Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair in new Bank Charges Victory

[manchesteruni]

Lloyds TSB has been ordered to pay a customer over £1700 after it unfairly applied bank charges to his account and damaged his credit file.

 

In what we believe is the first bank charges court claim victory since such cases were stayed in July 2007, Oliver Foster-Burnell (‘orfoster’) has been successful in his claim for a refund of charges and interest.

 

The claim was brought against Lloyds TSB at Taunton County Court where Mr Deputy District Judge Stockdale held that despite the Supreme Court judgment, the unarranged overdraft charges levied on Mr Foster-Burnell were contrary to the requirement of good faith as per section 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and, as such, unfair.

[citizenB]

This is excellent news - is orfoster out celebrating

[manchesteruni]

I expect so He'll get around to updating his thread later I expect xxx

[citizenB]

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS

 

I believe this was the start of the journey.

[maroondevo52]

That is good to hear, here's hoping more to follow.

[orfoster]

Hello everyone,

 

Yes I got back from my honeymoon to receive the judgment which was amazing.

 

However, we wouldn't have won on BCOBs, the judge didn't like that at all in Court.

 

It was won on UTCCR's.

 

So so over the moon, although we wait to see what Lloyds next steps are.

Edited August 27, 2014 by citizenB

[simonjohn]

Well done. excellent news.

[pinny24x7]

Can we see the judgement anywhere?

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433100-Bank-charges-court-victory-could-open-payout-floodgates-!!!

[citizenB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763083/Victory-bank-charges-open-payout-floodgates-Court-backs-customer-hefty-overdraft-fees.html

[citizenB]

some posts have been removed as they no longer make sense.

[manchesteruni]

Can we see the judgement anywhere?

Google is your friend.

[Ocelot0411]

Absolutely awesome news!! I take my hat off to you Orfoster. I have a horrible feeling that all of mine will be SB now but this is a moral victory. Although I fear this won't be the end of it.

[DBC]

Would this have any relevance regarding private parking tickets and the so-called "contract" you are supposed to have agreed to when you drive past a parking sign?

[zanadu]

So what does this mean for 1000s of Stayed case, mine included?

[Old Cogger]

So what does this mean for 1000s of Stayed case, mine included?

 

nothing at this stage await further developments in months to come?

[zanadu]

Yep just read on after i asked question ha oh well....

[renegotiation]

Lloyds TSB has been ordered to pay a customer over £1700 after it unfairly applied bank charges to his account and damaged his credit file.

 

I only just got the CAG newsletter email and this had totally passed me by. Excellent news for sure and let us all hope there will be many further successes to come. This part of the Daily Mail article did make me chuckle a bit I must say:

 

'A spokesman for Lloyds Banking Group said: ‘We do not discuss individual customer cases and any decision will be specific to its facts. However, the legal issues relating to bank charges were dealt with comprehensively and conclusively by the judgment of the Supreme Court.’'

 

Ha ha ha, so you wrongly thought you evil dirtbags...

 

 

Google is your friend.

 

Facebook too, no doubt. Only jesting.

[mad_chemist007]

Fantastic news! Big up to using UTCCR! Top work

[unclebulgaria67]

Fantastic news! Big up to using UTCCR! Top work

 

And the funny thing is (if I have read it correctly), it was Lloyds Solicitors who first mentioned UTCCR in their defence. I think the claimant mentioned being treated unfairly and was going on BCOBS. Lloyds Solicitors then decided to bring UTCCR into the argument and this is what they lost on. If this is the case, I bet Lloyds are not happy with their Solicitors, as it may be seen as a tactical error.

[loz]

This is fantastic! I have never given up hope that I can resume my case against the former Alliance + Leicester, I will be keeping an eye out for further developments

[noomill060]

Here we go again....Lloyd's donkey was well and truly filleted.

 

 

Well done!

 

 

[filrobbo]

as any one got a link to the European Court of Justice ruling that helped in this case.

[manchesteruni]

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de426a8fcc4f8b49dba34ce0f4b427a14f.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Ob3mOe0?text=&docid=122164&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=334993

 

(Relevant to Bank Charges case – Foster-Burnell v Lloyds Bank August 2014 )

 

45 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending

before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in

submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

1. It is for the national court, ruling on an action for an injunction, brought in

the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by

national law, to assess, with regard to Article 3(1) and (3) of Council

Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,

the unfair nature of a term included in the general business conditions of

consumer contracts by which a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral

amendment of fees connected with the service to be provided, without

setting out clearly the method of fixing those fees or specifying a valid

reason for that amendment. As part of this assessment, the national court

must determine, inter alia, whether, in light of all the terms appearing in

the general business conditions of consumer contracts which include the

contested term, and in the light of the national legislation setting out

rights and obligations which could supplement those provided by the

general business conditions at issue, the reasons for, or the method of, the

amendment of the fees connected with the service to be provided are set

out in plain, intelligible language and, as the case may be, whether

consumers have a right to terminate the contract.

2. Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2)

thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

– it does not preclude the declaration of invalidity of an unfair term

included in the standard terms of consumer contracts in an action for

an injunction, provided for in Article 7 of that directive, brought

against a seller or supplier in the public interest, and on behalf of

consumers, by a body appointed by national legislation from

producing, in accordance with that legislation, effects with regard to

all consumers who concluded with the seller or supplier concerned a

contract to which the same general business conditions apply,

including with regard to those consumers who were not party to the

injunction proceedings;

– where the unfair nature of a term in the general business conditions

has been acknowledged in such proceedings, national courts are

required, of their own motion, and also with regard to the future, to

take such action thereon as is provided for by national law in order to

ensure that consumers who have concluded a contract with the seller

or supplier to which those general business conditions apply will not

be bound by that term.

Edited September 27, 2014 by ims21