Nat vs Lloyds ***WON***

[GuidoT]

This should help:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay.html

 

I am not sure if this could be strengthened on the basis of the orders we are presently seeing, e.g. Kazzaw's. No doubt someone else will advise if they think appropriate.

[babylovejjmc]

Just saw another case and exactly the same letter was sent to them today by gloucester court. Atleast im not alone hey!! Gary shed some light on this one for me!! As its only a month and a 1/2 away till the date stated im tempted to wait but then again will it definately go to court then or will i be held on waiting for it still to be lifted...??

[GaryH]

Is it Gloucester court then? They've always had a thing for ordering stays, they were the first court to start ordering them - in anticipation of the Elliot v Lloyds test case which, obviously, never happened. None of the subsequent ones have either so you'd think they'd know full well by now that the banks are never going to let a test case get to court.

 

You can apply to remove it if you want to. Theres a good chance you'll be successful - many on here have successfully applied to remove stays (myself included), mainly thanks to that excellent template GuidoT has just linked for you. Personally though, as the stay is only for a couple of months, I'm not sure it'd be worth the hassle. If you apply for set-aside it'll cost you £35 which you won't get back, it'll take a month to process and there is the very realistic possibility you'll be called to an application hearing - as I did in my case.

 

If you decide not to formally apply for a set-aside, I think you should still write to the court as per the stay removal template. It might not do you any good with regards to lifting the stay, but the more the issues are drawn to the courts attention the better. Stays such as this are pointless and benefit nobody apart from the defendent. Also add to the letter a copy of Kazzaws order if you like.

 

Also, you can contact SC&M as per this letter to attempt to narrow the issues - it'll make them look bad in the eyes of the court when they don't respond - Nationwide first.Lloyds last but not least ***WON***

Copy the court too.

 

HTH

[GuidoT]

As to the Kazzaw order, we should know the outcome of this in a few days - see post 45, therefore it maybe prudent to have this knowledge before making your next move:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/48310-paula-3.html

[babylovejjmc]

 

Just about to send the following letter to the court does it sound ok? used basic template for stay removal for the info but added a few bits here and there...any opinions welcome...

 

 

Claim Number XXXXX

Dear Sir,

Although I am not applying for the removal of the stay, I feel that it is appropriate to raise the following issues in relation to this claim and the stay which has been ordered upon the results of a possible test case being heard in a higher court.

Human Rights

 

Article 6 1. of the European Convention on Human Rights states that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”. I therefore feel that in a claim for a sum of £1,167 (before added interests and costs), an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between two other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case, is not reasonable.

It is also not clear that the test cases mentioned will be heard as predicted. Another concern is that in the event that the test cases actually do go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 2 years or more – from the date of the initial trial.

Even if the predicted case does go to trial, it is not certain that it will proceed to judgment as it is entirely possible that there will be a settlement during the course of the litigation so that the question in issue is inconclusive.

The Over-riding 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 in this case. 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 thousands of similar cases. Evidence of several of these can be provided. In the majority of these cases Lloyds filed defences and returned their allocation questionnaire, asking 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 fund free banking for its customers. This statement merely adds to the evidence that the default charges being made by the defendant are not used solely to reimburse monetary losses made by breaches of contract. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording of the court wishes.

Although I am perfectly happy to continue discussions with the defendant to settle this claim, I do not feel that any settlement will be reached until a court date is received and even then, trends show that it is within the final few days before the hearing that a settlement is reached. I therefore submit that to await a date for the hearing, after waiting for over a month for the file to be referred back to the Judge, is lost and potentially wasted time for both myself and the court.

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. Many courts have now become aware of this and have begun to request that Lloyds bank submit a list of hearings which they have actually attended once the court date has been given. To my knowledge, so far Lloyds bank have been unable to do this.

From the evidence I have seen in relation to similar cases, I believe 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 once a court date is issued. 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 rights. It is therefore 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 my family and I.

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, the banks so far have settled every one of the test cases it has been issued 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 for the claimant.

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.

 

Requests

During the period of 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 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

 

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.

However, I do appreciate the opportunity to settle the claim without proceeding to a court hearing and will be contacting the Defendants representatives during the period of the stay in order to attempt a settlement.

Yours sincerely

XXXXX XXXXXXX

[babylovejjmc]

just about to send this to scm too so is this ok...

 

 

Your Ref: xxxxxxxxx

 

Case Number xxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you in an attempt to reach a fair and just settlement in order to comply with the court order dated 11th March 2007 by District Judge Singleton, at the Gloucestershire County Court.

In order to reach this settlement I will summarise the main issues of this claim and I hope that this will enable you to understand my position and work toward reaching an agreement as to the refund of the charges made to my bank account.

The main issue in this case is that I object to the charges that your defendant, Lloyds TSB, have made to my account due to breaches of contract.

I fully accept without reservation that the Defending bank has the right to recover its actual losses caused by my contractual breaches. However, I do not feel that the charges are being used to reimburse losses made by such breaches. It is submitted that they are actually being used to profit the bank and to fund the free banking service which I in fact don’t even receive, as I am charged a monthly fee simply for using my account.

 

It is submitted that if the Defendant can provide evidence to show that the charge's levied match the losses incurred by such breaches, I will be more than happy to amend my claim so that it is only for the sum which remains once the actual costs of the breaches are recovered.

If the charges are contractual, as they are described to be, I simply request that the charges be levied at a reasonable rate. Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 supports this notion.

If I were convinced that you were being fair and just in your penalty charging regime then I would agree that I should be obliged to pay you a fee for breaches of contract. However, this fee should be reasonable and should be regulated by an independent company.

Ever since the law relating to penalties was established in the late 1800s contractual parties have regularly attempted to disguise their penalties as contractual services of some type. The courts are fully aware of this technique of avoiding the Common Law. Even the Office of Fair Trading report earlier this year referred to this and stated that institutions should not attempt to disguise their penalties.

This case can be easily settled if you simply provide evidence of your actual costs. It is very clear that this is the stumbling block for your clients and for the many other banks which are presently involved in the current flood of penalty charge litigation.

 

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxxxxxx

[GaryH]

Excellent. I think your making the correct decision.

 

There's a couple of things I would add;

 

Dear Sir,

 

Although I am not formally applying for the set-aside of the stay, I feel that it is appropriate to raise the following issues in relation to this claim and the stay which has been ordered upon the results of a possible test case being heard in a higher court.

 

Human Rights

 

(I would actually suggest removing this section altogether. The stay is not indeterminate and is actually reletively short, so I'm not sure this applies. Best shortening it to include only the most compelling arguements IMO)

 

Article 6 1. of the European Convention on Human Rights states that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”. I therefore feel that in a claim for a sum of £1,167 (before added interests and costs), an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between two other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case, is not reasonable.

 

It is also not clear that the test cases mentioned will be heard as predicted. Another concern is that in the event that the test cases actually do go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 2 years or more – from the date of the initial trial.

 

Even if the predicted case does go to trial, it is not certain that it will proceed to judgment as it is entirely possible that there will be a settlement during the course of the litigation so that the question in issue is inconclusive.

 

The Over-riding 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 in this case. 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 thousands of similar cases. Evidence of several of these can be provided. In the majority of these cases Lloyds filed defences and 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 fund free banking for its customers. This statement merely adds to the evidence that the default charges being made by the defendant are not used solely to reimburse monetary losses made by breaches of contract. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording of the court wishes.

 

Although I am perfectly happy to continue discussions with the defendant to settle this claim, I do not feel that any settlement will be reached until a court date is received and even then, trends show that it is within the final few days before the hearing that a settlement is reached. I therefore submit that to await a date for the hearing, after waiting for over a month for the file to be referred back to the Judge, is lost and potentially wasted time for both myself and the court.

 

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. Many courts have now become aware of this and have begun to request that Lloyds bank submit a list of hearings which they have actually attended once the court date has been given. To my knowledge, so far Lloyds bank have been unable to do this.

 

From the evidence I have seen in relation to similar cases, I believe 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 once a court date is issued. 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 rights. It is therefore submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

I also feel it is appropriate to draw the courts attention to the following Ex Parte order which has, to date, been made in at least six cases identical to my own in Lincoln and Newark County Courts:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

"The Court of its own motion is considering striking out the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis the Defendant is settling all claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.”

 

28 December 2006

 

The Court considered the authority of Mullen -v- Hackney London Borough Council (1997) 2 A11ER 906 as relevant.

 

 

Balance of convenience

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is a significant sum to my family and I.

 

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, the banks so far have settled every one of the test cases it has been issued 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 for the claimant.

 

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

(I'd leave out this section too - up to you though)

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.

 

Requests

 

During the period of 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 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

 

 

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.

 

However, I do appreciate the opportunity to settle the claim without proceeding to a court hearing and will be contacting the Defendants representatives during the period of the stay in order to attempt a settlement.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Also, make sure you send a copy of the SC&M letter to the court.

 

Good job:)

[babylovejjmc]

Cheers Gary have made changes u suggested and will post tomorrow, ur a star! Thanks!

[babylovejjmc]

Really scared now, got court date set for 17th April. Rang court as my partner wont be able to present the case himself (he gets too nervous and wont be able to say what he means) and they said that they dont have people there who can talk for you. cant afford solicitor so what do we do if it does go to the hearing? Plus, should i start ringing lloyds now saying time is getting short for them to settle?? HELP!!!!!

[BARTY]

Hi

It is very highly likely that you will have received a settlement by then.

Have you got directions about submitting your evidence on your letter?

These links should help:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/guidance-notes/64911-got-court-date-guide.html

 

Barty:)

[babylovejjmc]

its an allocation hearing, unbelievable as i just waited 6 weeks for the stay to end and now they do this as well. Anyway, my partner has dyslexia and stutters basically so he wont be confiednt enough to talk to the judge so what do i do now as i know this hearing goes to court to decide what track the claim goes to?HELP! Seriously stressed out right now.

[GaryH]

Its ok - its only an allocation hearing. It'll last all of 10 minutes and remember that nothing can be 'won' or 'lost' at that type of hearing so there is no pressure. You, or anyone else for that matter, can speak on behalf of your O/H as his "lay representitive", although he will have to be present on the day too. Read the second link that Barty provided for you for some info on allocation hearings, which will also tell you what you need to take with you.

 

Is your claim a reletively straightforward 6 years charges + 8% interest? If so, and there are no complicating factors such as CI or pre-6 years or default removal, then it is highly likely that Lloyds will settle beforehand anyway. That said, don't just rely on that - obviously you should prepare for the hearing just in case.

 

I certainly would'nt ring them, no - they'll only try to frustrate you even more.

[babylovejjmc]

Do i need to ask court beforehand about standing as his lay representative? gary u r a blessing for always replying! just a stright forward 6 years with 8% added yeah, do lloyds often settle before the allocation hearin then? throught they usually stuck it out till the final one?

[GaryH]

Im 99% sure that a lay rep can be appointed on the day without notice, but I will double check. In any case it would'nt do any harm just to write a short note to the court informing them of your intention.

 

Yes, Lloyds do usually settle before any hearing - either that or they just don't turn up! The only time I've known them to attend prelim, allocation or application hearings, etc. is when there is a CI or limitations issue involved.

[babylovejjmc]

Cheers Gary, if u could check that for me i would appreciate it but i will write a short note to the court anyhow just in case. well fingers crossed for a settlement soon then, i hope so i really do! my daughters 1st birthday on 11th april so will make a lovely late birthday treat!!

[babylovejjmc]

Just to say i have sent letter to court now telling them i am representing my partner. So......Just awaiting the 17th now, not so scared now as i got it all planned out but hoping for that setllement beforehand, fingers crossed!!!! Will post any updates as they occur.

 

p.s. because my partner has an ongoing loan and credit card with lloyds could they decide to pay refund onto one of those blanace instead of his courrent account?

[babylovejjmc]

sorry that was meant to say "balances"! Very tired mum here today!

[GaryH]

I don't think so, although there is something called a "right of offset" meaning they can offset any amount owing against any other indebtedness to them - I think this would only occur if you/he were heavily in arrears and had defaulted, etc. I've not heard of them paying refunds into any other account than the one the charges were taken from in the first place.

[babylovejjmc]

ok cool well we are upto date with all debts to them and no problems ever happened with the loan etc. so all sounds ok then. Thanks Gary!

[RIPOFFBANKZ]

i need to fill out my N1 form, how do i start a thread?

[babylovejjmc]

if you go to the lloyds bank section on the website, at the top of the page there is a button which says new thread. go onto that and it will lead ou through the stages of settign up your own thread.

[babylovejjmc]

OH MY GOD!! Just checked balance and they have refunded it all into the account!!!! I am so happy and relieved, have made donation already to this site as it is AMAZING and a life saver!

 

Thank you to everyone who helped me, i am forever indebted to you all.

 

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GaryH]

Woohoooo!!

 

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

 

Great news, well done!

[babylovejjmc]

Cheers gary, couldnt have done it without u love!

 

Best wishes and keep up the good work!

 

Love Natalie!

[ncf355]

Nice work there!

 

I'm due to start on Lloyds soon (leaving the best for last)

 

Wel done, enjoy!