Jump to content


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


Intrepid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rather amusingly when paying to raise the claim against Lloyds Bank PLC using my Lloyds credit card, again the failure of Lloyds payment system resulted in the payment being taken 6 times despite being the payments being reported as invalid.

 

I think it will be quite interesting to present as evidence in court that Lloyds Bank PLC took 6 payments from a claimant raising a claim against them for processing unauthorised payments.

 

I have issued a second letter before claim as it is clear from our previous correspondence what Lloyds stance will be, and that there is little point in wasting time exhausting the complaints process again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Bank also confirmed in writing that if the Merchant was unwilling to assist, it could then look to raise a dispute with the Merchant for you after 15 days. The Bank allows the merchant up to 15 calendar days to refund any disputed amounts before giving a refund, to prevent the merchant and the Bank refunding the same amount."

I cannot find any written obligation for me to contact the merchant, but do agree that I should not seek to have the payment refunded from both the merchant and the bank as that would obviously result in an unjustifiable gain for myself.

Lloyds have provided no basis for me having to contact the merchant and I have made it clear that I am making my request through them not the merchant to have the payment returned, either route seems justifable to me. They obviously prefer the route where they don't have to do anything, perhaps in order not to expose themselves to a dispute with a merchant with access to a bigger war chest and legal teams and instead they prefer to opt to crush their customers knowing they are likely to be a litigant in person.

It has been asked previously whether I will need to refer to The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as similarly to people bringing claims against Hermes or Parcel2Go I believe I have the option to pursue either the merchant or the card services provider that made the unauthorised payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lloyds failed to make a full data disclosure in response to the SAR they received 13th October 2021.

Rather convenienty they failed to disclose any transactional data covering the period where the dipsuted payment was made as well as when the multiple failed payments took place. Very convenient indeed.

I have informed them of their breach of statutory duty and offered a 14 day extension to provide the missing data.

A complaint has been made to the ICO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyds responded to my query regarding their incomplete disclosure by providing transaction data up to and including 5th October 2021. This is conveniently for them, up until the day before payments where made to Shell Energy.

 

Lloyds have disclosed transaction data beyond this date for example a payment to settle the account on 14th October as well as correspondence that goes beyond the date of the disclosure request.

 

I appreciate that normally claims for distress are made for £100 but in this instance it appears Lloyds are deliberately concealing transaction data between the 6th October and 14th October on my account. The period in which payments were made which are in dispute and currently subject to a legal claim.

I will be bringing a claim against Lloyds in 14 days for their incomplete disclosure, right now I simply have to decide on the amount of quantum before bringing the claim.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@BankFodder Not withstanding the transaction dispute, I believe there is a substantial claim for distress regarding Lloyds Bank PLCs (Lloyds) incomplete data disclosure.

 

Ordinarily I understand the reasoning to bring a claim for £100 for distress regarding an incomplete disclosure, however given the circumstances below I believe a higher quantum should be sought, perhaps in the region of £250.

 

1. Myself and Lloyds are in dispute over transactions that took place on 7th October 2021.

2. Lloyds were sent a SAR on 13th October for data concerning the account.

3. Lloyds provided an incomplete disclosure of data including transactions only up to 28th September.

4. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete.

5. Lloyds responded saying information was not available as my credit card statement had not been published however they included in their reply data up to the 6th October 2021.

6. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete and that they should hand over data beyond this date.

7. Lloyds responded saying they had no further data to disclose.

 

I think the above timeline of events indicates that this is not simply some oversight but an active concealment of data hence why I propose a claim for £250.

 

A LBC has already been sent and Lloyd's deadline to respond is 5th December 2021.

 

Grateful for any comments/suggestions as always.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I doubt very much that there has been an active concealment and if you raise this in a court case, I can imagine that the judge will create a very high bar for you to establish your case. I think you are making difficulties for yourself.

I would avoid accusations of active concealment unless you have very clear and irrefutable evidence.

If you think that you can argue a case for distress worth £250 – then fine. In fact I can imagine that this is mere peanuts to Lloyds and if they realise this is going to court then they may well pay you out simply to get rid of the problem.
I haven't gone back over the thread – but can you prove that the data disclosure was incomplete? Or are you simply reaching a logical conclusion.

Proof that the data disclosure was incomplete would require, for instance, that you have documents already in your hand that were disclosed or else references to other documents which were included in the disclosure.

If you are simply arriving at some logical conclusion – then I'm afraid this amounts to a degree of speculation and you may find it difficult

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BF, thank you for your reply.

 

I do have irrefutable evidence as I am in receipt of copies of my credit card statement which show the transactions that took place on and after 7th October and thus the data they have not disclosed.

 

I move for concealment as for some inexplicable reason they have disclosed data after 7th October 2021 such as a payment to settle the account, as well as correspondence. However I accept your point regarding the high burden of proof and thus will not present it in any proposed particulars of claim which I will post up here for review prior to bringing a claim.

There is an inexplicable gap in their disclosure regarding transactions on the account between 7th October  and 14th October 2021.

 

The reason for the disclosure is I also wanted Lloyds to produce data on transactions that may have been attempted by a customer or requested by a retailer but failed, however no such data has been forthcoming.

I do have additional evidence of failed payments but Lloyds may be able to claim they never received a payment request from the retailer. I do not know enough about the inner workings of card payment services to know if this would be a truthful explanation or not.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyds have failed to respond to my letter of claim concerning their incomplete disclosure and in all likelihood will miss their deadline to respond.

 

I propose the following particulars of claim:

 

Quote

1.On 13th October 2021 a Subject Access Request was submitted to the defendant pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018. The defendant made a partial disclosure of data, which upon review it was incomplete.

 

2. The defendant has breached their statutory duty and continues to do so. The defendant’s breach of their statutory duty and my inability to access my personal data in full has caused me distress.

 

3. The claimant seeks damages for distress £250.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

(1)  If you have already issued proceedings against Lloyds in respect of the duplicate payment, are they still obliged to release to you data relating to that duplicate payment(s) under a SAR, or does your legal claim give them an exemption to that request?

 

(2) Lloyds appear to have suggested that they would have looked further at refunding the duplicate payment if you had first attempted to recover it from the merchant - as it is the merchant who you paid twice (for whatever reason) and who wrongfully retains your payment. 

 

To an outside observer that might appear to have been a reasonable suggestion for Lloyds to have made - yet you've rejected it out of hand and haven't even attempted to do so because you don't think the merchant would refund you? 

 

I'm not sure whether a court would  look favourably on your refusal to follow Lloyds's suggestion. 

 

I think your claim would have been stronger if you had followed their suggestion and they had then failed to refund the duplicate payment after you had done so - it just seems to me that you haven't exhausted all the options you had to get the money back before resorting to court.

 

I'm sure you'll get your money back OK as it'll be a drop in the ocean for Lloyds. 

 

They might pay up quite quickly to get rid of you, or they might now stretch out the process as long as possible... 

Edited by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept the point you have made in paragraph 2 and I am aware of the risks I will incur at any hearing. However the opposite side of the same argument is that Lloyds will have to claim they have no liability whatsovever as the card services provider in a scenario where clearly there was a breakdown of payment services between themselves and the merchant.

 

The Court may decide against me for not exhausting all options or it may accept that myself and this particular merchant are in dispute and there was no reasonable prospect to recover the money. Regardless of those options (which is exactly what I consider them to be options - not obligations), I am of the opinion Lloyds Bank is still liable as a card services provider and if I am successful it will have wide reaching implications on their policy of attempting to fob their customers off whenever they induce preventable mistakes and refuse to correct them.

 

To put it another way, if you have a dispute with an energy company you can use the Ombudsman Service, or you can forgo it and proceed to court.

I have forgone my option of a section 75 claim and wish to hold Lloyds liable. I believe I am only afforded the option of a section 75 claim as a result of the Consumer Credit Act - although this could be an error on my part. And that banks prefer their customers to pursue merchants in full knowledge they are equally liable.

After a lengthy discussion with HSBC regarding the same issue they attempted to fob me off with a similar excuse that I am subject the conditions of Master Card or Visa or whichever company it may be. They attempted to do this by simply referring me to a webpage that does not form any contractual agreement or present itself as terms and conditons to be accepted by me.

I totally disagree with the positions of both banks, if I have entered into agreement and hold an account with Lloyds, I believe all my dealings are be conducted with them and whatever agreements they have with another payment service they intertwine with is a matter for them. My credit card agreement is with Lloyds not Master Card.

 

Both myself and Lloyds will be risking something if this proceeds to Court. I have accepted that and there are few causes worth pursuing that do not carry inherant risk.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to paragraph 1, having re-read what I believe to be the relevant exemptions for data disclosure, being subject to a civil action is not one of them.

In fact I think as it is written the legislature leans in the opposite direction to your suggestion. It indicates that data controllers may only restrict access to a data subject in order to avoid obstructing a legal enquiry. (I find it difficult to imagine such a scenario but it has clearly been considered as a possible one).

If you believe you are aware of such an exemption it would be useful to provide the basis for this in a post that everyone can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put very simply I believe I have the right to demand that either party return the money and am under no obligation to pursue solely the merchant.

I presume the problem this creates for Lloyds - and is the reason they prefer to fight their customers as litigants in person - is that they will have to counter claim for the payment against Shell Energy. Obviously this creates a much bigger problem for them when too well funded legal departments have to battle it out.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried again today to make payment to my Shell Energy account using my Lloyds credit card to find that the card has been declined.

 

Shell Energy have recently updated their website so the issues may be a result of these on-going changes.

 

Whatever the cause it is a matter for them, I have copied both Lloyds and Shell together in e-mail to let me know when they have resolved their payment issues.

My card works unencumbered with all other merchants.

 

Lloyds solicitors Southerlands have responded to my claim for not returning my payment with a defence, an application to strike out the claim and evidence of the applicable fee for the hearing to strike out the claim.

 

Attached below is a redacted copy of each document listed above. I wanted to limit the number of documents uploaded but due to the size limit it was necessary to split the application to strike out into two parts and post them below.

 

Things I understand from this forum are that this is essentially a way of getting me to reveal my case early at the hearing for strike out.

I also understand the first step by big firms is usually to attempt to intimidate LiP with costs, this is a consideration but first it must be seen whether the claim is struck out and if not to which track it will be allocated.

 

I will begin preparing a witness statement for the strike out hearing and post it up for review.

A few things I note immediately are:

1) They have produced within their defence application to strike out, evidence that they have failed to make a full data disclosure to me.
2) They seem to be unaware that the burden of proof is strictly on them to prove payments are authorised as per BCOBs, not the other way around.

3) While it is likely they have paid the applicable hearing fee to the court to strike out the application, what they appear to have sent me is an internal receipt. I will of course await confirmation from the Court that they have indeed paid the applicable hearing fee.

 

Lloyds application to strike out part 1.

 

 

Lloyds application to strike out part 2.

 

Docs1.pdf

 

The ICO have responded today indicating they have written to Lloyds regarding my complaint about their incomplete disclosure.

A copy of their correspondence is attached as a PDF.

Docs2.pdf

 

Lloyds' defence is largely based around the fact I have not requested repayment from the merchant.

Here is information taken directly from which.co.uk regarding section 75 claims.

"Your rights under Section 75

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

This means it is just as responsible as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied, allowing you to also put your claim to the credit card company.

You don't have to reach a stalemate with the retailer or trader before you can contact your credit card provider - you can make a claim to both the retailer and credit card provider simultaneously, although you can't recover your losses from both.

This right is particularly useful if the retailer or trader has gone bust, or it doesn't respond to your letters or phone calls.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act also applies to foreign transactions as well as goods bought online, by telephone or mail order for delivery to the UK from overseas."

I think I will base my witness statement around the fact that Shell Energy failed to provide me with a reliable way to make payments as a result of their repeated system errors. I think this will essentially be a breach of contract between us or a failure of service for which I consider my credit card company, Lloyds Bank, jointly liable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last part regarding Section 75 can be dis-regarded, as stated by @dx100uk in post #21 the dispute revolves around grounds for a chargeback.

 

I have read through the conditions for a chargeback when paying using a MasterCard here.

 

The closest I can come to describing the situation I encountered is either under the grounds of:

1) Credit not processed.
or
2) Purchase transaction did not complete.

 

It is likely these terms relate to the fact that a payment must be returned if is not processed or completed. However I have no choice but to argue that the two payments were induced as a result of several credits not being processed, or the fact that multiple transactions did not complete and that was the root cause of the two payments and thus one of the payments qualifies for a chargeback.

 

It is likely I will require a degree of latitude from the Court for not making this clearer earlier, however this can hopefully be cleared up in my witness statement prior to any strike out or judgement hearing.

It may be possible to argue that what I was asking Lloyds to carry out amounted to a chargeback and that Lloyds staff should have been aware of this and therefore were incorrect in insisting that I should contact the merchant.

If I am successful I will consider asking the Court to make a discretionary award for the inconvenience I have been caused as a result of Lloyds misconstruing the dispute as a Section 75 claim. This can be evidenced by the phone call where their customer agents I spoke to took little notice of the circumstances surrounding the payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't follow that through but the card is labelled mastercard debit visa by various logo's and ofcourse the transaction appeared on the relevant lloyds bank account statement ?

 

if so yes chargeback

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The card is a Mastercard credit card and the transactions appear on a credit card statement.

Things are a little too far along now to intiate the process from the beginning but I am of the opinion Lloyds should have accepted my complaint as such.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

as its under £100 and on a credit card then section 75 does not apply BUT on a credit Card you can invoke chargeback for sums under £100

 

hope this helps.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Intrepid It's quite possible that I have misunderstood (apologies if I have!) but are you proposing to try to enforce a chargeback against Lloyds via a court claim?

 

Is it possible to base a court claim on chargeback?  I thought chargeback was simply a facility that card providers offered to their customers and that it was essentially an agreement between Visa and Mastercard and the banks that issue their cards.  Chargeback isn't a legal right (like a s75 claim) that customers can enforce against their banks in the courts, is it?

 

On 07/12/2021 at 22:34, Intrepid said:

The last part regarding Section 75 can be dis-regarded, as stated by @dx100uk in post #21 the dispute revolves around grounds for a chargeback.

...

 

Erm.  I think it might be possible that you have misunderstood what dx100uk was saying in #21?

 

I don't think they were suggesting that your case revolved around grounds for a chargeback?  I think they were merely pointing out how long it had taken Lloyds to deal with chargebacks that they had had occasion to make in the past.  It was an example of how quickly (or slowly) Lloyds deal with chargebacks as an example of a refund claim.  They weren't suggesting your case was a chargeback candidate.

 

(Again - apologies if I've misunderstood but I don't understand where the idea of a chargeback has come from... ?)

 

[Edit:  Generally a cardholder is much better off if their card provider processes a s75 claim - where applicable - rather than a chargeback.  That's because it's much easier for a merchant to get round a chargeback than a s75 claim.  Unless a s75 claim is not available - a debit card purchase or credit card <£100 - it's unusual for the customer to prefer a chargeback]

 

On 07/12/2021 at 22:44, dx100uk said:

i didn't follow that through but the card is labelled mastercard debit visa by various logo's and ofcourse the transaction appeared on the relevant lloyds bank account statement ?

 

if so yes chargeback

 

Ah!  The penny's just dropped!  So @Intrepid's claim is in respect of a single duplicate payment worth just £84 so s75 doesn't apply...

 

But you still can't base a court claim on a chargeback can you?

 

 

 

On 06/12/2021 at 17:06, Intrepid said:

...I presume the problem this creates for Lloyds - and is the reason they prefer to fight their customers as litigants in person - is that they will have to counter claim for the payment against Shell Energy. Obviously this creates a much bigger problem for them when too well funded legal departments have to battle it out.

 

Somehow I doubt that having to battle it out over £84 will cause the respective legal departments of Lloyds and Shell any problems whatsoever - although it may be less "interesting" than having to deal directly with their customers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

doh! fully read the thread first eh?

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know!    😄

 

My excuse is I'd just been re-reading the OP's Fitness Superstore/used treadmill/delivery/collection thread and stll had a figure of a grand plus in my head!  I also couldn't understand why the OP had suddenly started talking about s75 and chargeback from the end of #39 onwards...?

 

But none of that alters my suggestion that it doesn't help @Intrepid if he decides to bring chargeback into his court claim, does it?  Chargeback doesn't give the customer any legal right to sue their bank - how it works depends on the T&Cs set by Visa and Mastercard, and if your bank says they want you to raise any dispute with the merchant first, then that's how it works. 

 

The ironic thing is that if the OP had done as Lloyds had originally suggested, they would probably have had their money back 6 weeks ago instead of still arguing about it!  Either Shell Energy would have reversed the second payment or - if they hadn't - Lloyds would have charged it back and Shell would have been unable to challenge it as the OP clearly didn't owe them that second payment.

 

I admire your continued support after #14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyds would not have charged the payment back I think that is a rather naive assumption, they would have agreed with whatever made up position Shell Energy come up with.

 

Lloyds have witheld data from me concerning the payments. It is impossible for me to assess liability properly without the detailed information I requsetd so I believe I am justified in pursuing either company. I have decided to pursue Lloyds.

Payment failures are a matter between Shell Energy and Lloyds Bank. They can fight it out between them if they so wish for the grand sum of £84. However I think you're probably right, it won't cause them any problems because they won't bother. Both companies will however bother to fight their customers with gusto.

I am not convinced Chargeback is the corret route here, liability is for whomever is responsible for the multiple payment failures. However like the parking threads I will make my case in priority order and if I can make a case albeit weaker than my other cause for action then I will include it and the judge can either agree, disagree or ignore that part of my claim accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lloyds are monitoring this thread or their request for a hearing to dismiss is granted then they will get a free bite of the claim raised against them - most likely as they intended.

In any case I have prepared my first crack at the witness statement (attached below) I will likely have to submit for any hearing to dismiss.

 

Questions, comments, critiques gratefully received.

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

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re point 10 in your statement of truth, have you actually asked Shell Energy to reverse the duplicate payment?  I ask because I understood that you had not done so as you considered it a foregone concusion that they would not give the money back... 

 

On 15/10/2021 at 10:53, Ethel Street said:

I can't see this has been asked (apologies if I missed it), but if you made a duplicate payment accidentally to the same online seller have you asked the seller to refund it? Presumably they will have recieved twice the amount of money they are entitled to.

 

On 15/10/2021 at 10:58, Intrepid said:

... Thank you, they have asked, and of course I considered it and would do so, however it is a pointless task because regrettably it was to Shell Energy with whom there is a protracted dispute and they will keep anything they can get their hands on right now.

 

Asking and being rebutted and providing Lloyds with the rebuttal will likely hinder things in the future as they grasp at any reason they can to do nothing...

 

 

Did you subsequently change your mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have also said:

 

On 05/11/2021 at 00:19, Intrepid said:

...Lloyds have provided no basis for me having to contact the merchant and I have made it clear that I am making my request through them not the merchant to have the payment returned, either route seems justifable to me. ...

 

On 06/12/2021 at 17:06, Intrepid said:

Put very simply I believe I have the right to demand that either party return the money and am under no obligation to pursue solely the merchant.
 

 

Apart from point 10 in your statement of truth, I can't see any reference anywhere to you asking Shell Energy for your money back?  In fact you seem to want to make a point of the fact that you only want to pursue Lloyds and not Shell... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...