Jump to content


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


Intrepid
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

@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 by Intrepid
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :wink:

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

@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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 2

 

Quote

Reference: Claim XXXX
 

Dear Mr Dyke

Your payment is not accepted, please provide me with details on how to return the payment to you.

Despite making no reference to the on-going claim 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 with 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.

Please advise me whether you have provided the Information Commissioner’s Office with the reasons as to your failure to meet your data protection obligations as requested by them on 10th January 2022 and if so provide me with a copy of your submission to the ICO.
 

The FOS has been requested to investigate your level of service regarding the handling of my complaint as well as the telephone conversation with your customer service team on 7th October 2021.
 

I am willing to accept the payment only as payment for the poor level of service you provided when I contacted the customer service team on 7th October 2021. In particular referring to when your employee “Carol” was willing to make misleading statements to their customer over the phone and the false statements made in your response to my complaint dated 13th October 2021.
 

Please let me know if you wish for the payment to be accepted as such.
 

As much as you would likely prefer to conflate the two issues to your benefit they are very much separate and for the avoidance of doubt any payment for settlement of your breach of the Data Protection Act is not accepted.

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

Yours,

 

Edited by Intrepid
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...