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

[Mindzai]

Hi. I'm sure you all know the story, We're fed up of being taken advantage of etc. Now it's time to do something about it. We (my girlfriend Lucid and I) will be claiming back what is rightfully ours.

 

I apologise in advance that this first post will be a little long, hopefully it won't put you off reading and offering advice! Here's the situation so far.

 

Prelim letters were received by Lloyds 10th August, one for each of our sole accounts and one for our joint. We received the standard "we have received your complaint and intend to do as little as possible, as slowly as possible blah blah blah" reply each.

 

Their 14 days are now up, so the letters before action have been drafted. We used the template LBA from this forum with the following two paragraphs added:

 

I calculate that you have applied £402.79 in levies and further, I also claim interest at a rate of 29.8% as set out in the attached list of charges. I believe this rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on your Unauthorised Overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account. Therefore the total amount owed as of today’s date is £472.32.

 

My records show that you intend to take further charges of £30 and interest of £2.01 from the above account at the close of business on 11th September. These, and any other charges you apply to this account subsequent to receipt of this letter will be added to the claim along with any interest they incur.

 

As you may notice I'm charging them their own most expensive interest rate for the misappropriation of my funds, as described in BankFodder's thread, here. Although the extra £70 will be nice, my main motivation for doing this is to **** them off as much as possible. The worst case scenario is I will have to accept the 8% I am entitled to by law. If they want to settle without taking me to court, they will have to pay me the interest at their own rate. If they do want to take me to court, I'll enjoy seeing them attempt to prove that their charges are an accurate reflection of their costs, that would no doubt be a highly entertaining display. Especially since I've had a Lloyds rep from their collections dept admit that it is all handled by computers on the phone.

 

So that is where my claim is at right now. As an aside though, both my joint and sole accounts have been taken over their agreed overdraft limits due to charges taken out. I had previously moved everything, bills, wages direct debits etc to a new account with a whole other bank, and I have absolutely no intention of clearing this excess, unless it's with Lloyd's money. Since I filed my prelim letter they have started to get nasty about this (would love to hear what the FSA have to say about their retaliatory action), so I thought i'd fill you in on that too in case anyone has any advice or comments to offer.

 

The first thing I got was the following letter, dated 17th August (1 week after they recieved my prelim):

 

1200 Parkway

Solent Business Park

Whitely

FAREHAM

Hampshire

PO15 7AQ

 

Our ref: XXXXX/XXX

 

Date: 17th August 2006

 

 

Dear Mr Mindzai,

 

Your Account Details: XXXXX XXXXXXXX

 

As you know we have been trying to contact you for some time (they haven't). We wanted to help you to get your account running smoothly and we wrote to you a number of times about it, offering our help(they didn't). Because we have not been able to come to an agreement that we are both happy with we would now like you to repay the £120.63 you owe us(good luck).

 

We will add charges and interest of £32.45 to this every month, based on your present outstanding balance and interest rate (I'd especially love to see them justify this one as a legitimate charge and not a penalty!). This sum may change as your balance alters (e.g. by the charges we have added) or if interest rates are varied.

 

It is very important that you take this letter seriously.

 

We need you to pay back the money you owe us within 28 days. If you do not, the next thing we will do is register the details of your debt with the credit reference agencies, Experian Ltd, Equifax PLC and Callcredit PLC. This information will stay on your records for six years.

 

This could mean you will have trouble getting credit elsewhere because most businesses such as banks and building societies use these records to judge how you manage your money and if you are a good risk. Sometimes your credit rating can even affect members of your family or any business associates (more scare tactics - as they well know they can't do this as the debt is in dispute).

 

This is why it is so important that you pay us what you owe us within 28 days. This will stop us from contacting the credit reference agencies about you.

 

Let us reassure you that our aim has always been for you to be happy with your account and to help you run it smoothly. So please do call us if you think there is anything you could do which will mean we will not have to take the steps we’ve just explained. (how about reminding you that taking the steps would result in a breach of the banking code?)

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Angela Raper

Business Manager

You won't be surprised to hear this annoyed me! Not least because section 13.6 of the banking code 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.

So here is my reply:

 

Customer Service Recovery Centre

Lloyds TSB

125 Colmore Row

Birmingham

B3 3SF.

 

 

21st August, 2006

 

 

RE: Letter Reference XXXXX/XXX

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBERS: XXXXXXXX & XXXXXXXX

 

 

As you will be aware, I have recently disputed the balances of my two current accounts on the grounds of unfair and unlawful penalty charges which have been levied against me.

 

As these accounts are in dispute, I have stopped all payments going in or out of them until the issue is resolved. Section 13.6 of the Banking Code clearly states that you may only pass details of my debts to the credit reference agencies if the debts are not in dispute. As previously stated, I have disputed these debts in writing, and the letters were received by you on 10th August 2006. Furthermore, I spoke with a Lloyds representative in the collections department on 19th August who informed me that Lloyds would continue with legal proceedings after 10 days, despite the fact that I informed her of the disputes. As you are aware, this would constitute a further breach of section 13.6 of the Banking Code.

 

Due to the fact that you have chosen to contact me demanding payment seemingly upon receipt of my complaint, I can only conclude that this action is retaliatory. I have attached a copy of the FSA position regarding retaliatory actions due to customer complaints for your consideration.

 

You also state that you have written to me a number of times to offer help, which I have declined. I have received no correspondence concerning the debts in question other than two letters for each account demanding that I bring the accounts back into balance. I did however contact your customer services department concerning the unlawful charges which caused me to exceed my agreed overdraft limit before the charges were debited from my accounts, and was offered no help whatsoever. After being passed between various departments, I was eventually advised to find a higher paid job and to cut back on my living expenses, and what’s more was offered this advice in an extremely rude and offensive manner.

 

I would also like to mention that I am both shocked and appalled by the fact that you have decided to impose more unlawful charges on my account when it is in dispute and without informing me prior to doing so. As mentioned previously I spoke to a Lloyds representative two days after the date of the letter you have sent, and she did not inform me of any charges. In fact, she told me she would note the dispute and ensure I was not contacted regarding the matter for a further 10 days.

 

I would be grateful if you would stop any charges on my accounts until my dispute is fully resolved, at which point I will pay off any outstanding balance. If you persist in imposing any further punitive charges on these accounts, including charges for legal letters, they will be included in the amount I am claiming from you, and I will be forced to seek a court injunction to prevent you from taking any further action. I would also like you to take note that I will only correspond with you on these matters in writing and do not wish to be telephoned again.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

Mindzai

Then today, I recieved this little gem:

 

Collections Centre

Brighton BN1 4BE

 

Date: 18th August 2006

 

Our Ref: CHM0001

 

Dear Mr Mindzai,

 

According to our records your accounts as detailed below are in arrears. The administration of these accounts have therefore been passed to our Collections Centre.

 

Product A/C No Arrears

 

Cheque Account XXXXXXXX 254.78

Cheque Account XXXXXXXX 88.18

 

Total payment now due : £342.96

 

We would ask you to CONTACT us on the above telephone number, IF:

 

You have not already made payment or are unable to make payment within the next 48 hours.

OR

You anticipate a problem with future payments being paid on time.

 

However, we would ask you to ignore this letter, IF:

 

You have recently made payment in full.

OR

You intend making payment within the next 48 hours.

 

Important information is enclosed covering:

 

* The charges you have/will incur.

 

* Consequences of continued late payment.

 

* Making contact with us.

 

* Payment methods available including payment by debit/credit card.

 

* What to do if you have additional accounts/services with Lloyds TSB bank plc not

recorded above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Manager, Collections Centre

So they send me a letter dated 17th giving me 28 days to repay their charges or face their (uninforcable) conseqences, and the very next day send another one giving me 48 hours! I did intend to write to them about this, basically telling them to get stuffed again, however I phoned them to inform them that I would be writing due to the 48 hour deadline (which had already passed by the time I got the letter by the way, another neat little scare tactic). However I ended up speaking to quite a helpful woman who told me ignore the letter for now as the debt was disputed, so I won't bother writing.

 

Anyway, if you've managed to read this far well done! I'll be quiet now unless anyone has any advice/comments/suggestions etc. I'll keep you posted as things happen.

[Mindzai]

cheers freebird, We will keep at it until we have our money back, don't worry

[Mindzai]

I think the best thing about adding conractual interest as it means Lloyds' tactic of dragging their heels as much as possible works completely in our favour

 

I don't know how they get away with abusing the court system like they do. They know they'll have to settle yet they waste the court's time over and over again by leaving it to the last minute.

[Mindzai]

OK assuming Lloyds are going to follow their usual route with us, our next step will be filling in N1 claim forms.

 

Can anybody advise on something suitable to put in the 'brief details of claim' section, particularly with regards to how we should word the claiming of contractual interest?

 

I'm also in the process of drafting the 'Particulars of Claim' section, which so far looks like this: (standard aside from one small addition)

 

1. The Claimant has an account [ACCOUNT NUMBER] ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around [DATE].

 

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

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

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) 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 not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £SUM and any interest charged thereon;

 

c) Court costs;

 

d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

Obviously I also need to change "Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act..." to relate to the contractual interest. Any advice on the wording for that? Is there anything else that people have included in their particulars that they feel were helpful?

 

One final question: I'm concerned that a few people have had sections in Lloyd's defence stating that the particulars do not demonstrate how the figure was arrived at, and are too vague. I'm assuming attaching a printout from the spreadsheet is sufficient in demonstrating how the figure was arrived at? Obviously as this is the first point at which the court are involved I want to get this 100% correct and give Lloyds no ammunition to use against me.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

[Mindzai]

*Bump*

 

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Mindzai]

Thanks for the input, I'll draft something over the weekend and post it up for people to cast their eye over before filing it on Thursday.

[Mindzai]

Does anybody know where I can find the Consumer Credit Act 1974 so I can check it our? I can't find a copy anywhere on the web.

 

Also, does anyone know of any legal basis for arguing against this enforcement considering the amount was disputed before they started this?

 

They are clearly trying to scare us and make sure we don't have the money to pay court fees, and I will be reporting them for this, but I'd like to have some legal basis as well a moral basis for doing so.

[Mindzai]

Can anybody help with the above post please?

[Mindzai]

Thanks elsinore. Yes I may try to contact BF - I know he says not to PM him unless nobody can help so I'll give it till tonight to see if anyone else can help. It would be good if someone with the relevant legal knowledge could address this issue because I've read about quite alot of people who are in the same situation - it seems to be a new Lloyds tactic to prevent you from claiming. After all, how many people can afford to pay of a thousand pounds in one go then still have money for court fees?

[Mindzai]

Yes mine's a joint too and they've sent nothing at all addressed to lucid regarding this. Good for you for not giving in. I'm certain this is just a tactic to leave you without the money for court costs - they've decided to demand repayment on the day after my claim is due to be submitted.

[Mindzai]

Well the fact is, you want your data from lloyds, and you wrote to them asking for it requesting payment. It is not your responsibility to communicate between their departments for them. Make sure you count their 40 days as starting from the day they recieved your money. Legally you just have to offer payment of £10 and make the request and their 40 days starts ticking. Obviously as you want your data asap you'll have to contact them again, but make sure they are well aware that firstly their 40 days has started, and secondly you have already offered them payment once which they returned.

[Mindzai]

Thanks crash, good luck.

[Mindzai]

In responce to their latest threats, I've drafted the following which will be posted on Monday:

 

Collections Centre

Brighton

BN1 4BE

 

4th September, 2006

 

CC: Customer Service Recovery Centre

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBERS: xxxxxx & xxxxxx

 

Firstly, I would like to briefly address your recent breach of the Banking Code section 14.3, which clearly states that “within five working days of receiving your complaint, we will send you a written acknowledgement”. As I have sent you a letter of complaint by recorded delivery regarding your recent actions which you received on 22nd August, and you have failed to acknowledge the complaint within this time, I will be contacting the BCSB and the FSA to inform them of your breach.

 

To address the two threatening letters dated 30th August 2006, I have made it very clear to you in numerous letters and telephone conversations, that the entire sum of my overdraft, both authorised and unauthorised is currently in dispute, and as such I will not be making any payments to you until such time as this dispute is resolved in full. If you continue to ignore my attempts to enter into a sincere dialogue concerning this debt and merely continue with either standard letters or threats and scare-tactics, I am quite willing and prepared to begin a Court case against you.

 

I also note in your letter regarding my sole account that you have had no reply to your previous letter. Not only have I replied to the letter you mention in writing, I have also spoken to you on the telephone about it on two separate occasions. Whilst I am not in the slightest bit surprised by your lack of organisation and communication as well as the extremely poor level of customer service you provide, I would like you to know that I am nevertheless extremely dissatisfied with the way you are dealing with this issue.

 

I would also like to remind you that I instructed you not to contact me via the telephone but to put anything you wish to say to me in writing. Despite this request, you have attempted to contact me twice in the last week via the telephone. Given your recent breach of the banking code and your flagrant disregard for both the FSA’s position on retaliatory action and the OFT’s position regarding unlawful charges, I am sure you can understand why I would like to have all of your correspondence in print. I am quite prepared to accept that this is due to inept interdepartmental communication and as such am willing to overlook it on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill, but rest assured if you continue to try to contact me by telephone I will be forced to take further action.

 

You will note from my previous correspondence that you have until 7th September 2006 to refund the money which you have unlawfully debited from my account, along with all interest I have incurred due to these charges as well as interest at a rate of 29.85% EAR on the entire sum owed. Should you decide not to repay the money by this date, I will proceed to file a claim for the full amount. As I am calculating interest daily it would be in your best interest to attempt to resolve this matter promptly and before court action.

 

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I consider your decision to demand repayment of my overdraft both retaliatory and boorish, and I assure you that if your intention is to make me cease the legal action I am undertaking against you, you will be sorely disappointed with my reaction. Furthermore, if, as I suspect to be the case, you intend to leave me in a financial position whereby I am unable to proceed with legal action against you, you will again be disappointed with the success of this tactic, due in no small part to the fact that you are no longer acting as my fiduciary. I will be forwarding copies of your letters along with a further complaint to the FSA and my MP. If you persist in your threatening and retaliatory actions, I will not hesitate to seek an injunction to prevent you from taking further action until the dispute over the money you owe me is resolved.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Mindzai

[Mindzai]

Hi Balbadier. As you may have guessed I consider Lloyds tactics to be nothing short of bullying and intimidation and I hate bullies! You have to stand your ground with them or they just keep trying to take advantage of their position.

[Mindzai]

I am quite prepared to accept that this is due to inept interdepartmental communication...

 

Seems my assumption was correct I'll be ammending my above letter to deal with this one too before I send it.

[Mindzai]

Thanks for the encouragement - reload your thread was one of the big motivators for us actually starting this so thanks for posting up your experiences.

 

It's just a waiting game now I expect, though we still need to see what's happening regarding our OD that they are demanding back (due today!). Hope they've not got plans for the money though cos they'll be disapointed if so...

[Mindzai]

We should have something from Lloyds on there somewhere I'd have thought, at least a record that they'd run a credit check before giving us overdrafts. Oh well, having nothing from them on there can only be a good thing.

[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!

[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...

[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"

 

!!!

[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!

[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!

[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

[Mindzai]

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