Bean's Timeline (Joint Acct)

[Bean]

Hello Everyone,

 

Thanks for a superb site.

I found you via MoneySavingExpert.com ad-free, free to use, Consumer Revenge!

 

To get things rolling, I began last week by collating all my statements and filling in any gaps with copies from the Lloyds TSB website (about half originals and half printed off) to get back to July 2002 (as far as online records go). Total for relevant charges less a realistic allowance of £2 per item is about £4700. As it was a convenient breakpoint and under the £5000 Small Claims figure I decided to send Preliminary Request for Payment letter for July 2002 to present, and will send a Data Protection Act (DPA) letter a little later for 2000 to June 2002.

 

13 April 2006 - Took Preliminary Request for Payment letter in to my branch and had them sign and date my pre-printed slip to acknowledge receipt of my letter.

 

19 April 2006 - Received standard letter from Service Recovery Centre , Birmingham - 'Thank you for taking time to contact us about your account...I understand that you feel the charges you have incurred are unlawful...I am unable to agree with your request to refund the charges...' with 'How to voice your concerns' leaflet enclosed. Frankly I prefer following the advice on this site as a way of voicing my concerns thank you very much.

 

I was and still am astounded at how charges on charges escalated and am pleased that the OFT and our collective efforts will curtail this nonsense for all concerned. There are real stories of hardship in the threads on this site and I empathise with so many of them.

 

I will not wish you good luck because there is no luck involved, there is a clear process supported by friends in the same boat. I wish you the outcome the law says you deserve, and from what I am reading here, that's a sizeable refund for an awful lot of people.

 

I am working on the worst case assumption that I will have to defend this in court, and that the banks are monitoring this site.

[Bean]

I have original statements plus prints from online banking for July 2002 to present & figure to claim back is about £4700.

 

I suspect my total figure for past 6 years will be over £5000 (excluding interest and court costs as it hasn't reached that stage yet).

 

Searching under 'sever' doesn't seem to answer the following:

 

Is it best to send a Data Protection Act letter covering the whole of the past 6 years, or send one now for July 2002 to present, and deal with 2000 to June 2002 later?

 

Which would be considered most reasonable in the court's view?

Which would prompt least bank attention for consolidating?

 

Has anyone got to the second claim of a sever process yet? (e.g. one claim on one account for say 2000-2003, then another claim on the same account for 2004-2006)

 

I will send Data Protection Act letter after hearing your views.

I am due to send LBA letter on 27/4/2006.

 

Thanks

[Guest Lueeze]

Send a DPA for the whole time...and include the manual intervention bit too!

 

That way you know for the whole time if anyone has amended your account themselves thus incurring "resonable" charges.

 

Im not sure about the rest tho!

 

Good Luck

 

Lou x

[Bean]

Thanks Lueeze, I'll do that and await an answer on the rest

 

Best Wishes,

[Bean]

Took Data Protection Act letter in to my branch and had them sign for it.

 

Will keep you posted,

[Bean]

Has anyone reached the second claim of a sever process yet?

[Bean]

About to send my Letter Before Action - but need to check something first.

 

In my Preliminary Request for Payment, I claimed about £4700 for approx. past 4 years. Then I realised there was another way to calculate my claim, and now want to claim about £4600 for past 28 months. Is it a problem if I put these new figures in my LBA letter?

[Bean]

It seems to me that any method that relies on cumulative unlawful charges resulting in snowballing consequential charges does not assist, and may even scupper, a sever claim [i.e. one that exceeds £5000 but is then severed by date to produce two (or presumably more?) claims].

 

If for example a severed claim attempts to look at 2004-2006 and attempts to claim back all costs except the account charge based on previous cumulative unlawful charges filling the overdraft, it can not truly be a sever, because it is associated with previous charges. Presumably a sever should stand alone and be fully justifiable in it's own right. The bank could argue that such a claim for 2004-2006 for £4500 relies on cumulative unlawful charges prior to 2004 so should be consolidated with the penalty bit of those pre-2004 charges, potentially (at the court's discretion) pushing it beyond Small Claims into Fast Track.

 

This leads me to conclude that where a cumulative method is rightly used and the claim exceeds £5000, the best course of action would be to engage a solicitor to handle a Fast Track claim - Hence I assume, examples such as "molly-in-the-trolley" on this site which was settled prior to reaching Fast Track. The alternative is to sever and not rely on a cumulative method, which reduces the total value of the severed claims to less than the Fast Track claim total.

 

I suspect that the correct, get-back-what-you're-truly-owed cumulative method lends itself to a wider claim for consequential losses. I imagine this could be the basis of a claim for people who were pushed into bankruptcy, default, or other adverse financial position.

 

Any thoughts from anyone on this or my previous post?

 

Best Wishes,

[Bean]

Hello, please can you help?

 

My claim was initially £4700 for July 2002-present so I took a Preliminary Request for Payment to my branch on 13 April 2006 for it and received standard letter back from David Just about 5 days later.

 

This was prior to realising the cumulative effect of unlawful charges filling my overdraft. Because of this, the claim is now £5700 for the same period, and may increase subject to whatever charges preceded July 2002. Plus I now want to claim for the rest of the 6 years because a cumulative method is not suited to a sever. My Data Protection Act letter was delivered 25 April 2006 so I don't yet have information for April 2000 - June 2002.

 

I was about to send the Letter Before Action, but have not because the claim has increased. I think the best course of action is to send a letter to the bank saying 'value of the claim has increased...will get back to you following arrival of Data Protection Act info', wait for DPA information and start again with the benefit of full info. Do you agree?

 

Also, as the claim already exceeds £5000 but is straightforward, should I ultimately put it into the simpler Small Claims process and see what happens, or should I put it into Fast Track?

 

I think this highlights the advantage of first sending a Data Protection Act request letter, then Preliminary Request for Payment letter, then Letter Before Action, then moneyclaim for court action if necessary. Commencing with a sever claim was not appropriate to this cumulative method and a cumulative method is most representative of what I claim has been taken.

 

Can you help?,

Thanks,

[Bean]

Hello all,

 

Claim was initially £4700 for July 2002-present so thought at that stage I was going to proceed with a sever process.

 

This was prior to realising the cumulative effect of unlawful charges filling my overdraft. Because of this, the claim is now £5700 for the same period, and may increase subject to whatever charges preceded July 2002. Plus I now want to claim for the rest of the 6 years because a cumulative method is not suited to a sever.

 

Data Protection Act letter was delivered 25 April 2006 so I don't yet have information for April 2000 - June 2002.

 

I was about to send the Letter Before Action, but decided not to because the claim has increased. Instead I took a letter to my branch today saying 'on taking further advice...value of the claim has increased...will get back to you following arrival of Data Protection Act info'. I intend to wait for DPA information and start again with the benefit of full info.

 

As the claim already exceeds £5000 but is straightforward, I am not sure if I should ultimately put it into the simpler Small Claims process and see what happens, or put it into Fast Track.

 

I think this highlights the advantage of first sending a Data Protection Act request letter, then Preliminary Request for Payment letter, then Letter Before Action, then moneyclaim for court action if necessary. Commencing with a sever claim was not appropriate to this cumulative method and a cumulative method is most representative of what I claim has been taken.

[Bookworm]

*bump*

[Bean]

Decided to proceed as described in my thread "Bean's Timeline".

[Guest Lueeze]

Ok Bean, sorry I cant really help on this one, I will merge your threads for you,

 

Good Luck!

 

Lou x

[Bean]

Of all my dealings with financial institutions over the past six years, Lloyds has been responsible for our gravest and most extreme of unlawful penalty charges. So in deciding who first to demand back charges from, I could coin their phrase, Lloyds "You First"!

[Bean]

Update following letter to bank:

I was about to send the Letter Before Action, but have not because the claim has increased. I think the best course of action is to send a letter to the bank saying 'value of the claim has increased...will get back to you following arrival of Data Protection Act info', wait for Data Protection Act information and start again with the benefit of full info.

Reply arrived today 09/05/2006 from DJ: "Unfortunately there is little I am able to add to my letter dated 18 April 2006 and I am only able to refer you back to the terms and conditions of your account, although I do respect your opinion about our charges.

This is the bank's final response, which means that if you remain dissatisfied in any way...Financial Ombudsman Service...I have enclosed a leaflet..."

[Bean]

Data Protection Act request was hand delivered 25 April 2006 with no word yet from Lloyds TSB, so prompted by e-mail to make sure it was being handled.

 

They replied that Data Protection Act request is with Copy Statement Unit.

 

Reply expected by deadline of 4 June 2006.

[Bean]

Data Protection Act reply arrived 13 & 15 May in two parts, one from central records and rest for collection from my branch. Reply arrived 18/20 days after Data Protection Act request.

 

Calculated claim for past six years is approx. £5700.

Hand delivered my Preliminary Request for Payment letter to branch where bank staff signed and stamped my acknowledgement/record slip.

[Bean]

Reply from DJ re Preliminary Request for Payment letter, for whole 6 years, received today, 18 May 2006.

 

I had previously sent a PRP letter asking for a smaller sum for a shorter period, then sent an update letter saying I would be claiming for 6 years when figure known after Data Protection Act reply arrived and also asking for applicable overdraft interest rates, etc. His reply states:

'...I have noted your comments, but unfortunately I cannot add any further information to my previous letters or agree to your request. Since the bank's final response have been issued, I must advise you that we will not be entering into any further correspondence regarding the points you have raised.'

 

So much for dialogue...

Step-by-step till restitution.

[Bean]

Brief note about dialogue:

 

I am acutely aware that I have a duty to avoid progressing my claim into the court system if at all possible.

 

I will follow the step-by-step process: write to the bank, file my claim with the court if necessary, and then write to the bank's solicitors, in my attempt to foster and maintain dialogue.

 

Whether or not they choose to respond is for them to decide. The template letters cover the entirely reasonable view that if I do not receive a response or do not receive a satisfactory response I will be left with no option but to seek legal redress in court.

 

If I hear nothing else from the bank within my 14 day timeframe (ending 29 May 2006, Bank Hol Monday), I will hand deliver my LBA on 30 May 2006.

[Bookworm]

Sorry, you have been sorely ignored, haven't you...

 

What's the news as of now? Any further response?

 

Keep us posted. I'll keep an eye out on your thread, and I apologise for what seems to be total silence from this forum (not intentional, I promise!)

[Bean]

Hi Bookworm,

 

I didn't take the lack of responses personally .

 

Besides, I guess you are all a bit busy .

 

Hand delivered LBA to branch on 31 May 2006.

 

Now working out how and when to claim back significant, cast-iron consequential losses. Threads by Janeyb and 'Empire Strikes Back' relate.

[Bean]

Does anyone have any advice on claiming for consequential losses?

[Bean]

The best and only method mentioned to date (see thread by "Empire Strikes Back") that I can see is to add an invitation to the bank to the PRP letter and LBA to discuss recompense for consequential loss.

[Bean]

Delivered a letter about my consequential losses to my branch asking for them to tell me by expiry of LBA deadline whether or not they intend to discuss this subject. This letter was a sincere request for dialogue as I feel that too many of us are getting stonewalled by bank staff and deserve far better.

 

If not, and no response to LBA letter by 14 June 2006, I will file at court for approx. £5700 in unlawful charges and unlawful interest, plus sum for consequential losses, plus costs, plus 8% interest.

[Bean]

Hello!

Preparing N1 form to be delivered to court tomorrow / Wednesday.

 

Any thoughts on the following please - particularly regarding mention of, and separation of consequential losses?:

 

Defendant:

Lloyds TSB - my branch address.

 

Brief details of claim:

The Claimant claims the return of unlawfully imposed bank penalty charges* and overdraft interest on those charges taken by the Defendant, where they exceed the Defendant's lawful business costs. As a result of Lloyds TSB bank penalty charges and their cumulative effects, the Claimant's credit register has been adversely affected but not defaulted. The claimant seeks a remedy both within Lloyds TSB banking records and externally on the credit register (referred to by financial organizations in their lending decisions) to redress a present 'adverse' status which has resulted specifically from impecuniosity caused by the imposition of these charges. The Claimant requests that in resolving these matters, specific attention be granted to the barring of any or all forms of retaliatory action by the Defendant. For the sake of clarity in this claim, but entirely at the court's discretion, it is requested that consequential losses form the subject of a separate future legal action by the Claimant.

*Office of Fair Trade ruling of 5 April 2006 relates.

 

Value:

The Claimant claims the return of £xxxx including £x overdraft interest.

The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per year from 2000 to 2006 of £xxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £x.xx.

 

Does, or will your claim include any issues under the Human Rights Act 1998?: No

 

Particulars of Claim (attached):

1. The Claimant has an account number xxxxxxxxx sort code xx-xx-xx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around .

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx and interest charged thereon in the sum of £x;

b) a declaration from this honourable court that the term of the contract leading to the application of the charges is unenforceable;

c) any and all court costs, where appropriate;

d) interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges in the sum of £xxx plus the daily rate, or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just;

e) a remedy for all cumulative and resulting adverse elements of the Claimant's credit record.

 

I will attach my spreadsheet showing unlawful charges, unlawful overdraft interest on those charges, and 8% interest, total over £6400.