dogowner v Lloyds

[dogowner]

I too have received this letter, plus a demand to repay the charges which are in excess of the original overdraft within one week (letter dated 14th Jan, received on the 20th).

My case started quite late and I sent my allocation form in just prior to Christmas so am waiting for a court date, and more importantly now - an updated argument.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can answer this letter, apart from repeating that the charges are still in dispute. Help please.

[dogowner]

Anyone?

 

I do realise the general advice is to sit tight and wait but because of the excess overdraft (due to fees) I am about to be chased round the houses again. Would a letter stating I have not received a satisfactory answer to my complaint and the fact that I am still disputing the charges have any effect do you think?

 

Ideally, I need them to back off until the new templates are ready so I can amend my N1. But am I completely misunderstanding this? Do I have to start a new claim now?

 

Thanks

[caro]

Hi dogowner

 

I've moved your last couple of posts to your own thread so you can post all your progress here and people can follow what's going on.

 

Am I right in thinking that you started your claim after the Supreme Court found for the banks in November.

 

Can you please post up your POC that you used, and the defence you've had.

 

I may not be able to get back to you until Saturday.

Edited January 22, 2010 by caro

[dogowner]

Hi caro,

 

Thanks for doing that.

 

This is the POC I used:

 

 

"The Claimant has an account ----------- ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around ------

The account was conducted on the basis of the Defendant’s own standard terms and conditions.

1. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer and the Defendant was a supplier within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

   
   

2. During the period in which the Accounthas been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant.

   
   

3. Alternatively the charges were levied in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant and relating to exceeded overdrafts, returned cheques, failed direct debits and so forth.

   
   

4. The Defendant also charged interest on the charges which were applied.

   
   

5. The charges were levied on the basis of certain purported contractual terms which apparently permitted the charges to be made

   
   

6. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim

   
   

The Claimant contends that:

 

Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant.

Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal have held the services in respect of which the defendant has levied charges are subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

 

The purported terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are invalid under UTCCR because

 

a.They are contrary to the requirement of good faith.

b.They cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:-

 

• Bank accounts have become a basic essential service
  

• The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract.

  
  

• There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts.

  
  

• These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market.

  
  

• The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges.

  
  

• The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent

  
  

• They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation

  
  

• The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers

  
  

• The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract.

  
  

• The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract

  
  

• The charges reflect a markup of several thousand percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%.

  
  

• Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniousity which then triggers more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniousity and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit.

  
  

• The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking".

  
  

• The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges

  
  

• The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position.

  
  

• The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.·

  
  

  
  

  As established by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal (OFT v Abbey& 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges.

  
  (11) In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.
  

  
  

Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) The restitution of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ ----

b) Restitution of interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £ ----c) Restitutionary damages to be assessed by the court

 

 

Alternatively, the restitution of the sums levied in charges and related interest on those charges as set out above, and

interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from -----2003 to ------2009 of £------and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.14

 

Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court"

 

Their defence runs to several pages, do you need a copy or a summary?

 

Thanks,

dogowner

[dogowner]

Forgot to mention, I started this about a week before the Supreme Court's decision.

 

Phone calls have started again because of the excess overdraft due to their fees.

 

All I really need to know at this point is whether I can amend this complaint or have to start a new one altogether, and would a letter stating that the charges are still disputed carry any weight at the moment.

 

Thanks!

[dogowner]

Anyone? Help please?