Lloyds bank refuse to cancel duplicate payment and hang up on customer

[Intrepid]

I asked, they refused as expected it was a waste of time.

I decided it would have been unreasonable not to do so given how Lloyds have defended the claim, albeit I don't consider it an obligation given the circumstances.

 

The point being I do not wish to arm Lloyds with Shell Energy's excuses.

Payment failures potentially due to a systems error are a matter for Shell and Lloyds to resolve.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Manxman in exile]

Ah.  So you changed your mind about trying to get a refund from Shell (as I suggested earlier and you dismissed as being pointless) and Shell actually refused to reverse the duplicate payment?

 

 

[Intrepid]

Do you have something of value to add to the proposed witness statement?

[Manxman in exile]

3 hours ago, Intrepid said:

...

Questions, comments, critiques gratefully received.

...

 

[Intrepid]

I answered your question and then you asked it again, I'm not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you asked it again?

If this is leading somewhere useful which can improve the WS then I am grateful for that.

[Intrepid]

Attached below is a second draft of my WS should the case proceed to a hearing to strike out the claim.

Lloyds - Hearing to Dismiss - Witness Statement - Redacted v2.0.pdf

[Intrepid]

The claim brought against Lloyds for the payment has been discontinued.

 

Lloyds and Shell Energy have clearly been in contact and allegedly a cheque is on the way for the amount of the duplicate payment.

Whether it actually materialises is another matter, but by agreeing to send the cheque Shell Energy must be accepting liability for the payment issue and this is clearly the end of matter with reference to Lloyds.

Lloyds did however provide an incomplete disclosure to the SAR they received.

Lloyds solicitors Sutherland have filed an AOS and indicate they will be defending the claim.

It is my impression from their correspondence that Sutherland conduct themselves with a high level of professionalism. It will be interesting to read their defence regarding the incomplete disclosure and I expect that @BankFodder will be interested as well.

 

The ICO are investigating the matter and their comments could well help substantiate the claim.
 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Intrepid

[Manxman in exile]

Will you be complaining to Shell Energy that when you first pointed out to them the duplicate payment, that they wrongly refused to refund it?  It seems to me that they are the real culprits here rather than the bank.

 

I'd be interested to know how Shell respond - and confirmation that you get the refund!

[Intrepid]

I think what you were getting at - quite rightly - was whether Shell Energy did explicitly refuse. After carefully reviewing their correspondence they simply employed their usual tactic which is to attempt to make any effort on their part conditional - which I interpreted as a refusal.

They were only willing to review the refund on the grounds I provide them with up to date meter readings. I pointed out the account balance was irrelevant to how they had obtained the payments and did not acquiesce to their request.

8 days later I received an automated e-mail stating the refund was on its way. There was clearly some back and forth between Shell Energy and Lloyds going on.

I will never know whether Lloyds or Shell Energy would have agreed to refund the payment without the added pressure of a claim, if there is a next time perhaps I'll try it without and see what happens.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder The following may be of interest regarding the claim brought against Lloyds Bank PLC as a result of their incomplete disclosure.

 

After filing an AOS, Lloyds solicitors failed to file a defence by the required deadline. Default judgement has been requested.

I imagine following the communication outlined below from the ICO that Lloyds or rather their solicitors saw no worthwhile way to defend the case and could not credibly sign a witness statement claiming a complete disclosure was made by their client.

On 10th January I received the attached document from the ICO in which they conclude Lloyds Bank PLC are unlikely to have complied with their data protection obligations.

 

There are two points worth highlighting in the ICO's letter.

1. It is somewhat inexplicable that when I point out that transactions are missing from their disclosure Lloyds are adamant they have disclosed all the data they are in receipt of. Yet as soon as the ICO raise exactly the same query they suddenly agree that they have not disclosed the missing transactions.

2.The ICO have the mistaken understanding that I have received the missing data from Lloyds incomplete disclosure while in fact no such data has been received. Whether or not the ICO has been misled by Lloyds as to the subsequent disclosure of the missing data, is for the time being a matter of speculation.

I intend to write to the ICO correcting the material error of fact in point 2, but will hold fire should you wish to point out anything substantial or comment before I do.

 

I expect that where this might lead if I do not receive the missing data is that I will bring a further claim.

ICO (10 Jan 2022) - Redacted.pdf

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Remarkably Lloyds solicitors have just filed their defence as well as what appears to be a standard letter threatening costs. I will post it up shortly.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Lloyds Defence attached.

Lloyds - SAR - Defence - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

Lloyds letter attached.

 

Given that I have made a request for default judgement I don't think it is worth replyig until the court makes its decision. If the Court awards the default judgement in my favour then Lloyds will face whether they wish to pay for a set aside or simply pay the judgement.

As @BankFodder has alluded in other threads this may not be entirely about the money for Lloyds and perhaps they are loathe to have a judgement against them for their breach of statutory duty.

Lloyds - Letter 11.01.22 - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

After a first read of Lloyds defence this seems to be following a very similar path to Shell Energy where they believe that offering me the data that I am already in receipt of such as a credit card statement or utility bill is sufficient disclosure of data. The ICO did not agree in the case of Shell Energy and I expect that they will not agree with Lloyds Bank PLC however it may require a judgement to substantiate this position.

As far as I can tell the defence they have produced is simply an admission that they did not provide a complete disclosure of data. Whether it is for technical reasons is not really my problem and is a matter for the Court to decide whether this is a satisfactory explanation for their breach of statutory duty.

If I present my case carefully enough the judge should reach the same conclusion that Lloyds failure to disclose everything but two transactions which were in dispute is highly irregular.

[Intrepid]

It appears the Court may have accepted the late filing of their defence. MCOL indicates the following history of the claim.

You submitted a claim on 06/12/2021 at 12:12:28
Your claim was issued on 07/12/2021
Lloyds Bank PLC filed an acknowledgment of service on 20/12/2021
You submitted a judgment against Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022 at 02:36:33
A bar was put in place for Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022
Lloyds Bank PLC filed a defence on 11/01/2022
DQ sent to Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022

[Intrepid]

Where their defence is likely to fall apart entirely is that while Lloyds claim they were unable to disclose the payments due to a technical error.

1. The customer service agent refers to the payments in our recorded phone call before the disclosure was made, indicating they did in fact have access to the transaction information.

2. Their case notes regarding my complaint refer to the payments prior to their incomplete disclosure.

 

So the so called "technical error" only prevented them from disclosing the payment information it did not prevent them from accessing it or rerferring to it, nor did it prevent the transactions from appearing on my credit card statement the day they were made. All highly irregular and certainly very distressing when a customer is attempting to ascertain why payments are being made in error.

 

I would be very interested and grateful to receive @BankFodder 's comments on the matter when they have had time to digest the information.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder DQ received, to mediate or not to mediate?

 

So far I have taken the approach with claims of this nature that the breach occurred and thus there is nothing to mediate.

However perhaps it would be better to take the same approach as the Hermes claims and use mediation as an opportunity to offer the Defendant a chance to settle without also incurring the cost of losing at a hearing.

[BankFodder]

I agree that often it seems futile to mediate because there is a breach which simply cannot be repaired but on the other hand the trend nowadays seems to be to always attend mediation so you may as well do that. You never know, you don't know what kind of interesting points it might draw out – and of course at the end of the day you don't have to settle.
If you have a particular object in mind then you simply stand your ground.

[AndyOrch]

Parties refusing to participate in ADR Mediation will be noted by the court and taken into consideration when costs are considered...not that it really matters in your claim but would affect them (Defendants) if they refused and then tried to slam dunk you with legal fees in defending the claim.

 

Just so your aware 

[Intrepid]

Thank you for the responses.

 

Upon consideration I decided not to agree to mediation and agree with the premise that it should only be relevant with regards to costs.

With regards to costs:

Eversheds Sutherland missed their deadline to file a defence.

The Court has indicated on the DQ that the claim is suitable for allocation to the Small Claims Track - which should limit costs.

I have not made a claim for costs myself.
 

Ultimately I think it is in the interest of justice that a judge hear the evidence against Lloyds Bank PLC and make a ruling rather than simply have the issue skirted under the table at mediation.
 

[Intrepid]

The ICO have contacted Lloyds instructing them to disclose the missing data. Lloyds will have to make a decision as to whether they want to double down on their position that providing a credit card statement was a sufficient disclosure. If Lloyds refuse I imagine the ICO can escalate the matter shoud they choose to do so. If Lloyds cough up they have done all but admit the data was ommited or more likely witheld.

[Intrepid]

Defendant's DQ received from their solicitors claiming they never received a DQ. The court's records indicate otherwise and is likely the result of some sort of missed communication.

 

No request was made as to the hearing venue so I expect that as per other cases it will be allocated to my nearest court as requested but will in fact be a remote hearing.

[Manxman in exile]

Thank you

[mantis shrimp]

refusal to mediate *may* be considered unreasonable conduct leading to an award of costs, even if the case is allocated to the Small Claims track. 

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder

Lloyds Bank have sent me a letter (attached below) regarding their incomplete disclosure indicating they have made a payment of £125 to my account

 

I do not accept this payment as settlement for the on-going claim against them and need to respond accordingly.

 

I propose the following.

 

Quote

Dear xxx

Your payment is rejected please provide me with details on how to return the payment to you.

Despite making no reference to the on-going claim ref XXXX against Lloyds Bank PLC ("Lloyds Bank"), you will be aware that the evidence regarding your breach of the Data Protection Act as well as your admission means my claim is likely to be successful.

 

Your failure to provide me the data you admit Lloyds Bank failed to disclose is on-going and no assertion has been forthcoming as to when I can expect to receive the missing data.

Have you provided the Information Commissioners Office with the reasons as to your failure to meet your data protection obligations as requested by them on 10th January 2022?

Your letter will be submitted to the court as evidence in support of my claim.

Yours,

Intrepid

 

Lloyds - SAR Letter 15.02.22 - Redacted.pdf