Matt Poole vs Lloydstsb

[GaryH]

Hi again Matt,

 

Yes, most definately send a copy to the court. It will then be on your file that you've attempted dialogue and should they not respond within a month, you can then send another letter asking why not. To request a stay to negotiate settlement and then not even bother to respond to your correspondance is abusive of the system an probably a breach of the CPR's, so it needs to be brought to the attention of the court.

 

Nearly there now!

[mattpoole21]

Dear All,

I hope you are well and your claims are going well. I'm slightly confused and need some help!

Lloyds TSB has requested an additional month to attempt settlement, so I have sent the template letter above to ask them to settle! However! After reading some other threads am I meant to write to the court to ask for the extra month wait to be removed? I have found the below letter: The reason I am confused is, I need to send the court a copy of my letter to SC&M showing that I have attempted to settle, but I guess I should send the below letter first, otherwise I would look like I agree with the extra month! Help!

Thanks Matt

 

The Court Manager

Birmingham County Court

33 Bull Street

Birmingham

B4 6DS

 

13 November 2006

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Matthew Poole –v- Lloyds TSB Bank

Claim No: 6QZ66660

 

I have today received the completed allocation questionnaire from the defendant bank, in which they have requested an additional month to attempt settlement.

 

I respectfully request that the application to delay hearing of the above for one month is refused, and this case be allocated as soon as the court timetable permits.

 

It is submitted that in a claim for £2,470.35, where the defendant has so far refused to enter into a meaningful dialogue with myself, that the defendants request for moré time is not reasonable. Had the defendant been prepared to bring this matter to conclusion, it would have entered into meaningful dialogue with myself, with the intention of settling, before I was left with no alternative but to commence court proceedings.

 

I therefore respectfully request that their request to halt proceedings for a further month is not granted.

 

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case be allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

It will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court.

 

It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

 

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right.

 

It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

 

Balance of convenience

The defendant has entered my name on the default register, which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Whilst my name remains on the default register as a further penalty for paying unfair charges I am finding it impossible to get credit or a mortgage without paying higher charges.

 

It is submitted that a further delay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy, which is to take the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

The Status Quo

granting the defendants request does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, this favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which the claimant submits are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

 

The OFT conducted a 2-year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks.

 

The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

 

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

 

 

 

In the alternative

If the court decides not to accede to my request I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

• That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.
  
• That the defendant remove any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges.
  
• That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)
  
• That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim
  
• That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent
  
• That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

Additional orders

If the court does accede to my request then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure.

 

It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bring these and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion.

 

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges.

 

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

 

Matthew Poole

[GaryH]

Just becouse they requested the month does'nt mean they'll get it. Thats down to the discretion of the judge at the end of the day, and assuming you ticked 'no' to the month on your AQ, they probably won't get it. Only send the above in the event that they do and a stay is ordered.

[mattpoole21]

Cheers Gary.

 

Whats the process now we have both submitted AQ's to the Judge?

 

Do I get a letter from the court with the court date? Its been a week since the AQ deadline (13th November 06) so shall I give the court a call?

 

Thanks everyone (and especially Gary! I hope your getting paid for all the help your giving everyone!)

 

Matt

[GaryH]

Getting paid? As if! Its all for the love of this forum and the intense dislike of Lloyds TSB I'm afraid. Why, what you offering?

 

What happens next? As you say, you'll get allocated a court date and be given directions for submitting evidance. Hopefully they'll cough well before the date set for exchanging documents, but if you want to be a step ahead you could start to prepare now if you like. You'll need the excellant 'court bundle' from the templates library, all correspondance between you and Lloyds, account statements or SAR information, the McNamara interview plus you can use my statement of evidance if you like - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloydstsb-successes/7744-garyh-lloyds-tsb-unconditionally-3.html#post339177.

[mattpoole21]

Hi Guys,

 

Its now 2 weeks since I received the AQ from SC&M, and no response from Birmingham County Court! have been busy though! sent SC&M a letter as they requested an additional month to settle, to date no response- so today sent and faxed a second letter reminding them of the first! I don't intend to chase them too much I don't want to appear desperate!

 

I phoned the court today and my file hasn't been sent to a judge yet, so its a waiting game! I really hope he orders a court date soon! I have been copying my letters to SC&M to the court, so hopefully the judge will realise that SCM have had long enough to settle.

 

Be good!

 

Matt

 

Ps: has anyone come up with any good acronyms for SC&M I(probably not a good idea)

[mattpoole21]

Hi Gary,

 

Taking your advice as always I have started to prepare my court bundle early! (I'm keen!) as suggested I have utilised your Summary Statement of Evidence and I am just working my way through it! at the end your statement you provide a list of documents you have included as evidence, I have found a few of these on this forum but can't find the one's below (one's in blue I have found!) are these one's personal to your case? or have I just missed them on this site?

 

Cheers mate, as always I owe you one!

 

 

• Lloyds TSB automated Direct Debit ‘return to payer’ letter
  
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd –v- New Garage and Motor Co Ltd

• Letter from Martin Orton, Manager of Lloyds ‘Customer Service Recovery’ Dept.

• Transcript of Radio interview with Peter McNamara, Lloyds former head of personal banking, Sept 2004

• House of Commons Early Day Motion, May 2006

• OFT statement, April 2006, section 4.21 – ‘disguised penalties’

• Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request for account contract and information

Thanks again, Matt

[GaryH]

The first one, the DD refusal letter, is just the standard automated letter sent by Lloyds to notify you of a charge. Its just there to support the contention that its all computer generated, plus in my case it was to demonstrate the charge for the shortfall of £1.19. Include one of your own if you like, or even better if you have two from the same day include them both.

 

The letter from Martin Orton was part of a protracted exchange of correspondance I got into with them back in the days when I was naive enough to think that reasoned arguement might actually get me somewhere. Ultimately it was pointless, but in one of my responses Mr Orton did slip up slightly. I asked directly in a previous letter for him to justify Lloyds charges. He did'nt mention 'service charges', but instead stated their charges existed in order that they recover their costs. Bit of a contradiction, don't ya think? Its remarkable how easily they slip up if you drag them away from their templates. If they have'nt settled by the time you need to submit your bundle, I'll send you a copy.

 

The early day motion is contained within the 'court bundle', which is in the templates library - you need all of that too remember.

 

The SAR was their partly becouse of the evidance of manual intervention request, which they did not provide. Mainly though, becouse in a telephone conversation one of their staff admitted that they're charges were applied automatically. I requested the recording of this conversation be supplied under the SAR, but they "were not able to trace it, dispite our best efforts". Yeah, right.

[mattpoole21]

Gary,

 

I can't thank you enough; you have been a real source of help and inspiration.

 

I'm going to phone our friends at Sorry:) (SC&M) to confirm they have received my letters / faxes! Still no word! Not bothered as after reading your statement and with your support I would like my day in court!

 

Matt

[mattpoole21]

Hi All,

 

Just to let you all know that a couple of days ago I received a full settlement offer, but due to condition can't give details.

 

Anyone still in the process, Keep going and you will get there, I would like to thank everyone who have offered advice, especially Gary H.

 

A donation will be forthcoming.

 

Again thank you all for your help and support.

 

Matt

[westham34]

well done

sam

[GaryH]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

 

Well done Matt thats brilliant news, I'm well pleased for you. Another reasonably quick one too! Enjoy your money and thanks for the donation - the site relys on them to exist so its much appreciated

[myzeejon88]

W E L L D O N E M A T T

 

NICE TO SEE ANOTHER WIN, MAKES MY DAY

 

C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S

[BARTY]

Congratulations!!! :D

Barty:)

[mattpoole21]

Cheers All,

 

Just waiting for the money now, SC&M said it should be within 7 days! fingers crossed.

 

I have a theory! I reckon they hold off paying the people who need it the most, I think in the survey this site should ask how quickly they settle and then compare it to individuals financial positions! It just seems strange that the people who are still incurring charges have to wait longer for settlement! although that might be a sweeping statement.

 

Another hint that Gary H passed on was to start writing to them as soon as they gave me a copy of their AQ, I still haven't heard from the court and if I had waited to start the settlement talks, I would still be waiting.

 

Again Cheers all, Matt xxx