Bring it on LTSB! - **WON**

[wooples]

Well I've just received list of all charges so here I go. I have been a customer of Lloyds for 27 years and they certainly have been getting away with it for too long. So here I go onto next stage of working out how much I've paid them so far!

[Lusky]

Wooples,

 

Good luck with your claim. You will find it easier to start your own thread to keep track of your progress and let others follow it. I look forward to hearring how you get on.

 

Reload,

 

Thanks for the support as always.

[Lusky]

Contacted the court this morning and I am off there this afternoon to amend my claim and add the following info:

 

The law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses.

In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498; the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract.

The cases below have been ruled in English law:

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

 

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

 

The banks charges do not reflect any actual loss, instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. In particular, charges were applied after I entered into a transaction(s) without sufficient funds in my account. However, payment was declined by the bank, and therefore, actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter. I would respectfully submit that is valued at no more than 50 pence.

UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. The charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

On a separate note, the charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). My account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. The charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. Because the charges include a large profit margin, in addition to actual loss, they are irrecoverable as an unfair term in contract. I believe that the charges require me to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for incurring a transaction(s) which was ultimately declined by an automated computer system.

In addition, it is unfair to require me to subsidise global debt recovery costs and debt write-off.

***********

 

After that I am off to the bank for my mandatory review which I am particularly looking forward to!!

[reload]

I take it the Court gave you a bit more information about what was required?

 

Did they make any comment on your address?

[Lusky]

The address thing was a mistake on their part ( someone entered it on wrong screen !). The person I spoke to tried be helpful on the additional info but admitted she didn't really know what it meant so I am going for gold and adding everything!!!

[reload]

Good stuff

[Lusky]

I remember reading a thread where someone insisted that LTSB head office e-mailed through the auhorisation code to have their refund posted immediatley in the bank from the charges refund account. I have searched and searched but just can't find it, does anyone know whose it was?

[Lusky]

Had a busy afternoon!

1. Went to the court with all the additional info - had to sign a form to seek retrospective leave to amend particulars of my claim. Presumably this will be allowed seeing as the jusdge asked me to do it in the first place.

2. Went for account review at the bank. They knew why was ther but to be fair

the account manager was really nice and I think quite envious of me! Just lots of personal detail taking and updating details. They even phoned the solicitor while I was there to let them know the account review had taken place. It was all a little tongue in cheek. To be honest I think they were a bit in awe of me!

Not a whisper of account closure or o/d recall. Easy peasy!!

[Lusky]

:grin: Gobsmacked! Settled in full! Money in my account.:grin: :grin:

 

A big thank you to all on this site. Donation is on its way tomorrow.

 

This is just the first, you haven't seen the last of me.

 

Lusky xxxx

[barracad]

Congratulations!!

 

That is fantastic news.

 

Please complete our bank charges survey.

[reload]

Excellent stuff Lusky, well pleased for you :D

 

If you don't mind my asking, how did you manage to get them to transfer the money to your account so promptly?

[Lusky]

They said it might take 7 days, I just checked my account yesterday afternoon and it was there! Needless to say I was down there like a bat out of hell to withdraw it he he. Made it from house to bank in about 3 mins flat lol

[Dappa44]

Well Done m8, excellent news.

[reload]

Sounds promising then. Money would probably be in my own account by now if the Royal Mail hadn't lost my letter (beginning to think it's that way), so hopefully should have the cash in my own account by Friday. Like you, I attended account review on the 10th

[Lusky]

This topic was closed on 03/08/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group