Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can I sue Lloyds in small claims court without going to ombudsman?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3698 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I will try and be succinct, promise! Please ignore issue of eligibility for repayment/compensation, as Lloyds have already accepted this.

 

I initially contacted Lloyds in October '13 asking if I'd had PPI as I simply couldn't remember. That's my bad, I know, but I'm not good now with long term memory. They acknowledged receipt and said they'd look into it and I heard from them on the phone once when they called and asked lots of questions about what my credit card was for, etc. At the end of November with an offer of £630. They said that due to passage of time they no longer had detailed records, but that their offer was "equal to the average compensatory payment taking into account the period during which you held the credit card and were paying for your PPI cover". It did NOT say how long that period was, so I couldn't work out what the offer represented per month. The letter included examples of how refund calculations worked, but none of the examples were of any use to my circumstance because they all dealt with known figures of payment.

 

Their letter had a phone number, which turned out to be a call centre in the Philippines. I called and said that if only they'd told me they didn't have any records, I could have given them some help with that, so could I please speak to the department that had made my offer. The call centre said they could not put me through as that department had no incoming phone lines (yeah, right) but that they could 'escalate' my claim. Escalation apparently involves them writing notes on my file that I'd called, which the department who calculated offers could read, and who'd then consider what I'd said. It didn't seem very sensible to filter all communications via a third party, especially one who's first language wasn't English, so I asked how else I might communicate directly with the relevant department, but was told this was the only route available.

 

I asked when I had started paying PPI. They didn't know, because the only information they had access to was the letter that had been written to me, and that didn't have that information in it. Well obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have needed to ask, would I? I asked how many months I had been paying PPI, and again they didn't know, but they would 'escalate' it for me. I asked if escalation would mean that whoever was reading the notes would call me so I could ask them my questions, but the call centre said they did not know whether anyone would call me back. Frustrated, I asked them what questions they COULD answer, but the irony went over their heads. They could do no more than confirm what had been written to me, and take note of whatever I said and put that on my record where someone else might read it at some other time.

 

I said that I could not possibly be in a position to decide whether the offer was fair if I could not get certain information about it, so I really did need to speak to the department that they appeared to be a firewall for. I asked for an email address for the right department, and after much argument was given one. I sent a detailed letter explaining the questions I had, including the ones I'd asked above, and also asked how the 'average' had been calculated. There's another hole in my memory here – at some point before I wrote to them I got the information that I had paid PPI from May 2002 to March 2005, but I can't remember now them giving that to me. They had initially said they couldn't get that info, but somehow or other I have those dates now on a scrappad. By some miracle, I found a statement from March 2005, which showed a payment that month of £47 PPI against a balance of approx. £6,100. I said that I did not remember this period, but that I did know that I couldn't possibly have cleared such a large balance quickly and it would take many months to clear down such a large balance, so it was reasonable to believe that I'd be paying that off for a considerable period and on each payment making further PPI payments too. The statement showed the previous months balance as being in line with that month, so I was able to work out that months PPI payment too. I said that I would expect, but had no genuine knowledge one way or the other, that it would have taken me quite some time to build up an outstanding balance of just a few pounds under the credit limit which was shown at £6,250, so again it was reasonable to assume that I'd been making PPI payments on cumulative balances leading up to the month for the statement I had.

 

With the two known figures for PPI, March which was shown and February's that I calculated from the carried over outstanding balance, I got an average of £40 per month paid. If I were to assume that this was a representative figure over the lifetime of the PPI contributions, that would equate to £1400 paid. That's without the interest at 8% as Lloyds said, purely because I don't know how to work that out cumulatively and until when. I know its a huge assumption to say that the payment I did know is representative, but at least its a figure from MY account rather than an average of other peoples which is how Lloyds want to work out my offer. Finally I asked that someone from that department actually call me on the phone, so that we could resolve any questions between us easily, and complained that Lloyds were effectively preventing me from speaking to them which I found to be inequitable given that they regularly insist on me providing methods of them communicating with me.

 

I emailed that off to them, and promptly got it straight back – the server at Lloyds had bounced the email because the address didn't exist. Somewhat annoyed, I called the Philippines again and complained that the address they'd provided didn't work and insisted that I speak to someone in the claims management department in England, but they still refused to give me anything other than an 'escalation' note on my file. I sent the letter to the PO box address instead, and three weeks later got a letter from them. With baited breath I opened it, and discovered it was nothing but an acknowledgement that I'd written to them.

 

I did phone the Philippines several more times over coming weeks, asking when something would happen. They replied that they didn't know, but that they'd 'escalate' my question, and someone may or may not phone me but that it would certainly be considered. Each time I called I had to go through the routine of confirming a number they could reach me on, despite them not ringing me on it. I went in to my branch and threw a paddy there that all I was asking was the courtesy of a return phone call, and after an unpleasant hour they came back and said they didn't know how to get someone to talk to me either but that there was no point in visiting the branch again.

 

This Friday I had my regular frustrating call to the Philippines and got a different answer – I had been written back to, and the following day the letter duly arrived. It contained an offer, of £8. This time though, it said that a breakdown of the offer was made according to my cards. On one of the four cards I'd had with Lloyds, my card balance at 14 March 2011 was apparently zero. What relevance the 14 March date had wasn't mentioned. It did say that, if I'd not purchased PPI, my balance on that day on that card would be -£449.16. It did not say how it would be that amount, just that it would be that figure. An 8% interest calculation of £188.57 was added to 28 February 2014. The total of those figures wasn't shown, but it adds up to £637.73, leaving, according to them, £8.78 owing which they'd pay into my account. No mention was made of any of the issues I raised in my letter, or of the statement of the period that I'd provided. No mention was made of how they'd managed to find my actual payment details now, when they hadn't managed this when they made their original offer. No mention was made of the remaining three credit cards.

 

In short, it is my firm belief that Lloyds are lying to me. Their statement about £449.16 being paid in premiums cannot be true, given that it equates to less than ten months premiums equivalent to the one month we do know, and my knowledge that such a sum would have taken a long time to both build up and be repaid. Dividing their offer (before interest) up over the 35 months they say I paid PPI comes to £12.77 per month and I believe I paid a lot more than this. I'm also very suspicious that Lloyds now appear to have found my records, but don't include them in their letter. I don't believe they HAVE found them.

 

So, what to do now. I can ring the Philippines, where they'll happily 'escalate' my argument. That escalation doesn't mean in and of itself that someone will ever contact me, and I could happily wait from now until the end of time for a response which may not come. I could go into my branch again, but they happily admit they have no knowledge of how to reach the relevant people. I could write to them at the PO box address, but since they ignored entirely the content of my previous letter I'm not exactly hopeful of a positive outcome on a second try. I could complain to the Ombudsman, which has the satisfaction of knowing that there is a cost to Lloyds for the service, but I don't know exactly what I'm asking for. It is entirely possible that in a single conversation on the phone with Lloyds they could reassure me that their figures are correct, fair, and most importantly demonstrable, but they steadfastly refuse to do this. I won't go into here why they upheld my complaint but it is fair to say that they acknowledge misselling it to me, so why is it that I can't be afforded the simple courtesy of a phone call. I'll even pay for it, if they'd give me a number to reach. If, as a result of that call, we agree that Lloyds have got it right, the matter is closed, and if we agree that they've got it wrong, we can work out to what number and pay it to me.

 

Since I can't ask the Ombudsman to force Lloyds to ring me, I don't really think that's what I'm looking for. I think I've been shabbily treated by an organisation that has admitted they took money from me that they shouldn't have done, and what I'd really like to do is sue them in the small claims court. I'd like to sue for £1400 as the figure I believe I have paid, the interest to date on that, an amount of hours at the allowable rate to compile the case, and exemplary damages for the avoidable inconvenience and stress Lloyds have put me to in not working together to resolve the issue without recourse to external parties.

 

What I'm looking for here is constructive criticism on the above. We can leave aside the argument of eligibility since that's previously resolved, but am I being stupid/ungrateful/stubborn in not just taking the offer, or is it fair that I should have some faith in its integrity? My sincere and genuine thanks to anyone having read this far!

Edited by theminor
Formatting issues
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're entitled to want to know if the figures are correct (though the way I read your comments you weren't actually complaining to start with and they took your comments as a complaint in error). But get any thoughts of suing them out of your head. You've no cause to take them to court and will just end up losing yourself money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

god that was a post...

 

have you ever sent them an SAR ?

 

we can give you all the numbers you want

 

but you really need to keep things in writing

 

its no good eventually poss having to go to the FOS

or court route when all you've got is phone call dates.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're entitled to want to know if the figures are correct (though the way I read your comments you weren't actually complaining to start with and they took your comments as a complaint in error). But get any thoughts of suing them out of your head. You've no cause to take them to court and will just end up losing yourself money.

Yes, I just want to know the numbers are right, but how do I get them to reveal it? They just refuse to answer orally, and in written form they simply ignore the question! I don't think I've got anything to lose at court, its not a vexatious case as its reasonable for me to ask that their figures are right. and even in the event they win and get costs against me I don't have any income to pay from so they can have a pound a week willingly!

 

god that was a post...

 

have you ever sent them an SAR ?

 

we can give you all the numbers you want

 

but you really need to keep things in writing

 

its no good eventually poss having to go to the FOS

or court route when all you've got is phone call dates.

 

dx

No, I've never sent them a SAR as I thought they'd simply reply 'we don't have any info going back that far' or only pick out selected bits of info that supported their position and hide the rest. Is it a bit late in the day to ask them for it now though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This offer that came through - I guess it was in writing?

 

I would SAR them. That will get you all of the data they hold on you. Don't restrict the SAR just to PPI stuff.

 

I wouldn't be thinking of court action to get them to reveal the PPI figures, fos can force them to give that information.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Registered Office:

 

25 Gresham Street,

 

London EC2V 7HN

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I just want to know the numbers are right, but how do I get them to reveal it? They just refuse to answer orally, and in written form they simply ignore the question! I don't think I've got anything to lose at court, its not a vexatious case as its reasonable for me to ask that their figures are right. and even in the event they win and get costs against me I don't have any income to pay from so they can have a pound a week.

 

 

I hate to tell you this but the courts will view it as frivolous. Mainly because there doesn't seem to have been any law broken (annoying people by refusing to send calculations doesn't count).

 

As has been suggested above I suggest you take it up with FO if you're not getting anything from Lloyds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that you only have 6 months from the date of their offer/response to get your complaint to the Ombudsman. So, if you do want their assistance, remember to keep an eye on the calender.

 

Remember: On a credit card, the 8% isn't added to the amounts paid in PPI. The business reconstructs your account to show the balances of your card had you never had PPI. 8% is only added to any periords where your account would have been in credit (had you not had PPI).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the high chance that Lloyds will fail to provide the necessary information in the SAR, my own recommendation would be to get this case to the Ombudsman as soon as possible and then it is at least making its way towards the front of the enormous queue. Make clear when you complain that you agree the decision of Lloyds that the policy was mis-sold but believe the redress to be wrong.

 

In the unlikely event that Lloyds send you full calculations which prove to be correct you can always withdraw your complaint from the Ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...