SLH542000 v LloydsTSB

[slh542000]

Sure thats good news.

 

But as I disputed the balance back in 06, regardless of the outcome of the supreme court decision, they still have acted against rules and guidlines by placing a default on my credit file, without notification, and over an amount which is totally made up of charges, which are in dispute!

 

Can i claim compensation for their actions? - Having a default on my credit file is causing me problems.

 

!!!

[slh542000]

so what now - what does that mean for all the claims? Are they all lost because of the supreme court ruling?

 

I knew this would happen.... just becasue the banks have lost loads of money recently (which was entirely their own fault)...

[heimdalls]

Its far from over SLH, have a scan around the site, if your claim is focused on section 5 (as the CAg letters and guides are) afaik i have read so far your sorted and the fight can go on.

[gaz2006]

As for default Lloyds may have broken Banking Code as it wa sin dispute however that isnt law and you may need to go down route of complaint to Information Cmmr however Lloyds are applying to have al cases with stays dismissed regards Gaz

[jd22]

As for default Lloyds may have broken Banking Code as it wa sin dispute however that isnt law and you may need to go down route of complaint to Information Cmmr however Lloyds are applying to have al cases with stays dismissed regards Gaz

 

It is true that Lloyds have announced they are seeking a dismissal of ALL stayed cases by writing to the Courts on the basis of the Supreme Court judgement. If these claims were brought on the basis of regulation 6, rather than 5, of the UTICCR 1999 then they are correct.

 

IF HOWEVER, the claim cites Regulation 5 as the basis then surely it is appropriate to contest an automatic dismissal of a claim?

[gaz2006]

Dismissal can be contested no probs but can WE ALSO REGURGITATE THE PENALTY ARGUMENT as this still hasnt been tested in court even though defence would use Justice Smiths words if he was wrong in test case ruling as overturned by Supreme Court couldnt he also be worng saying the arent penalties ?

Comments on a postcard to Gaz

[jd22]

Dismissal can be contested no probs but can WE ALSO REGURGITATE THE PENALTY ARGUMENT as this still hasnt been tested in court even though defence would use Justice Smiths words if he was wrong in test case ruling as overturned by Supreme Court couldnt he also be worng saying the arent penalties ?

Comments on a postcard to Gaz

 

The problem is that the OFT didn't appeal the position on penalties and the High Court judgment therefore sets the precedent.

[gaz2006]

The problem is that the OFT didn't appeal the position on penalties and the High Court judgment therefore sets the precedent.

 

Silly OFT then which may stand for Only Foolish Things ( applied for at supreme court )