Kevboy_telford Vs LLoyds

[donnalou]

ive been told that you could appeal owing that you have the right to challenge the banks statement and you wernt given the opportunity to as they did not show the judge should have given a default judgement because of this

your civil rights have been brushed aside i hope you do appeal good luck

my court date is the 13th july if all goes well and its before your appeal i would also like to donate to help with costs

[Louiselouise]

Hiya Kev - we're all behind you - I'll donate to a fighting fund for you - LLoyds have just managed to sink to a new low in my eyes - and the Judge!! - NO Comment. I take it he was'nt the Judge who had to declare an interest as his wife was reclaiming her Bank Charges back too!!

[GaryH]

ive been told that you could appeal owing that you have the right to challenge the banks statement and you wernt given the opportunity to as they did not show the judge should have given a default judgement because of this

your civil rights have been brushed aside

Whilst most judges grant default judgement to the claimant if the defendant doesn't attend, unfortunately the judge can hear the case on the evidance before him if he chooses.

[adarling2006]

i feel for you in this case, why on earth the judge made this decision in the face of such a catalogue of previous court cases that have been no show's is a total lack of justice. you have my £10 and full support.

[rob-the-viking]

Kev.

 

I was wounded for you when I heard of the farce going off in Brum today. I'm waiting for a court date to be set myself. I'm not going to let it dis-hearten me as I suspect that this was a 'fluke' and nothing more. I'll have to jump on the band wagon and say you should appeal. But only if you feel you are up to it. There's masses of support coming your way from everyone on this site, from people with far more knowledge than my limited ammount! And the offer of help from Martin Lewis is a blessing. If you're going to take it further then you'll have to be armed to the teeth so the weasels from Lloyds don't stand a chance.

 

Might be worth trying to see if you can get in touch with Tom Brennen as he would probably be able to help you no end.

 

Keep your head up mate and give em both barrels at the appeal!

 

I'll pledge if there's going to be an appeal fund set up.

 

r-t-v

[mark]

I've taken up cudgels on behalf various friends, and Lloyds have settled every time, as have NatWest. This judgement has no merit, and an appeal would sort the issue out, for which reason it is highly unlikely that the bank will go to appeal. On the other hand, my view is that we should start a fighting fund, and be prepared to employ the services of the best barrister possible (Richard Colbey comes to mind), just for the first appeal case, should it ever come to that. If Bankfodder, or any of the moderators/administrators want to get involved in a structured action, please let us know. Meantime, don't panic - the judge was asleep when he made this decision.

[sharongina]

Kev,

(As nass2211 has said)

Martain Lewis from money saving expert wants to help you financially go onto the link above and get that help now!!

[Mistermind]

 

I hope it hasn't put anyone off claiming back their bank charges, and that the rest of you will continue with your claims.

 

 

Kev,

 

The rest of us are reclaiming PENALTY charges, not bank charges.

A point made immediatly you started posting.

[Angi77777]

Hi kev, really sorry to hear about your case today mate. I'm getting really nervous now as Lloyds have not submitted thier AQ and my case is now going to the judge for judgement but there is a backlog of 2 weeks. So i am getting really nervous now.

 

I know you will have loads of support both financially and legally from the MODS of CAG and Martin Lewis and i hope you will continue your fight and appeal...but knowing how stressfull just getting this far has been, you need to be sure that you can handle this. We are all right behind you on this one cheering you on but we're not the ones who will have to live through all the interveiws and the media hype this will cause (and it will be huge).

 

So what I'm saying is a win in an appeal would be great for you and the masses, but be careful you dont pay a much higher price personally.(I say this with the upmost sincerity)

 

Money to donate pledged here ready and waiting if you choose to appeal.

GOOD LUCK

Angi7777

xxx

[TECHSPEC]

The bankers spokeswoman, has just said on ITV, that these payments are not charges, but fees, as backed up by the judge.

 

Well my statement is full of the word 'charges', so that is nonsense.

[calvi36]

But Judge Cooke decided the bank's charges were in fact legitimate fees for servicing an overdrawn account.

As such, the judge said they were legal.

Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank....he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it," he said.

 

I would add that EDITED actually seen the news, the relevant case law, the refusal to admit what actual charges are in front of a parliamentary commitee.

[Sparky 27]

Best of luck with the appeal mate. I wonder how that affects the Y/B claimants who have evidence via the "whistleblower" program and videos of the actual accounting system.

Sorry if this has already been mentiond as i'v just logged on and not upto speed yet

[Mistermind]

Situation 1

 

Account showing £9.87 balance in credit.

£10 D/D comes in.

Bank relies on IT to automatically bounce D/D, and apply £38 penalty.

With D/D unpaid, account is now £28-13 overdrawn.

Due to account now overdrawn, at end of month another £38 penalty.

With D/D still unpaid, account is now £66-13 overdrawn.

 

This is a clear case of automated unlawful charges, and there is no way the bank can defend £38 charge where Dublin banks charge £3. The bank has clearly suffered no loss beyond minimal IT costs, nor has the bank exposed itself to the risk of increased loss due to potential default eventually.

 

Situation 2

 

Account showing £999 o/d, with o/d limit agreed in writing at £1000.

£10 D/D comes in.

The bank refers this situation to a manager (as they sometimes do for accounts with o/d), who spends time to consider the case, then manually decides to honour the £10 D/D, making this account now £1009 o/d.

The manager levies a £10 facility fee without discussing it with the customer, making the account now £1019 o/d.

 

This is a different situation. The bank could claim

that manager time does cost money

that the bank took a calculated gamble in allowing an o/d to grow and grow (not just due to fees, but also due to D/D cash actually paid out). The £10 facility fee is partly to offset the increased risk. Lloyds also charges upfront Facility Fee of £100 or so, at commencement of o/d -- agreed upfront by both parties. This is not a Penalty Charge, but a commercial deal agreed voluntarily by both parties.

 

I believe this is where the judge wanted the claimant to make a solid case -- why is the £10 bank facility fee not justified?

 

I believe the judge did not say the case was invalid, he said he had not been convinced by the arguments put forward, TO DATE. The judge would not have asked for justification for objecting to the £38 charge for bouncing D/D in situation 1.

 

Reclaiming interest accruing on the lawful overdraft,

in contrast to reclaiming Contractual Interest accruing from unlawful Penalty Charges,

 

further weakened this case.

[calvi36]

sparky if they dont disclose to parliment, will they disclose to a court voluntarily. The onus is on the defendandt to prove charges are real and legitimate, not on the claimant. if the actual costs are requested but not provided, then how on earth could this judge find on the defendants part as they had obviously not provided relevant information that their charges are ACTUAL costs incurred.

[gemmabe]

well kev i just nearly fell off my chair when I heard this news. I am sure you are down about this at the moment, but I feel in the long run this could be a positive thing for us all if you do, as we all hope you will, follow it through. Something like this was bound to happen eventually, and although the banks may appear smug at the moment, I am sure that won't be for long. Keep strong and remember you have a lot of support here.

[Shortie76]

Hello all, just thought this link may help - since people are asking about LTSB's T&C's.

 

Lloyds TSB - Current account charges

 

Even their application form doesn't contain any conditions about keeping within overdraft limits, operating the account in any specific ways etc. However, it's late and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing as surely it is down to interpretation?

[cockatrice]

hi there, first of all "hello to everybody" and thank you very much for all your support! It does make a huge difference especially during such scary time after todays news. I hope all the best for you, kevboy, with the help martin and his crew offers you should have good chances to get through this.

 

now, there is just one thing ... are you shure you have claimed for the right charges? I get the impression you might have included normal overdraft fees and interest charges ... if so .... no surprise your claim had been unsuccessful. That would be bad news for you, but good news for us, as it won´t really affect any of the cases where people have claimed according to martin´s strict advice ....

 

If you have claimed for the correct penalty charges instead only .... bad news I suppose for everybody here .... although having said this ... martin and his crew doesn´t seem to be worried ... so neither should we, i guess....

 

so keep your head up, kevboy .... We´ll all stand behind you!! ....

[Shortie76]

Actually, I've just realised that LTSB sent me a new card this month and the full T&C's are on the back of the letter. If anyone would like a copy please let me have an address - I can scan it and send it as an attachment.

[calvi36]

Situation 1

 

Account showing £9.87 balance in credit.

£10 D/D comes in.

Bank relies on IT to automatically bounce D/D, and apply £38 penalty. NO MANUAL INTERVENTION

With D/D unpaid, account is now £28-13 overdrawn.

Due to account now overdrawn, at end of month another £38 penalty.

With D/D still unpaid, account is now £66-13 overdrawn. NO MANUAL INTERVENTION

 

This is a clear case of automated unlawful charges, and there is no way the bank can defend £38 charge where Dublin banks charge £3. The bank has clearly suffered no loss beyond minimal IT costs, nor has the bank exposed itself to the risk of increased loss due to potential default eventually.

 

Situation 2

 

Account showing £999 o/d, with o/d limit agreed in writing at £1000.

£10 D/D comes in.

The bank refers this situation to a manager (as they sometimes do for accounts with o/d), who spends time to consider the case, then manually decides to honour the £10 D/D, making this account now £1009 o/d.

The manager levies a £10 facility fee without discussing it with the customer, making the account now £1019 o/d. MANUAL INTERVENTION

 

This is a different situation. The bank could claim

that manager time does cost money

that the bank took a calculated gamble in allowing an o/d to grow and grow (not just due to fees, but also due to D/D cash actually paid out). The £10 facility fee is partly to offset the increased risk. Lloyds also charges upfront Facility Fee of £100 or so, at commencement of o/d -- agreed upfront by both parties. This is not a Penalty Charge, but a commercial deal agreed voluntarily by both parties.

 

I believe this is where the judge wanted the claimant to make a solid case -- why is the £10 bank facility fee not justified?

 

I believe the judge did not say the case was invalid, he said he had not been convinced by the arguments put forward, TO DATE. The judge would not have asked for justification for objecting to the £38 charge for bouncing D/D in situation 1.

 

Reclaiming interest accruing on the lawful overdraft,

in contrast to reclaiming Contractual Interest accruing from unlawful Penalty Charges,

 

further weakened this case.

 

I totally agree with what you have said and i only put in the comments in red to show our pals what is and is not manual intervention. If it is manual then fair enough costs for someones time to actually look at the time will be incurred and I think the institution should have the right to claim for work performed and time spent.

 

The situation regarding auto intervention, ie automated charges is much different and this is the basis of most bank charges claims. the banks STILL refuse to disclose their costs regarding this and this is why they are being challenged. If as stated in the scenario above for 13p you end up with £68 of charges and the bank does not show their actual costs then it's open day at the field shoot.

 

If they disclosed and say their charges were £5.00 then fair enough, most people would accept this as reasonable. What is not accepted is that these charges to cover servicing of accounts are legal, ie you cannot penalise me in charges to service your account. My account is mine and yours is yours, to state that these charges are here to enable free banking is a fallacy. And to state in the recent ruling that these are service rather than penalty charges are obviously incorrect.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE BANKING.

 

The crux of this is that, they have not disclosed their charges, whistleblower has seen definitive evidence of what the actual costs are. So If the banks wish to carry on doing what they are doing which is UNLAWFUL in law, then so be it and let the claims mount.

 

I for one will not walk away from this. The law is clear on this matter a penalty charge against one party amounts to this if it is more than the actual costs incurred by the party claiming or defending then as case law exists then these charges are unlawful if they attempt to pursue charges higher than incurred costs.

[Felix the Foccer]

Kev,

 

Glad I found this thread. I was shocked to see what had happened.

 

With Marin Lewis's offer of support, and the support of tens of thousands of people, I wish you every luck in any future appeal. Go for it mate!

 

We're all watching!

[calvi36]

felix dont just watch get active bro

[Felix the Foccer]

Hey Calv ..

 

I am mate ... Abbey have just defended my claim for £1600 plus interest so I'm waiting to hear a court date and an AQ presumably ...

 

And I offered a few quid for any fund for Kev earlier today on MSE (only just spotted Kev's thread on here).

 

As before Kev, we're all watching and we're all supporting you! Good luck.

[calvi36]

I really think he has a case for appeal after reading the full judgement. I was one to jump in on another thread and go blah blah, apologies kev.

[blitz]

You have my support and will chuck some money in the pot when you get it up. I guess someone from LTSB is watching this site very closely now, the thread should be renamed CAG vs Lloyds as it seems the whole community is behind kev. Good luck with the appeal will watch the thread and see if I can help in anyway, bank law isn't my strength but every little helps.

[calvi36]

Iadmire your post blitz but cag is a group, we do not take actions against anyone, company etc, we support each other. read the whole thread bro.