What equates to a reasonable offer?

[stewart70redwood]

I am a customer of Lloyds TSB, I am in the process taking out a small claims against Lloyds using the downloaded template, however I need to find out more in depth information about the law.

 

1. What percentage of the initial claim is accepted as an reasonable offer by Lloyds before it goes to court?

2. If I refuse a 'reasonable offer' and demand full payment, can the judge throw my case out of court?

3. Can I claim compensation on top of what I am asking back in charges, for example; loss of earnings, stress related?

4. I have been quoted that an 'unlawful act', is one being without legal justification, I need more clarification of this statement and examples of this act in case history? To me they are not breaking any law, but not adhering to guidelines, can anyone makes this clear?

5. The Unfair Terms (1999) refers to a penalty charge, Are these charges in fact service charges, could someone please clarify and give an example?

6. Could someone give an example of'supply of goods & service act (1982) used successfully in a court of law similiar to 'bank charges"?

7. No bank has gone to court, is that because all claimants have accepted offers? What if you refuse such an offer, does a hearing still take place whether the defendant is there or not?

 

Thank-you

 

Stewart

[Bookworm]

1. What percentage of the initial claim is accepted as an reasonable offer by Lloyds before it goes to court? 100%. It's a simple monetary claim, there is no reason to accept less.

2. If I refuse a 'reasonable offer' and demand full payment, can the judge throw my case out of court? No, for same reasons as above.

3. Can I claim compensation on top of what I am asking back in charges, for example; loss of earnings, stress related? Short answer, no.

4. I have been quoted that an 'unlawful act', is one being without legal justification, I need more clarification of this statement and examples of this act in case history? To me they are not breaking any law, but not adhering to guidelines, can anyone makes this clear? You need to read and understand the law relating to penalty charges. It is all in the Library. But in short, contract law states that the parties can only recover their costs caused by the other party's breach. Anything wildly beyond this is a penalty, and penalties are unlawful at British law.

 

5. The Unfair Terms (1999) refers to a penalty charge, Are these charges in fact service charges, could someone please clarify and give an example? Explain, this doesn't make sense. If it is a penalty (eg disproportionate to their loss, and imposed by them, with no choice to opt-out) it can not be a service. An ATM charge would be a service, as you can choose to go to an non-fee charging ATM, for example.

6. Could someone give an example of'supply of goods & service act (1982) used successfully in a court of law similiar to 'bank charges"? Too broad a scope, I suggest you Google it, and see what that throws.

 

7. No bank has gone to court, is that because all claimants have accepted offers? What if you refuse such an offer, does a hearing still take place whether the defendant is there or not? You can't do that, once they have offered to settle in full, including your court costs and interest, you have to withdraw your claim.

[stewart70redwood]

Hello everyone

 

Just in the process of going via the small claims court claiming back charges from Lloyds, however I am not a lawyer, don't think I need to be anyway because Lloyds will never turn up in court anyway, however I do need back up and research.

 

1. What is a reasonable offer? What percentage of the initial claim is acceptable and do I have to accept this without jeopardising my case? I have heard rumours that the judge can throw a case out because of the latter.

2. What is an 'unlawful act', my definition is one being without legal justification, does that mean the Banks are not acting illegally? Any case histories?

3. The 'Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Reg (1999) relates to a penalty charge, my worry is that the Banks can argue against the term 'penalty' and refer to 'SERVICE CHARGE', Can someone eleborate on this please and give any examples?

4. So the Banks have never defended any'Bank charge' claim, is this because all claimants have accepted offers? If however, I refused and demanded full amount and compensation would the hearing still go ahead despite the defendant attending or not? Can a judge rule in favour in absence of the defendant?

5. So, what are we claiming against? Are we challenging the Banks purely on the refund of our money or challeging them on breaking the Contract and acting 'inlawful'? Can you challenge the claiment on just the latter only, regardless of any offers?

 

Excuse my spelling and look forward to talking

 

Stewart

[livelylad]

Hello everyone

 

Just in the process of going via the small claims court claiming back charges from Lloyds, however I am not a lawyer, don't think I need to be anyway because Lloyds will never turn up in court anyway, however I do need back up and research.

 

1. What is a reasonable offer? What percentage of the initial claim is acceptable and do I have to accept this without jeopardising my case? I have heard rumours that the judge can throw a case out because of the latter.

2. What is an 'unlawful act', my definition is one being without legal justification, does that mean the Banks are not acting illegally? Any case histories?

3. The 'Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Reg (1999) relates to a penalty charge, my worry is that the Banks can argue against the term 'penalty' and refer to 'SERVICE CHARGE', Can someone eleborate on this please and give any examples?

4. So the Banks have never defended any'Bank charge' claim, is this because all claimants have accepted offers? If however, I refused and demanded full amount and compensation would the hearing still go ahead despite the defendant attending or not? Can a judge rule in favour in absence of the defendant?

5. So, what are we claiming against? Are we challenging the Banks purely on the refund of our money or challeging them on breaking the Contract and acting 'inlawful'? Can you challenge the claiment on just the latter only, regardless of any offers?

 

Excuse my spelling and look forward to talking

 

Stewart

 

Hello I can answer all your questions in a simple sentence: Its your money and you are quite within your rights to reclaim all of it.

 

Banks have not been to court because they dont have a leg to stand on, and they know it.

Stick to your guns and they will refund all of the unlawful charges.

[stewart70redwood]

Hello everyone

 

Just in the process of going via the small claims court claiming back charges from Lloyds, however I am not a lawyer, don't think I need to be anyway because Lloyds will never turn up in court anyway, however I do need back up and research.

 

1. What is a reasonable offer? What percentage of the initial claim is acceptable and do I have to accept this without jeopardising my case? I have heard rumours that the judge can throw a case out because of the latter.

2. What is an 'unlawful act', my definition is one being without legal justification, does that mean the Banks are not acting illegally? Any case histories?

3. The 'Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Reg (1999) relates to a penalty charge, my worry is that the Banks can argue against the term 'penalty' and refer to 'SERVICE CHARGE', Can someone eleborate on this please and give any examples?

4. So the Banks have never defended any'Bank charge' claim, is this because all claimants have accepted offers? If however, I refused and demanded full amount and compensation would the hearing still go ahead despite the defendant attending or not? Can a judge rule in favour in absence of the defendant?

5. So, what are we claiming against? Are we challenging the Banks purely on the refund of our money or challeging them on breaking the Contract and acting 'inlawful'? Can you challenge the claiment on just the latter only, regardless of any offers?

 

Excuse my spelling and look forward to talking

 

Stewart

[stewart70redwood]

Don't worry, I am going ahead, but I was on 'This is money' forum and had a toatally different reponse from people, some saying that you should keep your accounts in an orderly fashion and this would never happen. I gave as good as I got!

Anyway, the Banks can legally charge, which I work out at about £4.50, this amount truly refects the cost. I don't mind paying charges if it falls into that calculation. So I am not against the bank charge but the 'contract' that they have broken, what they have done is unethical & unlawful. I want them in court over the 'contract issue' regardless of how much they want to compensate me. If they have wriiten calculations to justify their charges, I will be happy to listen to them in court.

 

Stewart

[livelylad]

Don't worry, I am going ahead, but I was on 'This is money' forum and had a toatally different reponse from people, some saying that you should keep your accounts in an orderly fashion and this would never happen. I gave as good as I got!

Anyway, the Banks can legally charge, which I work out at about £4.50, this amount truly refects the cost. I don't mind paying charges if it falls into that calculation. So I am not against the bank charge but the 'contract' that they have broken, what they have done is unethical & unlawful. I want them in court over the 'contract issue' regardless of how much they want to compensate me. If they have wriiten calculations to justify their charges, I will be happy to listen to them in court.

 

Stewart

 

You will not get a bank into court or get disclosure regarding the actual breakdown of costs. They will settle in full first, once they offer you the full amount you can not legally refuse it.

[stewart70redwood]

Why cannot I refuse the offer?

[stewart70redwood]

What if I add compensation on top?

[kevcam]

Hi Stewart welcome to the forum,

 

In answer to your questions:

 

1. A reasonable offer? - that is really up to the individual, however most agree 100% is the only reasonable offer and I would agree.

 

2. We are not dealing with criminal law therefore the banks are not doing anything illegal. We are dealing witgh civil law, therefore we use the term unlawful.

 

3. Read up on the sample case law included on the bank template page. In the case of Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co [1886], Lord Watson stated that: "There is a presumption (but no more) that a charge is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

 

4. Banks have settled all claims. If you stick to your guns you will get all charges back. Some people have accepted smaller sums to speed up repayment. It can be quite a waiting game.

 

5. You are asking for repayment of charges because the bank's system of default charges is unlawful.

[livelylad]

Why cannot I refuse the offer?

 

Because they have paid you in full. What else do you want?

[stewart70redwood]

Thanks very much

 

1. Can I claim compensation on top?

[stewart70redwood]

A fight! ha ha

[lucid]

What if I add compensation on top?

 

Unfortunately you can't go adding compensation on top of your amount - especially after you've filed your claim.

 

Good luck. Lucid

 

PS: The MODS can change thread titles for you - and they will also merge threads for you. You just need to PM them.

[kevcam]

You are really just due your charges back with interest and court fees.

 

The exception would be if you could prove that you have encountered further expense due to the taking of these charges.

 

For example if the bank forced you into taking a loan to pay for the charges you may have a claim for the cost of the loan (the interest paid).

[Bookworm]

3 threads merged. Why post the same post in 3 different places?

 

In future, please stay on one thread per claim. It will save lots of people all giving you answers, and will help you keeping track of your claim.

[GaryH]

I think Bookworm has already covered all your questions pretty comprehensively in post 2.

 

You are really just due your charges back with interest and court fees.

 

The exception would be if you could prove that you have encountered further expense due to the taking of these charges.

 

For example if the bank forced you into taking a loan to pay for the charges you may have a claim for the cost of the loan (the interest paid).

 

This would be consequential losses. If you go down this road expect the bank to defend that part of the claim more vigorously than usual, which could possibly lead to a court appearence. Its fairly uncharted territory as far as bank charges claims go. You have a right to claim for it if you wanted to I suppose, but any losses you claimed for would have to be clearly quantifiable as a direct consequence of the unlawful charges. Evidance would be needed to substantiate the link.

 

Its discussed in this thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/33880-stress-inconvenience.html#post264857. Follow the link in my post (no 6) to Bean's thread, who also claimed for consequential losses.