always.

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

Today I received a standard generic letter from LTSB - you know the kind........'We're sorry to hear you have some concerns etc etc' - in reply to the personalised version of the GLC letter I sent in reply to the bank's 'we won' letter.

 

I'm not at all surpised, but thought LTSB could have come up with a new template specifically for this purpose - shame on them!

 

I'm now seriously considering requesting an extension of my stay in order to allow me some extra time to amend my POC.

 

Will update as and when..............

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Having just received the weekly email from MSE, I see the templates and guidance for people with claims yet to start/financial hardship cases are now available, but for those of us with claims in the court system mid February is now being quoted as the time our guidance will be on hand.

 

I'm more than slightly peeved to see that they are saying that the FOS route (ie, financial hardship) is the 'preferred' route. They go on to say that the FOS has stated its preference for handling cases based on 'human' criteria rather than 'legalese' cases.

 

As anyone who has been following my story will realise, my own complaint was in the hands of the FOS until my OH was forced back into the workplace after a period of self-employment initiated by stress/depression etc. Having fallen into a significant spiral of debt a few years ago his health led him to give up a well paid job and our income plummeted by more than 60%. LTSB were made aware of this plus our priority debt arrears and yet did nothing to assist. By the time my complaint got to the FOS things were so bad my OH had to re-enter the workplace and we immediately informed the FOS that our circs had improved and requested that the complaint be suspended.

 

It seemed the only other way to get this money back of course was to file at court, which I did.

 

Now I discover that had I waited and had indeed my OH not been forced to return to work too soon - he is now on sick leave through exhaustion, both mental and physical - I could have pursued the FOS route and maybe had more chance of success. This is particuarly so as it seems one of the 'new' points the FOS is to consider is a cycle of debt or 'charges on charges' which is intrinsically linked with financial hardship. We fitted that criteria perfectly, but I'm now stuck with a court claim I am most likely destined to lose as well as the banks costs which will have to be paid.................the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing:(

 

Rant over and apologies for it!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

Just a quick update -

 

Having received the generic 'we're looking into your complaint' response in reply to my amended GLC letter, I decided to write to my court asking if they would extend my stay for a further 8 weeks to allow time for LTSB to fully investigate. With my request I enclosed copies of my letter to LTSB, the bank's response as well as my previous letter to SCM (which had gone unanswered). This was received by my court yesterday so as yet I don't know what the outcome will be. I will update as and when I have anything further to report.

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Posted in error!

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

I have today received a further letter from LTSB saying they have passed my last letter (the GLC one) to their legal team.

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

Just a quick update -

 

My deadline to apply for lifting the stay was last Friday. I had heard nothing in response to my request for an extension to the stay by Wednesday so I called my court. They explained they currently have a four week backlog and as such have not yet looked at my request. They assured me my claim will not be struck out without my knowledge and that I will be informed as soon as they have dealt with my request.

 

I will now chase them regularly to ensure LTSB don't try to get this struck out behind my back!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi folks:)

 

Just another update -

 

Checked with my court again today and was told my request is now before the DJ and I will be informed as soon as a decision is reached.

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Just a quick update - I heard from my local court today that the DJ has granted me an extra 8 weeks stay extension:)