Jump to content


My Son Chris vs Lloyds - WON!!!!!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5116 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

im in exactly the same boat. can you post a copy of your letter so we can use it please.

Halifax - £2500

Legal & Trade - Webt to courtfor Breach CCA, Complained to OFT they ruled in my favour, So did court, 2k written off.

NatWest - Contactual Interest - Won:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS THE LETTER I ADDED MY PERSONAL SITUATION AT THE TOP, I HAVEN'T HAD CHANCE TO ADD UP ACCURATE NUMBER IETHER YET SO DON'T SEND IT WITH OUT CHECKING..

Lloyds TSB Bank, requested in their Allocation Questionnaire that they would be unavailable to attend Court, during the whole month of October to enable settlement negotiations. I wrote to Sechiari Clark & Mitchell and copied in Lloyds Tsb and Liverpool County Court, to initiate negotiations and suggest settlement. After following this letter up with several telephone calls a Mr. Thomas from Sechiari Clark & Mitchell eventually informed me that they had received my letter and that they were sending me a letter on 12th October 2006, which I still have not received. I have telephoned his office several time today and left messages to no avail. Therefore I respectfully request that the stay which has been ordered on my claim be removed.

 

 

Human rights

It interferes with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

Lloyds TSB Bank

 

The defendants Lloyds TSB Bank have already settled 22 or more similar cases.

In the attached list of cases, the court will see that Lloyds were defendants in 22 cases. In most of these Lloyds actually filed defences and actually returned their allocation questionnaire, obliging the claimant to do the same. However, in every one of these cases, Lloyds bank settled the matter before the hearing.

In 2004 the head of personal banking of Lloyds TSB Bank Peter MacNamara stated in a radio 4 interview that Lloyds was making big profits out of its default charges and that this money was being used to find free banking for its customers. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording of the court wishes.

 

 

Other cases

It is true that there are currently many other cases which are litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the court may be unaware that not a single case so far has gone to a hearing.

Attached to this application is a sample list of 223( check this figure as I havn’t added them all up yet ) cases complete with county court reference numbers (Annexe 2) - of which the claimant is aware and which have been started since February of 2006. All of them have been settled before hearing.

Many of them have even received default judgments against the defendant banks in question which has then been set aside on application by that bank and then which has been settled by that bank rather than go to court.

In two cases the court has even ordered standard disclosure against defendant banks but those banks have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties.

It is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to go to a hearing and that it will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court.

It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right.

It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

 

Balance of convenience

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is a significant sum to me. Further more although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of penalties which I say are unlawful.

Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain.

It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to take the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

The Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which the claimant submits are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

Test Case

It is agreed that a case in which the issues were fully argued would be of enormous benefit. However, as has been explained above, the banks so far have settled every one of the 223 example cases and it is clear that it is their abusive litigation strategy which is responsible for the problem of the large number of cases being started against them. Every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided.

My case presents another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as should the defendants lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the court hierarchy.

It is respectfully submitted that the court’s order to stay the claim creates more uncertainty and more difficulty.

It is respectfully submitted that if the predicted test case referred to by the district judge in his order, was actually in the course of a trial at the present moment so that it was more certain that the matter would be tried and that a decision would be likely to be reached, then there would be good grounds for staying all similar actions including my own.

However, it is respectfully submitted that none of this is at all clear and on the evidence of all of the cases conducted so far it is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to be heard at all.

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

The OFT conducted a 2 year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks.

The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

However, it is submitted that the issue of a test case and the definitive settling of the banks’ penalty charging system is a matter to be borne by the OFT or some other public body who are tasked and resourced to deal with this matter. It is not a burden to be suffered by the private citizen and in particular by myself in the instant case.

 

In the alternative

If the court decides not to accede to my request to remove the stay I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

 

That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.

That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter

That the defendant is prevented from closing my account

That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.

That the defendant remove any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998)

That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)

 

That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim

That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent

That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

 

 

Additional orders

If the court does accede to my request for a removal of stay then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure.

It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bring these and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion.

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges

1/6/06 request charges

16/6/06 received charges

18/6/06 first request for refund

3/7/06 "No" letter from bank

13/7/06 LBA

7/08/06 handed claim to court

10/8/06 court stamped as date of issue

24/8/06 deemed to be served

25/8/06 Sechiari filed acknowledgement of service

6/9/06 defence served

9/9/06 copy of defence and AQ received by me

25/9/06 deadline for AQ submission

25/9/06 call Sechiari confirm safe receipt of my AQ

26/9/06 received copy AQ from Sechiari

29/9/06 letter to SCM to say "you want 1 month to settle, so settle"

18/10/06 after "strained communications"and how !

verbal offer of full settlement with conditions

communications rejecting conditions from me

5/11/06 received letter offering settlement with conditions

7/11/06 sent fax rejecting conditions etc

14/11/06 unconditional settlement in bank and how !;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi can anyone help. i've got my court date through, its the 21 dec. the letter from court says i've got to file and serve my claim, what does this mean.i have looked on all the threads and noone seams to have got this far

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other cases, that have gone this far, have a good look on the site, I got the list below from someones post of what they sent to the court(HBOS forum).

 

You need to send off all your supporting documents, not all in the list will be relevent to your case.

 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

1. Correspondences

 

.....Date .......Description .................................................. ................No. of pages

(A) 11-03-06 Letter: Data Protection Act Disclosure request to HBOS PLC - 1

(B) 19-04-06 Letter: Request for repayment of charges to HBOS - 2

© 02-05-06 Letter: HBOS acknowledgment of (B) - 1

(D) 05-05-06 Letter: Letter Before Action to HBOS - 1

(E) 12-05-06 Letter: HBOS response to (D) - 3

(F) 15-05-06 Letter: Decline offer of settlement to HBOS - 1

(G) 19-05-06 Letter: HBOS further offer of settlement - 1

(H) 23-05-06 Copy of County Court Claim form issued by Claimant - 1 (2 sided)

(I) Court Document: Notification of claim issued - 1

(J) 31-05-06 Court Document: Notification of Acknowledgment of Service - 1

(K) Copy of HBOS Acknowledgment of Service - 1

(L) 12-06-06 Letter: Data Protection Act Section 10 Notification to HBOS - 1

(M) 15-06-06 Letter: Further explanation of claim to HBOS - 1

(N) 19-06-06 Letter: HBOS offer of partial settlement - 2

(O) 26-06-06 Copy of facsimile to HBOS and ‘Message Confirmation Report’ - 2

(P) 26-06-06 Letter: Claimant to District Judge - 2

(Q) 27-06-06 Letter: Claimant to District Judge - 2

® 27-06-06 Letter: HBOS reply to (L) - 1

(S) 28-06-06 Court Document: Notification of Defence Filed by HBOS - 1

(T) 30-06-06 Letter: HBOS confirmation of receipt of (O) and payment to Claimant - 1

(U) 06-07-06 Letter: HBOS copy of Allocation Questionnaire - 1

(V) 16-07-06 Letter: Claimant to District Judge and Copy of Claimant’s

Allocation Questionnaire - 5

(W) 16-07-06 Letter: Claimant to District Judge - Reply to Defence - 1

(X) 20-07-06 Court Document: Notification of Allocation and Hearing - 1

2. Authorities

 

...........Description .................................................. .............No. of pages

(AA) -- Copy of bank statements supplied by HBOS following (A) - 91

(BB) -- Copy of spreadsheet supplied with claim detailing specific dates

and amounts as requested for refund - 1

(CC) -- Data Protection Act (1998.) - 53

(DD) -- Data Protection Act (1998.) Schedules - 53

(EE) -- Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) - 10

(FF) -- The Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982) - 13

(GG) -- Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) - 9

(HH) -- Office of Fair Trading Report April 2006 (OFT842) - 35

( II) -- House of Commons Early Day Motion (EDM 2227) - 1

(JJ) -- House of Commons Select Committee on Treasury

Second Report: ‘Transparency in charging’ - 10

(KK) -- Report by Kendall Freeman on Liquidated Damages (May 2005) - 3

(LL) -- Case Law Reference: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd

v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 - 2

(MM) -- Case Law Reference: Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd

v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC) - 2

 

The Claimant will also make reference to the following case laws;

1. Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963

2. Wilson v Love [1898]

3. Lordsvale Finance PLC v Bank of Zambia (1996) QB 752

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

 

 

Hope this helps.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Morning all;

Brief history:

  1. Initial letters off to Lloyds 19th May
  2. All f**k off letters received from Lloyds by 2nd June
  3. Action filed in Court 14th July
  4. SC&M acknowledged 24th July
  5. Defence received 23rd August
  6. AQ sent off by end of August
  7. Stay ordered by Judge 11th October
  8. 4 letters and 4 phone calls made to SC&M during the stay, all of which resulted in absolutely no response.
  9. Letter to Judge on 14th October detailing the steps taken by us to reach a settlement, and the response from the defendant (i.e. nil)
  10. Letter received 17th Nov, from SC&M offering full settllement!

There were conditions attached, one of which was that we wouldn’t tell anybody about the conditions (!), but it looks like SC&M have now woken up to the fact they cannot insist on draconian terms or conditions in these matters. I think that they must have got fed up with claimants refusing to settle when there were unenforceable, unrealistic and too restrictive terms in their offer. So they didn’t put them in.

Without going into specifics, their conditions have not infringed on any of my son’s liberties, nor do they prevent him from starting any future claim against Lloyds. They do not require visits to the bank to review his finances or account management.

Long slog, but worth every penny, and there will be a donation on its way to the Bank Action Group in recognition of the superlative guidance and advice received. Many, many thanks.

My son will now transfer his account to his parachute account, close his Lloyds account, and manage his finances WITHOUT incurring any future charges .:rolleyes:

Advice to all with claims still going through –

STICK WITH IT!

Regards to all

17th July 2006 - Small Claims Court action filed

20th July 2006 - Claim deemed to have been served

24th July 2006 - Defendent filed an Acknowledgment of Service

17th August 2006 - Defendant's solicitors filed a defence (Sechiari Clark & Mitchell).

24th August 2006 - Defence & AQ received.

13th October 2006 - Court orders a stay until 11th Nov to reach settlement - yeah, right. http://cag-images.co.uk/forum/images/buttons/edit.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

LLoyds eat dirt again. brilliant!!!!!

:D Actions in progress

Natw West on hold pending test case

LLoyds claim 3 on hold pending test case,

 

:lol:Claims Settled

LLOYDS TSB x 2 WON,

MBNA WON,

A&L WON,

GE Money x 2 WON , c

o-op visa WON, capital one visa WON,

Halifax (o/h) WON,

capquest, WON

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...