dbmbawswlb v lloyds ***WON***

[dbmbawswlb]

This is a bit long winded but I want you to have as much detail as possible so please read on . . .

 

Story so far:

 

1. Data Pro Act SAR sent 24.07.2006

2. Request for Repayment of Charges sent 14.09.2006

3. LBA sent 02.10.2006

4. County Court Claim issue date 24.10.2006

5. Defendant filed Acknowledgement of Service 07.11.2006

 

At this point things started going wrong due to an incorrect address for us being entered at the court!!

 

6. Queried none receipt of Allocation Questionnaire 23.11.2006 (Duplicate sent out by Court: received 25.11.2006)

7. Filling in Allocation Questionnaire today but realised I should have a copy of Lloyds Defence: Defence served 13.11.2006 by S C & M received faxed copy from Court today.

 

My query is their defence. Does this sound standard?

 

1. Bank don't dispute my account with them

2. By opening an account I entered into a commercial arrangement with the Bank. The Bank is entitled to charge for services. I was made aware of charges when I opened account.

3. If I'd operated my account within it's limits I could have avoided most if not all charges. Because I didn't, I used the Bank's own funds and for providing this service they made a charge as specified in their leaflets . . .

4. 'There is no breach of contract; the charge cannot therefore be a penalty, consequently there is no requirement that the charge be a pre-estimate of the Bank's loss.'

5. I was given advance warning of the charges on statements and letters.

6. 'The charges are fair and reasonable, and it is denied that they are unlawful.'

7. I was notified in 'plain intelligible language' about the charges. ' The charges are terms which relate to the price payable by the customer for a service provided by the Bank, and pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness.'

8. 'In the premises:'

8.1 'the charges are for banking services, and are not damages nor a penalty;'

8.2 'the Bank is entitled by contract to impose the charges, which are fair and reasonable;'

8.3 'it is denied that the charges are unlawful or contravene any statute or regulation.'

9. 'The Claimant's claim is denied in its entirety. It is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum from the Bank'

 

Should I be concerned or carry on??

 

Thanks for reading.

[BARTY]

Hi

That is the standard defence, so no worries there. Looks like everything is flowing along nicely, it's just a matter of waiting for a copy of LTSB AQ and then getting a Court date.

Good luck!

Barty:)

[dbmbawswlb]

Thanks Barty

 

Had a sudden rush of doubt there for a second!!

 

Any thoughts on the section in the AQ regarding 'Other information'. Have read some suggestions.

 

Thanks again

[BARTY]

Hi

Have a look at this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

 

Barty:)

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi

 

Thanks. Handed my AQ in today. LTSB have up to 07.12.06 to do the same.

 

Looking forward to the next stage!!

[matmondez]

Hi There,

 

Im on very same time scale to you 09/12 for them to do their AQ.

Im from Hull so we will see who if any of us get the earliest hearing date.

Myself like you was worried about that scary defence i can assure you mine is exactly the same.

 

Good luck

 

Matt

Im watching this thread closely!!!

[dbmbawswlb]

Good to hear from you Matt.

 

Will let you know how I get on.

 

Good Luck to you.

 

Martin

[jcd34]

I read your first post with interest as i received Lloyds defence today .Sounds like my letter was word for word as yours which has put my mind at rest .I am waiting for my AQ to arrive .Just wanted to say good luck to you !

[dbmbawswlb]

Thanks.

 

Having read many threads now it does seem a standard letter - I'm surprised they haven't charged £30 for it!!

 

Good luck - I will watch how you get on.

 

Martin.

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi everyone

 

just to keep up to speed and see if anyone else has had the same . . .

 

we received today a letter from S C & M. It was a copy of there AQ and a request for a copy of ours.

 

there AQ does NOT request any further postponement to arrive at a settlement but DOES state that December is not a convenient time for a hearing.

 

what does concern me is that they have said they intend to call a witness (although NOT an expert).

 

also in 'other information' they have said 'The Defendant intends to rely on its defence and the terms and conditions that govern the account.'

 

any comments/thoughts???

[GaryH]

Completely standard. If you still have a copy of your AQ then send them one, if not don't worry, its not essential.

[matmondez]

Hi there Mate

 

Exactly the same A.Q. here, as Garry says looks pretty standard altho thought the delay of the Month in section A was common. Maybe a change of tactic???

 

Will ask the question in my own thread.

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi Gary

 

Thanks for your help - much appreciated.

 

Will send SC&M a copy of our AQ this week. Is it worth putting anything in the covering letter? Or should I just sit back patiently and wait for the money to come in?

 

Martin

[matmondez]

Alright Mart.

 

Think we should get our docs ready for court mate, from what i can gather nxt step wait for a court date then swap documents wid lloyds sols and send a copy to local court keeping originals for ourselves. Think its then they are gunna settle. Was hoping for sooner but we know what there like. Hope i`m wrong like.

 

What u think?

[GaryH]

Hmmm, its a difficult one. When they were requsting a month for settlement it was the perfect opportunity to put a bit of pressure on and it gave a certain amount of leverage over them. Thats why they've changed it obviously. On recent evidance though many claims, if not most, seem to be getting settled within a month of AQ return anyway.

 

As Matt said, familiarise yourself with the court bundle and all the evidance you'll need if it was to get as far as document exchange, just in case.

[dbmbawswlb]

Hmmmnnn! A bit more reading and preparing then.

 

Thanks again for all your help Gary

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi everyone

 

Got in from work tonight and read an interesting article in my local paper . . .

 

Banks 'overcharge' costs

Banks are charging customers £30 in penalties for a service that costs them just £4.50, a study says today.

 

Tonight's edition of the BBC2's The Money Programme will look into allegations that financial institutes are overcharging customers who default on payments.

 

It found that it costs banks no more than £4.50 when a customer's cheque bounces, and a maximum of £2.50 to deal with unauthorised overdrafts.

 

But despite the low cost incurred by banks, customers received penalty charges of around £30 in relation to unauthorised credit.

 

The issue has led to calls for regulators to step in.

 

Thinks it's on at 10pm . . . could be interesting!!!

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi again

 

Further to my last post - check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6169539.stm

[GaryH]

Yep, we could be busy here in the next few days - the issue is really hitting the mainstream now. And Lloyds think their snowed under now.....!

[dbmbawswlb]

EXCELLENT!!

 

Just to keep you up to speed:

 

Have posted a copy of my AQ to S,C&M. Just looking round the site now ready to prep my documents for Court.

 

Will keep all posted. Thanks again for all your help/support.

 

Martin

[dbmbawswlb]

Hi everyone

 

Got my 'General Form of Judgment or Order' through today from the Court.

 

It says that:

 

Before District Judge ***** sitting at ****** County Court....

 

Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The matter be listed for preliminary hearing on 28th March 2007 by way of telephone

 

******* Combined Court Centre scheme for Telephone Hearings

(CPR Practice Direction 51.2 - supplement to Part 23)

 

The hearing of this case will take place by way of a telephone conference.

 

The Claimants Legal Representative is ordered to arrange the telephone conference.

 

Please quote telephone number ***** ****** when arranging your telephone conference.

 

Time estimates for hearings must be accurate as they will not be allowed to over-run. In the event that a time estimate is insufficient then please contact the court. Please note that time has been allocated for the Judge to read relevant papers in advance of the hearing.

 

 

HELP!!! Is it me or are the courts now trying to make things as complicated as possible?? Or is it just my conspiracy theories running away with me?

 

They know I'm representing myself - do they think every average guy has conferencing facilities at home?

 

Has this happened to anyone else and do you have any suggestions?

 

Not sure I like the idea of a telephone conference even if I could set one up!!

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[matmondez]

Now then Martin

 

God this sounds different hope this doesnt happen to me. Guess i will hear something nxt wk.

 

 

Were is Garry.H??

 

Garry!!!

[dbmbawswlb]

I will speak to the Court Monday, if I don't hear anything different from this site over the weekend.

 

Whatever happens, it's my money and I want it back!!

 

Will keep all posted with any developments.

 

Martin

[GaryH]

Have'nt seen this ordered before TBH. Nothing to panic about though. You'll more than likely get a settlement well before then, but still plan ahead as if you won't.

 

Get in touch with the court on Monday morning and tell them you are a litigant in person and do not have the facility to set up a telephone conference. Ask exactly how you would go about setting up a telephone conference even if you did! Does it have to be 3 way?

 

See what they say. If they can't/won't help, don't worry about it, I'll see if I can seek further advice. I think the best bet would be to make an application to vary the order to have either a prelim hearing or by written representations instead. See what the court say first though.

[dbmbawswlb]

Brilliant Gary - thanks.

 

Was thinking along those lines myself. Thought the courts might be getting to the stage that they have so many of these now they are looking for ways to speed things up or they are getting so used to them settling before the actual hearing they don't want to 'diary' court time?

 

Will keep all posted of developments.

 

Martin