Mindzai & Lucid vs Lloyds TSB ***WON UNCONDITIONALLY WITH CONTRACTUAL INTEREST***

[Mindzai]

Hi,

 

Sounds like more scare tactics from lloyds to me, but this time they've decided to get in their hired goons to try to increase the panic factor. Please bear in mind I'm in no way qualified to give legal advice, but had I received that letter my response to this would include the points below in red:

 

We are instructed by Lloyds TSB Bank plc who advise us that despite several reminders your account remains out of order. This letter, therefore, makes formal demand on you to repay the balance as quoted above plus interest which is accruing on a daily basis. The due amount is based on the account balance today, receipt of any further debits or credits or a variation in interest rate will result in amendment of the amount payable.

 

I would remind them that the entire amount they are demanding payment for is in dispute, and I would tell them that if they persist in their scare-tactics and demands for this disputed amount I will seek a court injunction to prevent them from taking further action until the dispute is resolved.

 

If payment is not received by our client within 7 days from receipt of this letter, Court proceedings may be issued against you without further reference. Once proceedings have been issued you may be liable for legal costs incurred. In order to avoid this action you should make payment into a Lloyds TSB branch. Alternatively you can send a cheque made payable to our client to the above address. Pleas write your account number on the reverse of the cheque.

 

I would remind them that should they proceed with court action, it will be through the small claims court, and that I would not be liable for legal costs. I would advise them that I consider this misinformation to be a calculated attempt to scare me, and I will be forwarding their correspondence to the law society accordingly.

 

Furthermore, you are reminded that if we do not receive a satisfactory response from you, it is the policy of Lloyds TSB Bank plc to lodge information relating to your failure to pay with the following agencies: Experian ltd, Equifax Europe(UK) and Callcredit plc.

I would advise them that, as they should be well aware, any attempt by their client to pass on my details to any credit reference agency while the debt is in dispute will result in a breach of the Banking Code s13.6. I would suggest they advise their client of this fact as they are seemingly unaware of the details of the code to which they subscribe.

 

You should also be aware that it is common practice within the finance industry for this information to be used when assessing your ability to manage your own finances and it is our understanding that this may also impact in the case of family members or associates where they have relevant financial association with you. Furthermore, if the debt is settled within the prescribed period this fact will also be recorded, but will not lead to the original default being removed.

In reference to the above point advising them of the Banking Code, I would advise them that I consider this to be more intentional misinformation which has been written with the intention of scaring me into paying them a debt which I legally don’t owe. I would remind them that if they continue to harass and misinform me in this manner I would be a very unhappy bunny, and I would advise them that their scare tactics will have no effect on the legal action I will be taking. I would remind them of the FSA’s position on retaliatory action, which I consider this to be (see my earlier letters to Lloyds for the FSA’s postion).

 

REMEMBER, THIS IS A FORMAL DEMAND PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND YOU ARE STRONGLY URGED TO MAKE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT TO AVOID THE ABOVE ACTION.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell

 

It seems to me like this is just a threat with little substance, but it would be worth getting the opinion of others. Personally I would resolutely refuse to pay no matter what they said, but this may not be in your best interests. I would look into applying for an injunction to prevent them from filing action just in case it comes to that. I would also advise that you get the moneyclaim filed asap as they have had their time.

 

God they make me angry! Good luck!

[lucid]

I don't want to speak too soon but we haven't heard anything else about the "enforcement notice" they were going to issue against Mindzai or the extra charges & interest they were going to begin adding. Maybe those strong worded letters paid off and they've finally realised we are going to be proceeding regardless with what they try to threaten us with.

Well it looks as though I did speak too soon - that'll teach me. :o Mindzai received a letter from the Collections Centre this morning regarding our joint account and here it is:

 

Collections Centre

Brighton BN1 4BE

 

Date: 16th September 2006

 

Dear Mr Mindzai,

 

IMPORTANT : YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

 

DEFAULT NOTICE (Served Under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974)

 

Cheque Account No : xxxxxxxxx

Cheque Account Balance : £-1101.92

Unauthorised Overdrawn Amount : £301.92

 

1.Provision of Agreement Breached, - The terms of the Overdraft Agreement include the right of the Bank at any time, to request repayment on demand.

2.Nature of Breach, - You have breached the Agreement by failing to pay the overdrawn mount in accordance with the Enforcement Notice issued under Section 76(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

3.Action Required to Remedy, - You must make a payment of £301.92 plus interest which is accruing daily, directly to your Lloyds TSB Branch, on or before 25th September 2006. The due amount is based on the account balance today, receipt of any further debits or credits or a variation in interest rate will result in amendment of the amount payable.

 

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN, NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THIS BREACH. IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQURIED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU (OR A SURETY).

 

4.Intended Action, - Your account will be referred to our Solicitors with instructions to commence proceedings against you, this will involve additional costs which will be added to the amount outstanding. In addition information relating to your failure to pay will be lodged with the following credit reference agencies: - Experian Ltd, Equifax Europe (UK) Ltd and Callcredit plc. This information may be held for up to 6 years. You may be able to avoid this action by telephoning us immediately t discuss repayment proposals.

 

It is common practice within the finance industry for this information to be used when assessing your ability to manage your own finances and this will impact upon family members or associates when they have a relevant financial association with you. Furthermore if the debt is settled although this will be recorded it will not lead to the original default being removed.

 

IF YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY IN PAYING ANY SUM OWING UNDER THE AGREEMENT, OR TAKING ANY OTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE, YOU CAN APPLY TO THE COURT WHICH MAY MAKE AN ORDER ALLOWING YOU (OR ANY SURETY) MORE TIME.

 

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT TO DO YOU SHOULD GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR, YOUR LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OR YOUR NEAREST CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU.

 

Dated this day 16th September 2006

As you can probably imagine I'm really not happy with this. Mindzai received an Enforcement Notice from them on 1st September, so on 4th September he sent this letter here to both the Collections Centre and Customer Recovery - in both he included a Notice pursuant to s.10 of The Data Protection Act 1998 - and they responded with this letter here, which we received on 14th September and it was addressed to both of us. I don't know if they are pushing their luck with this or whether they are entitled to do this to us. I've got a copy of Consumer Credit Act 1974 and this is Section 87:

 

87 Need for default notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

 

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e) to enforce any security.

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the creditor from treating the right to draw upon any credit as restricted or deferred, and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

(3) The doing of an act by which a floating charge becomes fixed is not enforcement of a security.

 

(4) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

Now I'm going to put in Section 76 of the Act because I think that 76(3) could be important (and it may be of some use to other people who have had the same notices).

 

76 Duty to give notice before taking certain action

 

(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to enforce a term of a regulated agreement by—

 

(a) demanding earlier payment of any sum, or

(b) recovering possession of any goods or land, or

© treating any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as

terminated, restricted or deferred,

 

except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of intention to do so.

 

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

 

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1),

 

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

 

(3) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.

 

(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

 

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a right of enforcement arising by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the regulated agreement.

Now Mindzai seems to think that the prescribed form would have to be them explaining why they are issuing the notice and what the consequences are as well as any charges we have to pay as a result. They have done this with the default notice but they didn't do this with the Enforcement Noice. If he's correct then surely it means that they can't carry out this Default Notice because their Enfocement notice is ineffective. We have tried to find out was is meant by the prescribed form but are really stuggling with it so if anybody knows we would really appreaciate the help.

 

Obviously if they issue him with a default then they are breaching the Banking Code but I'm not convinced that this would stop them. I'm quite concerned now because we've issued our claims without any mention of default notices being removed (because we didn't have any), and if they follow thorugh with this I'd imagine we can't make this a condition of settlement now (for them to remove it). At the moment I'm feeling like we should issue a second claim against them relating to their complete retaliatory action and what I would personally refer to as harrassment for repayment of arrears that they know full well only exist because of their charges. But I have no idea if we could do this and actaully get anywhere. If we can then I think I'm more than prepared to do it.

 

Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot.

 

Lucid

[elsinore]

Cor! Ain't life complicated and don't LTSB make it worse.

May I suggest you ask Surlybonds to assist, he's the bees knees at this stuff, as I'm sure you know.

 

Elsinore

[Mindzai]

Hi elsinore,

 

I have contacted SurlyBonds who informed me that their action is a breach of the CCA 1974, however as of yet I haven't able to find the relevent section. If anyone knows, please give me a shout!

 

Here is a draft of the letter I intend to send them in response to this latest sillyness:

 

Collections Centre

Brighton

BN1 4BE

 

19th September, 2006

 

RE: Letter References XXXXXXX

 

CC: Customer Service Recovery Centre

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXXX

 

I am writing in reference to the Default Notice served under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As you should be well aware the amount you contend that I owe is currently in dispute. You were first informed of this on 9th August and have since been reminded of this in four separate letters, including a letter before action, and at least three separate phone calls. On 10th September a claim was filed against you at Chichester County Court for which your solicitors, who appear to operate from the same building as Brighton Collection Centre, filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 14th September. You can imagine my consternation therefore, upon receiving your Default Notice dated 16th September. As you will be aware Section 13.6 of the Banking Code clearly states that:

 

We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

• you have fallen behind with your payments;

• the amount owed is not in dispute; and

• you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

 

It is therefore clear that you have knowingly and willingly breached the banking code in registering this default with the credit reference agencies. You will also note from my previous correspondence with you, that I pointed out this fact on at least 3 separate occasions prior to your action. Furthermore your knowing breach of the banking code was confirmed to me by one of your call centre staff on the telephone, who when asked “despite the fact you knew my account was in dispute, your entered a default regardless?” replied “yes”.

 

As the debt is currently in dispute, and you had been aware of this for some six weeks before issuing the Default, the banking code clearly prohibits you from registering a Default Notice. It is on the basis that no information could be passed to the reference agencies that I have not sought to repay the debt thus far, and do not intend to repay it until such time as the Court decides the matter is resolved, or a settlement is reached between us. I have made you aware of this fact at every stage, and have replied to every letter and telephone call on the subject of this debt informing you of this. I am sure you can understand therefore how appalled I am to discover that you have proceeded to breach the Banking Code regardless.

 

Furthermore, I am completely confident that the Court Case which is currently underway against you will prove that the charges which constitute this debt are unlawful. In this case, you will have also breached s10 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which states:

 

An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

You will note that I have sent you, via recorded delivery, a notice under s10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. For reference, I have included a copy of this with this letter. In the event that I prove the penalty charges you have levied against me are unlawful, I will also prove that the damaging and distressful act of you placing a Default Notice on my credit record was unwarranted. I consider your placing of this Default notice in these circumstances to amount to defamation of character. As you are aware, breach of the Data Protection Act is a serious criminal offence.

 

I must inform you that I consider your actions under the circumstances to be entirely retaliatory. You have proceeded to breach the banking code, and I believe, the Data Protection Act 1998, and I believe you have done so as a result of my bringing a claim against you. For your reference, I include below a copy of the FSA’s position on retaliatory action.

 

Briefing Note BN 023/06

4 July 2006

FSA position on account closures and default charges

 

Generally, under FSA rules on dispute resolution and complaints, we would not expect any regulated firm to discriminate against a customer who makes a complaint.

 

However the relationship between a bank and its account holders, including the circumstances and manner in which accounts are closed, is governed by the Banking Code.

 

We have therefore raised this issue with the Banking Code Standards Board, and informed those firms involved that we have done so. As a result of those conversations, we understand that the Banking Code Standards Board intends to state its position on this issue presently. We encourage the industry to use this opportunity to demonstrate the value of the Code in ensuring fair and reasonable outcomes to such disputes.

 

Should you contend that this action is not retaliatory and unwarranted, I would question why, given that the account in question is joint account, you have only deemed it necessary to serve a default notice against one of the account holders; the one who has contacted you regarding the ongoing dispute?

 

I would also draw your attention to s14.1 of the Banking Code which states that “We will consider cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively”. I am sure you will agree that a registering a Default for a disputed debt as a retaliatory action, whilst committing a knowing breach of the Banking Code could not in any way be described as sympathetic or positive. Should this issue not be resolved as outlined below therefore, I will not hesitate to forward our correspondence along with an official complaint to the FSA and the Banking Code Standards Board.

 

In order to resolve this issue, I require you to remove any record of this default notice from my record immediately. For clarity, please note that I will not accept an amendment of my credit record to mark the Default as settled. Any evidence of the Default having ever existed on my record must be removed. If this action is taken within the next 7 days, and is confirmed by you, in writing, I will not take any further action. I will also overlook your breach of the Banking Code as a gesture of goodwill. Rest assured however that I am rapidly losing patience with your ability (or lack thereof) to act as my fiduciary, and further boorish actions on your part will not be met with gestures of goodwill such as this.

 

Should you decide not to comply with this request, I will not hesitate to report your various breaches of the Banking Code and the Data Protection Act, as well as details of the retaliatory nature of these actions, to the FSA, the Office of Fair Trading, the Data Protection Controller and the Financial Ombudsman, as well as commence legal proceedings against you in order to have the default removed.

 

I would like to make you aware of the fact that I remain thoroughly dissatisfied with the way you have handled (or more appropriately have not handled) my complaints so far, and would remind you that you have already breached the Banking Code s15.3 on two occasions by failing to acknowledge complaints against you. I therefore require you to reply to this letter;

 

1. With acknowledgement of your intention to act upon it within five days as per the Banking Code Section 15.3.

 

2. With a response from someone in your staff who has the authority and ability to act upon my complaint, and

 

3. Without using a standard letter or template.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

 

 

Mr Mindzai

 

"rapidly losing patience" just about sums it up at the moment...

[GaryH]

Excellant letter. The wording and the tone is a spot on IMO. Just hope it does the job!

[lucid]

Mindzai has received a second Collection Alert regarding his sole account today.

 

Collections Centre

Brighton BN1 4BE

 

Date: 16th September 2006

 

Dear Mr Mindzai,

 

 

COLLECTION ALERT

IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OR CONTACT REQUIRED

 

 

Cheque Account No : xxxxxxxxx

Cheque Account Balance : £-120.19

Unauthorised Overdrawn Amount : £120.19

 

We have had no reply from you to our last letter, so I am writing to remind you that we expect a payment of £120.19 immediately.

 

Please contact us today on 0870 – 2424760 to talk over any difficulties you might have in paying this amount.

 

If we do not receive the payment or hear from you, we will have no alternative but to take further steps to recover the money.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Manager

Collections Centre

They sent the first one on 30th August and he replied to this within the same letter that he wrote in response to their enforcement notice for our joint account (which they received on 5th September). I like the way they insist they "have had no reply from you to our last letter." It makes you wonder what the point in sending letters recorded delivery is if they are just going to deny any knowledge of receiving anything.

 

Mindzai phoned them yesterday regarding this default notice and had some very interesting conversations with the staff. Every single person he spoke to claimed that they had no idea that the account was in dispute and that a court claim has been issued against them - despite the fact that their solicitors SC&M (who appear to work in the same building as Brighton Collections) acknowledged the claim on 13th September. One of them didn't know what the Banking Code was and another one denied that they had breached the Banking Code. He kept getting transferred out of Collections and into the Customer Service Dept. - Collections told him that it was Customer Service who would need to remove the default. But guess what - everytime he spoke to Customer Service they said he needed to talk to Collections because they were the department who had issued the default.

 

Basically we think that they've realised that he's actually somebody who knows what he's talking about and that by issuing a default on 16th September they have breached the Banking Code. So they are now claiming that he needs to talk to a Manager about this, but very conveniently there is never a Manager around for him to talk to. He's going to try again later but I think we're anticiapting the exact same process from them again.

 

At the moment we are amending our claim so that it includes removal of the default - that way they will either have to remove this as well as pay us our money back in order to settle - or they will have to go to court.

 

And as you will see from Mindzai's above post he has also drafted another strongly worded letter so we will see if they actually bother to respond this time.

 

Lucid

[Mindzai]

...So they are now claiming that he needs to talk to a Manager about this, but very conveniently there is never a Manager around for him to talk to.

 

My favourite bit of the conversation, upon my mention of the Banking Code:

 

"I just need to put you on hold while I speak to my manager [pause] sorry, I cant help you, you need to write in to us or talk to a manager"

 

"OK, can I talk to your manager please?"

 

"Sorry, there's no managers in at the moment"

 

!!!

[reload]

I would also draw your attention to s14.1 of the Banking Code which states that “We will consider cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively”. I am sure you will agree that a registering a Default for a disputed debt as a retaliatory action, whilst committing a knowing breach of the Banking Code could not in any way be described as sympathetic or positive.

 

 

Absolutely superb letter, guys. Time to watch the buggers squirm

 

 

Ref: Your earlier question about Lloyds and the CRAs, I can confirm that Experian certainly list them as LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC. I even have a defaulted credit card dating back to 2001 (Which I'd completely forgotten about, time to start reading up the various CRA threads!) which just drops the 'PLC'.

[Mindzai]

Thanks GaryH

reload - thanks for the info, will have to have another look now after recent happenings. (nice picture btw )

 

In response to the above letter posted by Lucid re my sole account:

 

Manager

Collections Centre

Brighton

BN1 4BE

 

20th September, 2006

 

CC: Customer Service Recovery Centre

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I do not know whether the explanation for the ridiculous letter I have received from you today is a further example of your unfaltering ineptitude, or just that there is never a Manager in your office (as seems to be the case whenever I call to speak to one) to deal with the 6 letters sent via recorded delivery, and the 5 phone calls I have made to your department. Either way you seem to be having considerable difficulty in understanding the current situation regarding this debt. I will therefore break this down in clear and simple terms that hopefully, on the twelfth attempt, you will comprehend:

 

• The amount for which you are requesting payment is in dispute, and has been since 9th August 2006.

 

• There is currently a County Court claim underway against you regarding this debt.

 

• You have already breached the Banking Code on numerous occasions concerning my joint account, which is also in dispute.

 

• I am currently preparing to take legal action against you for one of these breaches, which was incurred due to registering a Default Notice for a disputed debt (see s13.6 Banking Code and s10 Data Protection Act).

 

• Should you proceed to “take further steps to recover the money” while this dispute is ongoing, I will not hesitate to undertake further legal action against you to prevent said steps. I would remind you that the passing of any data concerning a disputed debt to a Credit Reference Agency amounts to a breach of the Banking Code s13.6.

 

I am disgusted by the way you have chosen to ignore my correspondence, and then have the audacity to claim that you “have had no reply from [me] to our last letter”, and continue with your boorish actions regardless. To be absolutely clear, I have proof of that fact that you have received every letter I have sent you, including the reply you claim not to have received which was delivered to your department via Royal Mail 1st Class Recorded Delivery on 5th September 2006. I have also submitted a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for recordings of all telephone conversations between you and I, which will also prove that I have also spoken to you on the telephone regarding this matter. I will not hesitate in referring any further spurious claims on your part to the relevant governing bodies.

 

I am hopeful, although not in the slightest bit confident, that you understand how serious I am regarding this and will act accordingly. To make it as clear as possible, I will set out exactly what I require of you in response to this in simple terms:

 

• I require a written confirmation that you have received this complaint, stating your intention to act upon it, within 5 working days as outlined in the Banking Code s15.3.

 

• I then require you to, within the next 4 weeks, write to me outlining the course of action you will take to resolve this issue as set out in the Banking Code s15.4.

 

• In addition to the prompt and professional handling of this complaint, I also require you to immediately desist in taking action to recover this debt until such time a Court decides the dispute is resolved, or a settlement is reached between us.

 

• Your response to this letter will indicate an acceptance of the fact that passing any details of this debt while it is in dispute to any Credit Reference Agency will be a breach of the Banking Code s13.6.

 

I would like to make very clear that I am very rapidly losing patience with you on this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr Mindzai

 

Lets hope they understand this time. At least if not it's great therapy writing these letters, I'm in a good mood now!

[elsinore]

If it wasn't so bloody tragic it would be funny. These people are looking after our money for goodness sake!

What am I saying, that's exactly what they are not doing.

 

I think I can see a letter to LTSB's chairman in the offing.

 

Elsinore

[Mindzai]

If it wasn't so bloody tragic it would be funny. These people are looking after our money for goodness sake!

What am I saying, that's exactly what they are not doing.

 

I think I can see a letter to LTSB's chairman in the offing.

 

Elsinore

 

I know what you mean, you can't help but laugh at some of it. Another gem from the monkey i spoke to at collections yesterday:

 

Me: "is this conversation being recorded?" (amongst other lies, he'd just stated categorically that he couldnt transfer my call despite the fact i'd been transferred by them twice already - complaint to follow once i get the recording!)

 

Him (triumphant): "right sir, you legally had to tell me you were recording this call, and now it is null and void"

 

Me: "firstly, i asked if it was being recorded, not announced it was being recorded, and secondly I'm perfectly entitled to record my own phone calls without telling you as long as I dont intend to show them to a third party".

 

Him: "oh"

 

Made me chuckle the way he went from the height of pomposity to complete deflation in 2 seconds. You could litereally hear the disapointment in his voice. You'd think they'd give them at least basic training in these things I have to say I normally remain pretty calm with the phone staff because i've usually found them to be pretty helpful, and after all they're just doing their job, but the monkeys that work at the collection center have so far been some of the most ignorant, rude and objectionable people I've ever had the misfortune to deal with!

[Mindzai]

Well I've just had a couple of extremely interesting conversations with 'Gavin', an extremely nervous sounding Manager at the Collection Center.

 

The first trick he tried to pull, was to tell me that bacuase Customer Recovery had replied to my prelm, the amount was no longer in dispute. Rather than complicate matters by arguing that I didn't consider their response satisfactory, I just reminded him that SC&M had filed an aknowledgment of service 2 days before the default was issued, therefore there is no way they can content the debt was not in dispute. That put paid to that tactic!

 

The next thing he tried was telling me that according to the Banking Code, they had given me 28 days notice of their intended action. I reminded him that even if this were true, it was entirely irrelevant and did not change the fact that they had breached 13.6. (i think he had a copy of the code in front of him (he was referring to section 13.7 and was clutching at straws tbh).

 

At this point he seemed to be out of ideas so he said he'd have to call me back.

 

He then got back to me to inform me that the Banking Code requires them by law to pass on details of 'white data' to the reference agencies. As you can imagine my eyes lit up at this statement! I firstly asked him to point me to the section of the Banking code that states this (he couldn't of course as such a section doesn't exist). I then advised him that the CRAs are not legal bodies, they are for-profit organisations, and there is no law or precident that gives them any kind of inherent legal right demand data be passed to them. I told I wasnt at all happy at his attempting to decieve me and asked him to confirm the conversation was being recorded. It was! So that pretty much shut him up on that point and he started making excuses for his misinformation.

 

His final response was to claim that a Default Notice had not been placed on my account! I obviously asked for him to confirm this in writing as the Default Notice they sent me seems to contradict this! I also pointed out that I was told only yesterday but a member of his staff that the default HAD been placed on my account. At this point he gave up completely and told me I would need to write to, or call, a Jamie Williams who is apparently a Customer Recovery Manager. Hope he's as useless as Gavin!

 

So I think I'm in a much better position regarding getting this default removed now. Once i get the recordings of these calls through I'll have more than enough evdence to prove they've buggerd things up now.

 

Oh I also told Gavin he should probably make a note on my sole account not to register any details with the credit reference agencies for that one too. He agreed!

[elsinore]

Well done Mindzai. Let's hope that LTSB finally understand that they have to learn about the laws which govern them and abide by them. It'll make a change from them swatting aside pesky customers by making it up as they go along

 

Claimants following after should get better treatment as a consequence of your actions.

 

Elsinore

[Mindzai]

Hi elsinore, thanks for your comments . Im sure you've noticed by now that I dont take kindly to attempts of corperate bullying, and I will do everything I can to fight back. Hopefully the experiences of members of this site will prompt others into acting when they see that the bullies need not intimidate them.

 

Bit of a long one, but I've redrafted my previous letter and will be sending this to Jamie Williams directly. Hope he like reading

 

Jamie Williams

Customer Service Recovery Centre

Lloyds TSB

125 Colmore Row

Birmingham

B3 3SF

 

20th September, 2006

 

CC: Collections Centre, Brighton

 

Dear Mr Williams,

 

I am writing in reference to the Default Notice served under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As you should be well aware the amount you contend that I owe is currently in dispute. You were first informed of this on 9th August and have since been reminded of this in four separate letters, including a letter before action, and at least three separate phone calls. On 10th September a claim was filed against you at Chichester County Court for which your solicitors, who appear to operate from the same building as the Brighton Collection Centre, filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 14th September. You can imagine my consternation therefore, upon receiving your Default Notice dated 16th September. As you will be aware Section 13.6 of the Banking Code clearly states that:

 

We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

• you have fallen behind with your payments;

• the amount owed is not in dispute; and

• you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

 

It is therefore clear that you have knowingly and willingly breached the Banking Code in registering this default with the credit reference agencies. You will also note from my previous correspondence with you that I pointed out this fact on at least 3 separate occasions prior to your action. Furthermore your knowing breach of the banking code was confirmed to me by one of your Collections Centre staff on the telephone on 20th September, who when asked “despite the fact you knew my account was in dispute, your entered a default regardless?” replied “yes”.

 

As the debt is currently in dispute, and you had been aware of this for some six weeks before issuing the Default, the Banking Code clearly prohibits you from registering a Default Notice. It is on the basis that no information could be passed to the reference agencies that I have not sought to repay the disputed debt thus far, and do not intend to repay it until such time as the Court decides the dispute is resolved, or a settlement is reached between us. I, the Banking Codes Standards Board, and apparently you in agreeing to be bound by the terms of the Banking Code, feel this is a perfectly reasonable course of action to take. I have made you aware of this fact at every stage, and have replied to every letter and telephone call on the subject of this debt informing you of this. I am sure you can understand therefore how appalled I am to discover that you have proceeded to breach the Banking Code regardless.

 

Furthermore, I am completely confident that the Court Case which is currently underway against you will prove that the charges which constitute this debt are unlawful. In this case, you will have also breached s10 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which states:

 

An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

You will note that I have sent you, via recorded delivery, a notice under s10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 dated 4th September 2006. For reference, I have included a copy of this with this letter. In the event that I prove the penalty charges you have levied against me are unlawful, as I am in no doubt I will, I will also prove that the damaging and distressful act of you placing a Default Notice on my credit record was unwarranted. In response to the s10 notice of which you are in receipt, I note you contend that “we do not accept that we are processing your personal data in a way that causes or is likely to cause substantial unwarranted damage or substantial unwarranted distress. We believe that we are justified in passing your data on to credit reference agencies”. Notwithstanding the fact that your passing of my data is not justified under the terms of Banking Code, placing a Default on my record for non-payment of a debt which is unlawful, and which you therefore have no right to claim, is most certainly unwarranted.

 

Further, you claim in your response to the s10 notice, that “with reference to [my] comments about the First Data Protection Principle, [you] have complied in that [i was] informed about the uses and disclosures of personal data at the time of account opening”. I fully dispute the fact that I agreed to be treated unlawfully by you in any contract, and I fully dispute the fact that I agreed for data relating to this unlawful treatment to be disclosed to any third party. If you contend this point I would request that you forward a signed and true copy of this contract to me.

 

As should be evident by now, this default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by you, and was the result of impecuniosity caused directly by the taking by you of penalty charges which you had applied unlawfully to my account. It should also be completely clear that I consider your placing of this Default Notice in these circumstances to amount to defamation of character. As you are aware, breach of the Data Protection Act is a serious criminal offence.

 

I must inform you that I consider your actions under the circumstances to be entirely retaliatory. You have proceeded to breach the banking code, and I believe, the Data Protection Act 1998, and I believe you have done so as a result of my bringing a claim against you. For your reference, I include below a copy of the FSA’s position on retaliatory action.

 

Briefing Note BN 023/06

4 July 2006

FSA position on account closures and default charges

 

Generally, under FSA rules on dispute resolution and complaints, we would not expect any regulated firm to discriminate against a customer who makes a complaint.

 

However the relationship between a bank and its account holders, including the circumstances and manner in which accounts are closed, is governed by the Banking Code.

 

We have therefore raised this issue with the Banking Code Standards Board, and informed those firms involved that we have done so. As a result of those conversations, we understand that the Banking Code Standards Board intends to state its position on this issue presently. We encourage the industry to use this opportunity to demonstrate the value of the Code in ensuring fair and reasonable outcomes to such disputes.

 

Should you contend that this action is not retaliatory and unwarranted, I would question why, given that the account in question is joint account, you have only deemed it necessary to serve a Default Notice against one of the account holders; the one who has contacted you regarding the ongoing dispute?

 

I would also draw your attention to s14.1 of the Banking Code which states that “We will consider cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively”. I am sure you will agree that registering a Default for a disputed debt as a retaliatory action, whilst committing a knowing breach of the Banking Code, could not in any way be described as sympathetic or positive. Should this issue not be resolved as outlined below therefore, I will not hesitate to forward our correspondence along with an official complaint to the FSA and the Banking Code Standards Board.

 

In order to resolve this issue, I require you to remove any record of this default notice from my record immediately. For clarity, please note that I will not accept an amendment or correction of my credit record to mark the Default as settled. Any evidence of the Default having ever existed on my record must be completely removed, restoring my record to its prior state. If this action is taken within the next 7 days, and is confirmed by you, in writing, I will not take any further action. I will also consider overlooking your breach of the Banking Code s13.6 as a gesture of goodwill. Rest assured however that I am rapidly losing patience with your ability (or lack thereof) to act as my fiduciary, and further boorish actions on your part will not be met with gestures of goodwill such as this.

 

Should you decide not to comply with this request, I will not hesitate to report your various breaches of the Banking Code and the Data Protection Act, as well as details of the retaliatory nature of these actions, to the FSA, the Office of Fair Trading, the Data Protection Controller and the Financial Ombudsman, as well as commence legal proceedings against you in order to have the default removed.

 

At this stage I would like to bring to your attention some of the things I have been told by members of Lloyd’s staff working at the Collections Centre. During a telephone call with a Manager named ‘Gavin’ at approximately 6pm on 20th September 2006, I was informed amongst other things that you have not breached the banking code “because [you] informed me in 28 days that the Default would be processed”. This is entirely irrelevant to your breach of s13.6. I would expect a Manager at a financial institution to have at least a basic grasp of the Banking Code, especially when his role involves dealing with customers. He also claimed that the debt was not in dispute as I have received a final response from you. As you should be aware, a dispute is not considered resolved until such time as both parties are satisfied, or a Court of Law deems the dispute resolved. You should also be aware from my previous correspondence that I will not consider this dispute resolved until either full payment of the amount I claim is made, or a Judge decides that the issue is resolved. At no time have I deviated from this standpoint, nor have I made any such indication. I consider this attempt to misinform me particularly unconvincing when the fact that a Court claim is currently underway against you is considered; a claim for which your solicitors filed an Acknowledgment of Service on your behalf before the Default was entered. ‘Gavin’ was apparently unaware of this fact despite the fact that I have informed you in writing on two occasions, and via the telephone on at least three others.

 

Further, I was told in a second conversation with ‘Gavin’ shortly after the first that the Banking Code “legally requires [you] to pass certain data to the reference agencies”. As you should be well aware, this is utter nonsense. The reference agencies are not a legal body, and there is no law, statute or precedent which could possibly prompt you to maintain that you have a legal requirement to process my data. Should you contend this point, I require you to quote, in full, the law which requires the processing of my data by you. Aside from this fact, you should also be well aware that the Banking Code contains no such legal requirement, or anything remotely similar. It should come as no surprise that when asked, ‘Gavin’ could not point me to the section from which he was quoting as no such section exists. Again I would like to register my concern that a Manager of a Collections Centre for a large financial institution is seemingly unfamiliar with the Banking Code, including the sections relating to collection of debts. I consider the act of conveying this particular piece of spurious information on your part to be highly unprofessional, and would request that you take immediate action to investigate the incident. I am sure the Office of Fair Trading, the Data Commissioner, The FSA and the Banking Codes Standards Board as well as the local and national media will be very interested to hear of this affair. Needless to say I confirmed that the call was being recorded and will be lodging a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to obtain a copy of this recording.

 

Finally, having seemingly run out of nonsense statements, ‘Gavin’ informed me that he did not believe a Default had been registered with any reference agency after all. I have requested he put this into writing to me at his earliest possible convenience to which he agreed. I am sure you can see that this information is somewhat at odds with the statements made by you as part of your Default Notice which has prompted this letter. I should also remind you that I was informed by a different member of the Collections Centre staff that the default had indeed been registered, as mentioned in the second paragraph of this letter. I have also requested a copy of this recording as part of the aforementioned Subject Access Request.

 

As I am sure you have gathered by this stage, I remain thoroughly dissatisfied with the way you have handled (or more appropriately have not handled) my complaints so far, and would remind you that you have already breached the Banking Code s15.3 on two occasions by failing to acknowledge complaints against you. I therefore require you to reply to this letter;

 

1. With acknowledgement of your intention to act upon the issues raised within five days as per the Banking Code Section 15.3.

 

2. With a response from you or someone in your staff who has the authority and ability to act upon my complaint, and

 

3. Without using a standard letter or template.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Mr Mindzai

[elsinore]

In the paragraph which starts 'You will note that I have sent you' one phrase needs to read 'as I am in no doubt I will'.

 

The letter is necessarily long and I read a suggestion in another thread that paragraphs or sections be numbered for ease of reference.

 

If I received your letter I would resign (but then I'm old-fashioned!)

 

Elsinore

[Mindzai]

lol nice catch elsinore, dont wan't to leave out the 'no' there of all places! cheers

[lucid]

For some reason I've received this letter from Lloyds today - it's from the same woman who sent me the reply to my s.10 Notice Under Data Protection Act Notice - but I'm not quite sure why she's written this letter.

 

Customer Service Recovery Centre

125 Colmore Road

Birmingham

B3 3SF

 

Date: 19th September 2006

 

Dear Miss Lucid,

 

Further to my previous letter, I’m now in a position to write again.

 

From the information I have received the bank has received your Claim Form from Chichester County Court. In due course our Solicitors will be writing to you. In the meantime, I can’t add any further comment to our previous correspondence.

 

I hope this clarifies the position.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jean Campbell

Assistant Manager

She says she can't add any further comment so I'm assuming this means that Customer Service will not be taking my complaint (which accompanied my s10 notice) any further - but I'm not entirely sure. Not that it matters I guess as hopefully we will be getting responses from Mindzai's complaints very soon.

 

I had a visit to the Post Office this afternoon and sent five letters in total to Lloyds. :o Mindzai's lengthy letter to Jamie Williams from Customer Recovery was sent and also CCd to the Collections Centre. His letter of complaint to Collections was also CCd to Customer Recovery. He has also sent off a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for his sole account and joint account where in addition to all statements he has also specifcally requested recordings (in particular the most recent phone conversations with the Collections Centre where he has reeceived very inaccurate information), the original terms & conditions and his original contract.

 

So I don't know how long it will take to get that mass of information sent through but you never know it might happen before our claims end.

 

Lucid

[coral123]

Mindzai - thanks for your advice, and the moneyclaim was sent on 19th(Issued 20th) Haven't done anything about the letter from SC&M as yet cos I've been quite poorly for the last couple of weeks (presume some obscure virus) so I've had to share the short bursts of enthusiasm to do anything between various tasks.

 

 

I'm afraid the response you've had to your telephone calls doesn't surprise me - I worked in the financial services industry for over 20 years and finding anyone within many of the banks and building societies who actually knows what they're talking about is the result of the century.

 

On reading through the thread I noticed that Lucid and yourself were curious as to why there was no mention of any LTSB accounts on your credit report. I don't think that's out of the oridinary. Although ("Gavin" I believe you said) implied that they are in some way obliged to provide the credit reference agencies with your information, as you've probably summised yourselves they are not, and in the case of LTSB often do not for bank accounts (until they want to enter a default notice of course)

 

With reference to Lucid's query as to why one of you was offered an account by A&L and one of you was offered a different account - well where to start. In short each bank will state certain criteria that you need to meet for a particular account i.e. monthly income into the account, age etc.. Assuming you meet all these criteria you complete the application form.(which asks you employed/self employed, how long at address, how long in current job, occupation etc.etc. This information is input into the banks computer system and scored. This is generally referred to as credit scoring but it's a whole lot more complex than that, and varies from one bank to another. Your credit score/history is only one part of the process, because all the other little pieces of infomation are used as well. In today's climate the scoring for a bank account is almost as rigorous as for a loan or a mortgage because ulitimately the bank are looking to offer you overdraft or loan facilities. So, somebody at the bank inputs all your information, hits the button, and the computer says yes or no. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who could genuinely tell you why if the answer comes up as no (remind you of Little Britain? )

 

The scoring systems are so varied and reliant on so many different factors that if you are refused one account type by a bank you shouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

 

I had one bank pull their system to pieces 3/4 years ago because the computer rejected an application. They only got the application because the local business developement manager happened to be visiting us at the time the customer called and therefore present during the conversation, asked where we'd be placing the business, was told x bank because they could offer better terms at which point he made a phone call and subsequently offered even better terms. They absolutely could not figure out why their computer system rejected the application and were powerless (this is a team of managers!) to overide the computer's decision. We were assured that their system was repidly being reviewed as it obviously had a flaw, but put the business elsewhere anyhow.

[Mindzai]

Hi Coral - thanks for the info, very helpful. I've come to the conclusion it's certainly no bad thing that we can't find anything from Lloyds on our records - if we can finish this whole process with no record of ever having dealt with them I will be very happy indeed!

 

With regards to the credit scoring process - there are quite a few differences between myself and lucid's situations that could affect this in the ways you suggest. I guess it's just a matter of looking around for the best account you can get.

[Mindzai]

I will also be sending this letter of complaint to the complaints dept. As I suspected it seems old Gavin was breaking the law with his spurious claims

 

Customer Service Recovery Centre

Lloyds TSB

125 Colmore Row

Birmingham

B3 3SF

 

 

22nd September, 2006

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxx

 

 

I write in reference to a telephone call between myself and a Manager of your Collections Centre named ‘Gavin’ on 20th September 2006 at approximately 6:30pm.

 

During this conversation, ‘Gavin’ conveyed the following pieces of spurious information.

 

1. That you have not breached the Banking Code s13.6 for passing on details of a disputed debt (you will be aware I have issued Court proceedings against you for the amount you claim I owe) to the Credit Reference Agencies in the form of a Default because you gave me 28 days notice of your intention to do so. As I am sure you will be aware, s13.6 of the Banking Code clearly states:

 

We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

• you have fallen behind with your payments;

• the amount owed is not in dispute; and

• you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following

our formal demand.

 

I am sure you will agree that this is quite clear in that the passing of a disputed debt breaches the Banking Code and the fact that I was told otherwise is disingenuous.

 

2. That the Banking Code “legally requires” you to pass certain data to the Credit Reference Agencies. Given the fact that ‘Gavin’ was attempting to justify the passing of a Default, I can only conclude that this certain data include details of my disputed debt. Regardless of the validity of this conclusion, you will no doubt be aware of the scale of Gavin’s incorrectness on this matter. Firstly, there is no Law, Statute, or precedent in English Law that states that any Data Controller has any kind of legal obligation to process my data. In fact if Gavin had been at all familiar with the Data Protection Act 1998 he would have been aware that quite the opposite is true. The Credit Reference Agencies are for-profit organisations and are not government bodies with inherent legal rights over my data. Aside from this fact, you will also be aware that the Banking Code at no point states that you are legally bound to pass my data, nor does it state anything remotely similar.

 

I am shocked that a Manager of a Collections Centre in such a large organisation as yours is apparently completely unfamiliar with the banking Code, not least the sections relating to the collection of debt, and this is only compounded by the fact that he was seemingly happy to pull bogus claims out of thin air and present them to a customer as fact. I am sure you will concur that this has extremely worrying implications.

 

3. Finally, having seemingly run out of spurious legal misinformation to attempt to bestow upon me, Gavin informed me that you have not in fact registered a Default Notice with any Credit Reference Agency. This is despite the fact that until this point he had been attempting to defend that very action, despite the fact that only 24 hours previously I had been informed by a different member of the same department that a Default had been passed, and despite the fact that I am in receipt of your Default Notice dated 16th September. I am sure it will come as no surprise to learn that do not have the greatest of confidence in Gavin’s assertion that no Default has been passed given the legitimacy of his other communication.

 

I believe that as a result of this conversation, you are in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 s40(a) and 40(d). I have included the relevant section below for your reference.

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

Needless to say I will be lodging official complaints with the relevant governing bodies, however I also require you to take the following action regarding this incident:

 

1. Write to me with 5 days of receipt of this complaint acknowledging receipt and informing me of your intention to act upon it, as per the Banking Code s15.3.

 

2. Conduct a full and thorough investigation into this incident, and provide me with the result of this investigation.

 

3. Confirm to me, in writing, whether a Default has in fact been placed on my account within 7 days of receipt of this letter. Should you not fulfil this request, I will not hesitate to take legal action requiring you to divulge such information, and to remove the said Default on the grounds that it is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Banking Code.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

Mindzai

[jwhiskers_]

Mindzai / Lucid

 

Did you guys apply the contractual interest compounded in your claim? Not sure you have specified whether you did or not anywhere.

 

How's progress?!?

[lucid]

Hi Whiskers,

 

Yes we applied contractual interest in the exact way it should be - compounded. We used Mindzai's spreadhseet to calculate the interest.

 

At the moment we are waiting until 8th October which is the new deadline. It could have been today but SC&M acknowledged the claim giving themselves until the 8th to do nothing.

 

But with the daily interest accruing on our claims it's not too much of a problem if they take a long time over it. And we're anticipating having to wait even longer as it now seems possible that a stay could be ordered (from hearing other people's recent experiences). But we'll have to see - any new info will be posted the minute it happens.

 

Other than that we're still battling with Collections over the arrears that they are demanding back and we're refusing to pay. Hopefully Mindza's most recent letters will actually make them listen because they point out a few potential breaches the bank's making by pursuing this debt while it's in dispute. It's quite interesting though because Mindzai is at the point where they are issuing/threatening a default against him for our joint account, whereas yesterday I received an enforcement notice through for the same account and on the same issue - more than 3 weeks since Mindzai had his enforcement notice. I wonder how they can possibly explain the reasons behind them taking different actions with the two account holders over the same debt. :-? Anyway we will also give updates on the progress of this issue, if any, as it happens.

 

Lucid.

 

PS. I don't agree that contactual interest should be calculated in any way other than compounding which is why we have simply called it 'contractual interest' whenever we mention it. But for clarity I have gone through and amended any relevant parts in this thread so that it is clear where we have used compound interest instead of simple interest.

[jwhiskers_]

I saw the letters! They were brilliantly worded

 

What kind of proportion of the claim was compound interest? I'm expecting that my claim will be something like 40% charges + 60% compound interest - just curious how that is working out for other people.

[golfscape]

Just wanted to say a huge thank you to all contributing to this extremely useful thread.

 

I have just completed the standard letter exchanges with Lloyds and completed my N1 for £9000+costs+daily interest.

 

In common with others on this thread two days ago I received a letter informing me that my account had been passed to collections. They insisted that this had nothing to do with anything else going on. Ive held an account with them for 15 years and they have never acted in this way before - perhaps its just a coincidence!

 

Chose to bring account back inline with the existing agreement as ive not got the energy for Mindzai's fight but Mindzai/Lucid i wish you all the best.

 

I dont think they were expecting me to do this, probably thought they had me in a corner and that it would make things a little more difficult, not really sure what they stood to gain by this, it all appears particularly obvious and vindictive.

 

Guy on the phone sounded almost dissapointed, once i had returned the balance on the account to where he claimed it should be he made it very clear that if i breached the terms of my account in any way in the future my OD would be immediately cancelled and account defaulted - no second chances!

 

Wonder whats coming next?

[jwhiskers_]

Yeah, it looks like they try to make things difficult while keeping up some ridiculous pretence that it isn't retaliatory to your claim.

 

Sadly they all seem as bad as each other so where do you jump ship to even if you have the choice?!