Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's something I'm hoping to clarify before I get in trouble for it:   There is a street close to where I live that was transformed into a temporary Pedestrian and Cycle Zone due to a school that's there. I know I can't enter it during those times, but can I be fined for having my car parked on that street while the zone is active? So far I have only heard one interpretation, from my neighbour, who said you can have your car parked there and you can exit the zone while it is operational, oddly enough, but before I take her word for it I want to get some more opinions on the matter.   For reference, here is what the Council's own website states: "It is an offence to enter or drive in an active school Street without a valid school street permit." (emphasis mine) Would this prove my neighbour right or can they still find a different interpretation to it that would carry the risk of a fine if I park my car there?   The sign for the zone is very similar to the image attached below, only different operating times.      
    • good i can see where you got that from  pers i'd put back, suitable adapted the line:   3.Throughout this period XXX only ever served estimated bills which were grossly over estimated with values unrelated to actual use. There was and still remains an unresolved dispute with XXX which was never resolved prior to the assignment of the alleged debt.
    • Hi Mr S,   Read other threads here posted over the last year or so.   We pretty much advise the same thing - ignore demands from the gym, their admin company, any DCA they use and any legal firm they use.   No need to engage with the gym or admin company to discuss or argue your wish to cancel - it'll get you nowhere.   If you want to leave the gym now, just give a month's written notice then cancel the DD m,andate .   If you want to cancel from October 2021, confirm this to the gym in writing early October, allow the final DD to be taken in October, then cancel the DD mandate.   You'll see from other threads that no action is taken to claim money and gym m/ships do not affect your credit records.
    • Update on the situation:   Following the run in with the police he has actually gone to the police station himself to question what he was told and was told there is no issue with him idling or moving the car around the car park, so the police officers who told him that were wrong.   As a side note, he knows who it is that's reporting him. Seems to be a bit of a feud between them, but the clarification he got from the police should at least stop them coming around every time a report is made.   Thank you to everyone who replied to this question!
    • I have had another good look around but still struggled to find any templates. I did find a defence on a thread that I have adapted below. I would greatly appreciate some input before I file it. Again, many thanks in advance.   Defence   1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with Co-operative Energy in the past. During the period, Co-operative Energy actively blocked me from hanging to a cheaper tariff or switching provider as there was an outstanding balance on the account.   3. Throughout this period Co-operative Energy served estimated bills. This is shown in the one copy of a bill that the claimant has been able to provide. The claimant has given no details as to the full breakdown of their claim and what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.   4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.   5. The claimant does not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated.   Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.   1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement,  the original(s) should be available at the hearing along with a complete breakdown of how the charges accrued by date and amount.   With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Bank Charges claim.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I always write my letters to the CEO of Lloyds group now. This is so that any reply received comes from whomever he delegates the task to. But the reply is his responsibility.


Once this matter is resolved I will definately make a donation.:D


I am attempting to recover over £4000 in bank charges and interest. I managed to obtain statments going back to 1998 from lloyds TSB. I have written to them in order to obtain the original terms and conditions for the account which was opened through TSB bank in 1987. I asked under a Subject Access Request. They sent back a letter that said


"May I advise that the majority of contracts we hold between the bank and our customers are not held in relevant filing systems and are therefore not subject to the right of subject access under the Data Protection Act."

:eek:Can you believe this???


This reply was written on behalf of the CEO of Lloyds Tsb Group himself.


I also asked for an official description of what it was that I am actually paying for, since a senior member of Lloyds TSB had said on the BBC that it was a 'service'.


They did not answer this, they pointed me toward the latest booklet of charges.


Then in the same letter they say


"I understand you believe you didn't ask for an Unplanned Ovedraft, and that you believe we shouldn't allow funds to be debited in excess of the available funds in your account. Whenever a debit request is made on your account that is in excess of the funds available, this is taken as a request for an Unplanned Overdraft. This is unarranged borrowing to cover the transaction on your account. Often we do grant an Unplanned Overdraft for a short period because we believe this is an important aspect of the banking service which we offer our customers. If we always refused Unplanned Overdrafts this would in many cases lead to inconvenience or embarrassment for our customers. This facility is subject to a different charging structure to a Planned Overdraft."


Can you believe this waffle. And all said on behalf of the CEO.


Does anyone have some Ideas on how to use this?


I know I didn't ask for an Unplanned Overdraft. Its very name directly implies that It wasn't asked for. An 'asked for' Overdraft is called an Overdraft. Correct me please, If I am wrong.


I can remember being told at the time of opening my account that charges where merely to cover losses suffered by the bank. I was forced to open the account with TSB since I was a member of staff.


This 'Unplanned Overdraft' was forced upon me when several applications for an Overdraft had been turned down.


So my next big questions are, Is this a Loan thats being forced upon me? Are they allowed to force you to borrow? Can you be forced to borrow under the Consumer Credit Act? Is Forced Lending legal? Is there such thing as Unarranged Borrowing (This also directly underlines the fact that it was not requested. Unarranged Borrowing is exactly the same as Unarranged Lending, Isn't It?


Can I have comments and advice on this matter, Please and mabe some pointers about what angle of attack would deal with this sick can o'worms.


Cheers lovely people

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no answer to it.

You aren't able to opt out.

It is their opportunity to make a killing on your error.

It is completely unfair.

Lloyds along with the other banks is unregulated and they are all out of control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now thats funny. Thats not an answer I was expecting. Even if it was a description of the situation as it stands, I would have thought that there was something happening about this. I'm glad I have never had children because the future of humanity is looking pretty bleak. Shame that these people who are so easily bought off, do not understand that they are only having a good time whilst they are useful tools. Eventually the human pyramid of power starts to look like a stitched up pancake with a pin in the middle. How we knit together the fabric of our own net, ripe for the plucking.


Sheep only flock together because all of the ones that tried to escape got eaten before they could breed.


"There's none so blind as them that won't see."


Cheers then and thanks for all the fish :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't intend any disrespect to BF at all. I understand where he/she is comming from and nothing negative in my reply is directed at her/him. I respect the fact that he/she is putting time and effort into such a noble cause. He/She is a hero in my estimation.


Defeting the banks with an open mind is what I am trying to do. Thats why I have put the comments from the CEO in my thread opener. (Defete is the wrong word really, Help them to see the path of righteousness and put right the wrong they have done.)


I really don't get why banks can't recognise that they ARE their customers. I don't get why they don't get the fact that no one minds if they make a reasonable profit on their dealings. Also I have opened my business account with a competitor. They have lost future investment.


So what I am doing is trying to get new Ideas on how to approach this.


The reply from the CEO does not say about my contract it says about the majority of contracts. The only filing system they can store this sort of personal information in, that falls outside of the Data Protection Act is that box that catches the shredded paper or the furnace. Its destruction needs to be recorded as well.


black horse is riding the jocky, when the jocky stumbles and falls, The black horse has plenty more Jockies to ride. Could well be what is ment by "for the journey"

Edited by mooaah
Link to post
Share on other sites

I to are in the exact same position as you 4k overdraft and all charges and interest ..... I pay £12 per month and £44 per month for nothing I was speaking to my gf yest. She said stuff em.... Don't pay anymore.... Why don't we join forces and see if we can beat lloyds........????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at the stage now where I just wana say shove it .... I don't care bout credit file...... I have a deposit for house with gf .....we just can find right property to buy

Link to post
Share on other sites

we can work together. but we do need someone who knows the law and how to use it.


The Office of fair trading has never made a judgement that these charges are fair and nor has anyone else except the banks. This means that it is their opinion that the charges are fair and not a statment of fact. Infact legaly they cannot be described as being fair. You will note from their letters that they do not say "These charges are fair", because this would be a lie. Instead they say that "they are of the position that these charges are fair". Since a contract has to be fair then these charges cannot legally be imposed within the terms of a contract. Which could be what Supreme court has said.



Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that the bank charges do not fall under the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which therefore puts it outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Fair Trade.




We need to know why they fall outside of the UCTCCR 1999. Is it because they are not to do with any contract?



If so, then by what majic are they imposed?


Could the tick already free to be brushed off, but no one has spotted this.


or am I completely wrong????:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im talking to some knowledgable people at the moment. By almeans get a Subject Access Request done (Make sure you follow the advice and get a decent letter done). They need very little as an excuse to give you bullsh*t, but don't talk to them about what Ive said until Ive discovered if there is any relevance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mooaah:)


Just subscribing to your thread as I too have similar probs with a Lloyds o/d - jdes knows how I feel about them :-x


Wishing you luck!


Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI


MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%


Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%


Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%


M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI


M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%


Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded


Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fob off letters have clues to the solution in them. I like the phrase from the original prisoner which is


"questions are a burden to others, answers are a prison for ones self!!!"


I think these people (LTSB) know that they are on the moral low ground. I think they know they are wrong. They also know that they will have a big glaring spotlight on them if they do the right thing. They (hopefully) tell there children about honesty, and yet practise being 'economical with the truth'.


They will gain my respect when they own up, and put the sweeties back.


I think they really want too.


It actually takes a lot of time and effort carefully crafting an answer that does not leave them in the legal poo, whilst not giving away where the solid ground is. And everytime you ask them someting about their previous answer, the game of mind twister gets worse for them.


my mum taught me that honesty is the better policy and dishonesty effects the profits in the longrun.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi landy [kandy x.] your results is getin better by the day full of admiration and you are in on everything.... back to the post. with question is are you 2 prepared to go in default with lloyds as i am ready ive had a gutfull of paying £60 a month for f..k all!!!!! let me know please .... im ready to walk away and wait for the dcas to get me.....im scared NOT!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A person that I have been talking to as said that there doesn't have to be any tangible or logical reason why the supreme court came up with the decision that, even though the charges should be part of a contract, they dont have to be within the terms of the UCTCCR 1999. They just made it up, saw a place to stick a stick in the spokes and thats what they have done.


See, the banks wave a lot of wonga in the air and people in robes get all dazzally eyed.


It'll be a good job when we evolve, wont it:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gobsmacked by this. The law has been contorted in the most unbelievable way. Its like there is an elephant in the room. The law has been fashioned specifically for the purpose of stopping people from being able to claim. Its not an elephant, its a big hairy mamouth with a pretty lampshade on its head, to stop anyone seeing how glaringly obviously out of place it is. this contortion on the law, is..HUGE. THE LAW IS SO distorted out of shape to make it fit this purpose, that we can quite safely say that, Maybe it is a MAMOUTH. If I stand here and point, do you think a crowd will gather???:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...