RedDeath v LloydsTSB

[RedDeath]

Ok, well here it is my first draft to claim charges back.

Now without going into the risks of having to pay their legal costs which I am fully aware, what would the possibilities of getting this through.

 

Any comments, or ammendments to the figures, or any area that could be expanded/deleted/modified would be greatly appreciated.

 

Keeping my cards close to my chest

[GaryH]

I am going to unsubscribe from this thread now as I don't feel I'm able to contribute any further. What you are proposing is not only frought with danger, but more importantly its way beyond the realms of this sites capabilities. We are here to help people reclaim bank charges, and cannot condone members taking on complex and ill-conceived actions such as this.

 

If this is a course of action which you are intent on taking, then I would strongly advise that you seek professional legal advice first.

[RedDeath]

Ok Gary, you have made your point.

 

I personally feel that there is a direct correlation between the charges and the effect it has had on my credit rating, and I am willing to consider the possibility of damages. At this stage it is an idea, one that I am giving considerable thought to and that i am not entering into in a light hearted manner.

 

Yes, the claim may be viewed as complex, or could be simplified as if the charges had been fair from the beginning then my situation would have been very different. And in my eyes I have a case for claiming damages. I have explained my thought process, I have cross-referenced it and am seriously considering this.

 

If you feel that this is something that you can not advise on then that is fair enough as I am not looking for approval, rather a discussion of pros and cons.

 

Rather than unsubscribing from it because of the danger, I would rather have had an informed discussion of where the dangers lie, but if this is your take on things, I respect that, and thank you for the advice given so far.

 

If anyone does however have any constructive criticism with regards to this then I would be really grateful for the comments.

 

Finally, I am not looking to be condoned and I am certainly not being spoon fed this information. I am making an informed decision based on my circumstances.

 

I would be interested in knowing why the idea is ill conceived though, that was the whole point of posting the comment, but then again if you have unsubscribed I guess I will never know your proper thoughts on the matter.

[caro]

I'm not clear what this document is meant to be, but as you use the word defendant, I assume that it is a draft particulars of claim. Have you sent your preliminary request for payment yet, or your LBA? I cannot find a single mention of any basis of law for your claim. Either of the examples below are far more comprehensive and will get your charges back.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/34887-5-money-claim-line.html

 

Do not get me wrong, I sympathise with you, and I agree you have suffered, but even if by some miracle you got your claim through with CI, you would stand no chance with damages.

 

I completely agree with Gary, that you should seek legal advice before even thinking of doing this. It is just too risky and I will probably unsubscribe as well if you continue with it.

[jonni2bad]

Oh dear.

 

I have to say that these PoC seem likely to cause more trouble for you than the bank.

 

Claims for consequential loss based upon the fact the bank charged you more than you believe they should are fraught with danger and unless you have hard-core evidence of all the points in the PoC then I'm afraid that these will likely lead you nowhere.

 

I think you need to step back from this, take time to consider the implications of such a claim and then focus your efforts on what can be achieved.

 

I have scanned the previous pages of this thread and note that you have received a few similar suggestions in the past (maybe not for the same reasons). You appear to be determined (which is fine) but beyond the point of reason (which is not).

 

Your claim, your decision. I know which way I would be headed, and it is not the same way that you appear to be facing.

[TANZARELLI]

Hi Red,

 

In my honest opinion (for what its worth), I simpathise with your situation and can also relate to it as I too as have also been in a similar boat to you, by having to take out loans with Welcom and Black Horse, the latter defaulting me too. I have recently successfully had charges and default removed from Capital One (with help from J2B I might add), and will also, when I have dealt with a few other claims, be trying to takle Black Horse, to reclaim charges and attempt to remove the default.

 

I think my point is that I feel you would be better to attempt to reclaim the charges and any defaults from your file, in order to improve your credit status, as well as winning interest etc. This will improve your rating and therefore improve your ability to obtain credit in the future. I am paying off my welcome loan each month also to try to build up my rating in this respect too.

 

I personally feel that a claim like this will not do you any favours mate, but will as mentoined previously, cause you problems. It may not even get to court as you may find it is struck out, or on the other hand it prob will end up in another track other than small claims which could result in you having to pay costs if you loose. (I may be wrong)

 

IMHO you should concentrate on improving your credit status rather than going in for the jugular and having the possiblity of cutting your own throat.

 

If you are getting knowledgable helper and mods stating they are going to un-subscribe from your thread then surely the alarm bells should be ringing for you...

 

HTH

 

Tanz

[Guest bong]

Personally I can't see what is wrong with claiming consequential losses, it's starting to be done more and more by users who were forced to take out consolidation loans to repay overdrafts consisting of penalty charges. This would involve precise calculation however to claim back the additional interest that has been paid as a result of the charges.

 

And I can't really see why people shouldn't be considering claiming some form of damages for the problems caused by the registering of incorrect defaults. It is a damaged reputation is it not? as long as it can be shown that this was caused by the charges and would not have happened otherwise. I dont know how you would go about putting a figure on this though.

 

The bit I would be cautious about is bringing in health issues - because from what I have read that would be almost impossible to prove and is likely to cause even greater additional stress.

 

Just my opinion, usual disclaimers and all that:)

[RedDeath]

Thanks bong, no need for the disclaimers, well with me anyway. I am just grateful for people's opinions, regardless if I agree with them or not. The more information I have the better it will be to come up with an informed decision.

 

The health issue is something that I thought about adding in to give weight to the claim and well, squeeze a little more out of them. This was registered by a doctor around that time so it might be a good idea to get a copy of my medical record and see what notes were put on it. Can it be directly attributed to the debt? In fairness probably not, so thanks for pointing that one out. I'll do some more research and as usual weigh up the pros and cons.

 

Luckily (kind of) I only had one banking account so I can direct all my issues directly at the bank. I guess that if I had more than one account it would have been harder to pinpoint any potential responsability.

 

What I am basing most of my damage calculation is the 2 defaults that were placed on my file in March 2002. The amounts were quite small, maybe £100 in total, but when I compare it to the fact that in that period I was charged £500 in charges then I can argue that had it not been for those charges then I would not have had the defaults. Maybe i might have been in arrears for an extra month or so, but I would never have had the defaults.

 

In turn the defaults impacted my borrowing potential.

I later took a loan from Yes Car Credit at 29% while a high street bank would have lent me the money at 10% on an unsecured loan. I guess I could calculate the extra amount on the loan and claim that back as a consequential loss. Maybe even add the fact that my monthly repayments would have been less and i would also have had more disposable cash.

 

Either way, I am glad someone is giving some merit to my thoughts. I appreciate it is complex, but I think it is feasable.

 

Anyway, for the bank to argue against this would they have to disclose their true fees? I mean my arguement is based on an accurate charge from the bank, can they throw this out without getting the bank to disclose their fees?

[newbody]

Red though i agree with your sentiments exactly in making the banks pay for what they have done i am so default ridden now i cant even get a debit card on a bank account

I DO FEEL THAT I HAVE TO REITERATE SOME OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO CLAIM FOR IS HIGHLY RISKY AND FROM WHAT I HAVE READ ON THIS THREAD I DONT THINK STANDS A CHANCE IN HELL OF SUCCEEDING . In your claim from what i can see you have alot of unproven area to cover Contractural Interest Charges (why you are entitled to the higher rate of interest over the courts Sec 69 8%) Charges predating 5 years (time span for scotland i believe) so statute of limitations

I believe from reading what you have put the main part i have trouble trying to justify in your cliam is the award of Damages agreed that due to defaults you had to borrow from Sub Prime lenders to make ends and this was bought by concequence of the charges resulting in the defaults.

 

I would personally use these fact to back up the reason for why you are entitled to the higher interest rate back from the banks instead of the standard stat 8%

 

Ie Due to the banks action in taking the charges it resulted in my having to use Sub Prime lenders which resulted in my having to pay alot higher interest rates in regards the purchase of a car which i require to work had it not been for the defaults lodged against me then i may have been able to borrow at a more favourable rate Ie 8% compared to 29%

 

Thus as the banks have acted unlawfully in the removal of more money than what they were entitled to in regards their liquidated Damages I would not have had these defaults lodged and would have had access rate to a more competitive interest rate so i would ask the court to look at this in regards the reason why compund interest should be awarded instead of stat 8%

 

 

Sorry to be a doubting thomas but i wouldnt be able to rest easy within myself without a word of caution. At the end of the day it is your claim and your decision to make as to your best way forward and you have to live with the consequences of your actions yes the figures make it nice and say go for it but can your claim be substantiated in Law is a different matter .

 

My personal thoughts on what i have read on here is

 

Go for the Charges not an issue

 

Claim for compounded interest at the Unauthorised rate (not proven and still needs proving why we are entitled to this rate instead of the 8% sec 69)

 

The Damages aspect i would drop as i cant see how you can prove these are due to the bank charges other than having to use sub prime lenders which the reverse argument ould be well you could have bought a cheaper car etc

 

By no means not saying dont have ago if you want but If it were me i wouldn't

[newbody]

..

[newbody]

Anyway, for the bank to argue against this would they have to disclose their true fees? I mean my arguement is based on an accurate charge from the bank, can they throw this out without getting the bank to disclose their fees?

 

I believe it was CitiBanks who actually did something like this they bought head of accounting in to disclose to the judge behind closed doors in regards the costing and the claimant sort of won as they had the difference refunded between what they were charged and the true cost

 

Also banks have a habit now in CI claims of making GOGW that are equal to the charges and 8% interest and then splitting your claim saying the charges element is settled and only the CI part is left to be pursued

 

Which then weakens your case as you are their trying to argue why you are entitled to money you never had in the first place (something to do with mitigating your costs i think)

[RedDeath]

Thanks newbody, food for thought there.

I am currently at work so i'll try and pick up these points on my lunch break, but as I said food for thought anyway.

[photoman]

Red

I can understand you anger and frustration at the effect that the Banks actions have had upon your life as a whole. The truth is, that practically everone else on this site bar none, could also cite similar stories of the snowballing effects these unjustifiable costs have had upon their lives. Additional financial burdens from elsewhere, consequentail losses, effects upon health, relationships, careers etc.

However taking actions to redress these additional harms done would be a much more personal matter based upon each individual case, and peoples circumstances. As such it would need to be dealt with on an in depth individual basis, and so falls way beyond the scope of the simple factual solutions, that are easily available to all, and presented by this site.

If you really do feel that you wish to take actions for consequential loses, damages and compensation then that is a much more serious matter, that would need to be dealt with by litigation, lawsuits etc and as such would really be best dealt with by proffesionals.

You may well have some very justifiable and strong arguments for these additional claims, and so as such I am not going to suggest either way that you do or don't follow this up. However, do please seek proper legal counsel if you do decide to.

They may even suggest that you could still by yourself seek the remedies available here first, then decide if you wish to take matters further, and that this may actually add strength to any further actions? However as such settlements are also usually given without admisssions of liability, if you do foresee that you really are likely to follow matters up later, then perhaps seek legal counsel before even doing this.

Having said all that, I would be very surprised if you could find a reputable firm willing to take this on. Do, by all means try if still interested, but consider these actions very carefully. Whatever you decide to do, good luck.

 

I offer all the above advice as simply my own view without any liability. Any decisions taken by yourself will need to be simply that.

[Glenn UK]

As I recall there is provision in the DPA Sec 13 or 14 perhaps (?) which gives subjects the right to claim for damages. I would need to go look to refresh my mind as to what they say in detail, but I'm sure they are there.

 

Personally I would only try this if i felt there was unequivocal evidence that correlated the damage to the default. In truth i doubt you will be able to show the link but thats a matter for you of course.

 

As to damages i would not specify an amount unless i could quantify it in accounting terms, not sure you have done that but again its a matter for you.

 

I believe You can claim for unspecified damages and if the court finds in your favour then damages are awarded.

 

You might like to check out Dayglos thread as he went down this route i believe but was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

I haven't had a good read through your earlier post but will try to have a look later.

 

In truth i would suggest that if you are trying to claim damages i think you will be lucky to win them under the circumstances. However, I am not sure that the risks alluded to are in fact real?

 

I have seen people comment that claims for CI would be struck out and i cannot see a reason why that should be and cannot see why this claim would suffer that fate either, at least in general terms.

 

I can see that a claim may fail and that if the court thinks the claimant has been vexatious then they can award costs against them whatever the track, so this is a risk.

 

but this risk is there for all claims and not just those where damages or CI are claimed.

 

If the amounts involved put the claim out of small claims track then that of course makes it more likely that costs would be awarded against the losing party and this should be borne in mind.

 

In conclusion, i think the biggest problem you face is actually providing the evidence that the damage you have suffered is unwarranted (this was Dayglos problem) but otherwise as far as i can tell the claim would carry the same potential risks as for any claim.

 

If there is some special risk in this claim, or indeed any kind of claim, then i would be pleased to know. My view is that the risks are mitigated by the claim being a genuine claim for genuine losses, if this is the case then the risks are the same as for any other claim IMHO, the increase in risk for this type of claim is the problems associated with proving the damages.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[RedDeath]

Well thanks guys for all of the advice.

 

As my claims are for 6.5k I am already out of the small claims track. CI interest on top of it is 5.5k so finding myself in a small claims track is not going to happen.

 

I suppose one thing in my favour is that as i am debating a situation that happened in 2001 this brings me out of the scottish 5 years system and would mean that I could claim through the english system. My T&C states that as my account was opened in a scottish branch I need to go for a scottish court, but this alone would be placing unfair terms on me, thus the English court system should be a viable option.

 

Some people have raised the issue that I would not be able to claim CI on top of damages. I tend to disagree with this as the bank profited from the charges and as such my arguement from CI remains valid. Well, in my eyes at least.

 

When it comes to damages I do feel that there are consequential losses incurred by this, and I will be re-reading everyone's post to make double sure of this as I think Glenn mentioned a similar unsuccessfull case.

 

I agree that the claim may be viewed as vexatious, though I think this would not be the case as long as I can justify my damages. If I ask for 100k in damages sure, but as long as I keep it reasonable and account for such damages in a logical manner then I don't see why not. Simply put if at the time of my defaults the banks had charged me the true costs of the charges I would have had a lot more money available to cover my loans. Lets not forget that the banks are in a very priviledged position as they can take money out of my account at their own discretion.

 

I work as a pricing analyst so calculating the increased lifetime costs of a loan is not a problem, and my credit record should prove that if I did not have the defaults then I would have been able to borrow money at favourable interest. In my view, the bank, through the charges, caused me to go into default and as the charges are unlawful and they did take the money out of my account without my agreement they should be held responsible for the snowballing effect. For about 3-4 months the charges accounted for 30% of my take home pay. How can anyone justify this?

 

Tanz, I am sorry to hear that like many you are in a similar situation having to resort to Welcome FInance. As I have kept my payments up to date with them, my credit file is looking better all the time but I still argue that what the bank did was in my view edit and they should be held responsible for their actions. I had £2000 in charges in a year? Do the maths x amount of charges * true cost of charges = true amount. Subtract this from the total charges and that is my extra capital. If that capital coincided with defaults, and the defaults were lower than such amount then there is my proof.

 

I mean, why should we just lie down and let them walk all over us?

 

So a bank would be able to disclose their true costs infront of a judge? Great! I would like to be in that room, but then again why should they be able to do so in private. If I am to go to court I would like their costs made public as well.

[bill-k]

Please pardon my intrusion here, Red. Just a short, but simple comment. Most of this stuff here is way above me, but I can see you are able to understand it pretty well. I can also see (by the edits !! ) that you are feeling emotive about this, too.

 

I can only ask you to let your head guide you on this, and keep your heart out of the process. The courts deal with the head stuff, but unfortunately, it is the hospitals that may end up dealing with the heart stuff. Please don't let that happen, matey.

 

FWIW, I have had cause to look into the possibility of claiming damages for ill-health caused consequentially. Nerves, depression, booze & pills, blah blah. It's down on record, yeah, but proving the direct cause of it is IMVHO where the fun and games will start. The opposition will employ professionals who I am sure will try and dig up every other thing that may have caused your ill-health. And I mean dig - it's their job, and they will do it well, I'm sure. You may think your cupboard's tidy, and that you have nothing to hide, but I have heard that said here so many times. They will find all sorts of things you never realised were in there, of that I'm sure, and they could literally push you over the edge in doing so IMVHO.

 

I eventually decided on two things:

1. I will keep my cards very close to my chest, and

2. I will go for every other penny that I think I do have a chance of getting back without having to worry about P.I.'s going through my rubbish, and my personal records. I will consider that as my payment in lieu of compensation.

 

Please let your head run the show, not your heart.

 

Bill.

 

PS - there are some Google spreadsheets for consolidation loans here if you're interested.

[GLADSTANES]

Dear RedDeath,

I have just read most of your thread.

 

Bear in mind that by claiming contractual interest you are effectively getting a totally unrealistic return on your money from an investment point of view.

The key point is surely have LTSB charged you this punitive rate of interest ON ALL FUNDS THROUGHOUT THE TERM FOR WHICH YOU ARE CLAIMING?

Is it not fair to make calculations based on the return you could reasonably have expected on your funds had they been invested for you from the point at which they were unlawfully taken from you up to now.

That is really why 8 percent is used I think.

All the very best to you with your claim.

[jonni2bad]

As my claims are for 6.5k I am already out of the small claims track...

 

Track is not a fixed position. Sure, there are guidelines - but we have seen many claims for less than £5k being Allocated to Fast Track and claims for over £5k being Allocated to Small Claims.

 

One of the biggest points in Allocating is likely to be the complexity of the issues. Bank charge claims are not complex. Claims which include a default removal are also not complex but might push it up the ladder. Claims that involve CI and damages are, in my opinion, very likely to be placed high on that ladder!

 

Some people have raised the issue that I would not be able to claim CI on top of damages. I tend to disagree with this as the bank profited from the charges and as such my argument from CI remains valid. Well, in my eyes at least.

...

 

And that is the point that many have being trying to raise with you. As much as I would love it to be the case, your eyes are not in the least bit important. The Judge's eyes however are a different matter.

 

...When it comes to damages I do feel that there are consequential losses incurred by this, .... as long as I can justify my damages. If I ask for 100k in damages sure, but as long as I keep it reasonable and account for such damages in a logical manner then I don't see why not. ....

 

There may be, but simply saying that you believe it because that is how you feel you have experienced things will not nearly be enough for a Court to award in your favour.

 

There would need to be quantifiable, hard-core evidence to show that (a) links directly to (b) which in turn caused © = your loss.

 

"I had to take out an expensive loan" may well be true, but is doomed on its own.

 

"I have evidence to show that my financial position caused x to happen and a signed witness statement from my independent mortgage provider that confirms my position" is a good start.

 

Above all, don't rely on what you feel is right. It simply isn't enough.

[RedDeath]

Wow, I don't think I have ever had so much honest advice in my life, so thank you all from the very bottom of my heart.

 

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

 

 

I don't think I stand alone if I say that these charges have really impacted my life and I really can not help but wonder what if? What if 6 years ago the bank, my fiduciary, the institution that handles the finances of millions of people, had only charged me what they were legally enitled to, or paraphrasing this, what if they did not take what they were not allowed to take? I wonder what it would have been like those months, 5 years ago when I only earned £100 a week, and have £70 of it taken away for a negative balance of £1.19.

 

I wonder what I would have done with that extra £68.81. I might have taken my granmother for dinner, maybe my folks or my girlfriend. I may have gone and got wasted on a bottle of tequila with good friends, or maybe saved it for the future and one day bought a house. Instead that week I did none. I struggled to get by.

 

Unfortunately this didn't just happen once in a blue moon, it happened on a regular basis. Direct debits would be returned and I would be piled with more charges to pay, sometimes it would take me 3 months to get even again because they don't just "charge" you once for the pleasure, they do so again and again. An additional £30 for being overdrawn because of the earlier charge and so on and on and on.

 

Now through out this period I accepted I had to pay that because I had signed a contract that said they would be allowed to reclaim their costs. I mean they were my bank, my fiduciary, I trusted them with all of my wages and yet all the time they were....ahhh I can not say this cause I will once again be edited. They duped me into believing that they were allowed to take that money from me.

 

How much did it cost them to cover a returned direct debit? To have one machine tell another machine not to transfer funds? Maybe £2 - £3? Surely not £30, and did they know this? Of course they did, they are a big company, they know where every penny comes from, and more importantly where the next penny would come from as well. They knew that the next time their machines declined a transfer they would make £30 from it, and they could probably guess with good accuracy how many times that process would be repeated in the following months. Not just for me, but for millions of other customers to the tune of billions of pounds.

 

Did they know this was unlawful? Of course they did. Did they tell me? So what do you do when you have such a good profit? You defend it. So they told me and millions of others that they were members of the banking code of practice and that they had a duty of care towards me and that they were a fair institution. But behind the smoke they carried on doing this every time I cost them £2, they charged me £30.

 

What did they do with that extra £28? They set up insurances, bank assurances, loans, insurance on the loans, invested it in property, the stock market. Car insurance, home, travel, pet, mortgage, ppi insurance. They basically made an awful lot of money from money that they were not allowed to take. They were only allowed to take their costs back.

 

So where does this all leave me?

 

Now thankfully to this site I have come to realise that I can actually challenge that process. So claiming my bank charges back is a given. They had no right to take it, I want it back.

 

I don't just want it back, I also want back interest on that money and unlike the bank I am gonna be fair about this. They said that everytime I took money from them without asking, they would charge me 29.8% interest on it. Hence, i think that as they also took money from me I without my approval I should also be able to charge them 29.8% interest on it as well. After all the law is the same for all.

 

Now if that process had happened occasionaly I would have left it at this, but in my case it hasn't. This happened month on month, year on year. And the effect of it was a non existant credit record, the inability to borrow money at favourable rates and having to rely on the sub-prime market. I wasn't able to spend the money I had worked hard for on my dreams because they had taken most of it from me. When I bought a car I had to be bled dry on interest, when I made mistakes in my finances they bled me even more.

 

So do I want damages for it? Yes I do. IfI have to stand in a court of law and argue why I feel so passionate about this then I will do that as well. I will argue the best case that I possibly can and ask back was is rightfully mine. My money and my chance of being in control of my own finances again. I think they owe me this. How much does it all come to? Well I need to sit down and figure it out down to the last penny and I will be fair and accurate about this, but it could range from £21000 to £31000. I haven't made the numbers up, I have quantified each one of them based on what I feel is mine.

 

Now if this sounds like a bit of a rant its not, it's more of a mission statement. Another Jerry McGuire moment, but I would rather try and fail than not try at all. Of course there needs to be a balance on this, a bit like a good hand of poker, I know what cards I am holding, and I also know what cards the opponent is holding. Now what I need to figure out is how much he is willing to pay to see my cards. If I bet too high he folds, I need to bet just the right amount to tempt him and I will do so in a court of law and I ask that they do the same. Stand in a court of law and show what hand their are really holding, of much does it really cost to return a direct debit?

 

So thank you all for all the advice that I have received. I truly value each ones opinion and am grateful for the time they have taken in letting me know, when they could so easily have clicked the back button on their explorer.

 

In view of this i am editing my paragraphs on damages, and will pursue this in my own way. I am going to take the best advice I possibly could and keep my cards close to my chest. I have been brought up to fight for what I believe is right, and I am not gonna lay down now!

[bill-k]

Well said, Red. While we're at it, here's one lifted from another good member's sig.

 

Anyway, it kicks my @$$ sometimes when I need it, (and so does she !! )

"I am not going to sit on my ass as the events that affect me unfold to determine the course of my life. I'm going to take a stand. I'm going to defend it. Right or wrong, I'm going to defend it."

(ferris Bueller's Day off)

[RedDeath]

Wise words from Ferris...

 

"There is no such thing as coincidence, only events in your life that you have taken the time to notice." Meg White, the White Stripes

 

I saw your sig when I clicked the wrong button as i meant to click the scale.... well it ignited something!

[photoman]

Red

I am not going to try to dissuade you from taking this course of action.

You are certainly angry, passionate and determined enough to go beyond the pale of the actions most members on this site are considering.

It also sounds like you are confident that you can maybe find fair and justifable ways to asses or determine subsequential losses.

I am sure I am not alone on this site, when I say that I would dearly love to see the banks get a taste of their own medicine and a wake up call by losing such a case in court.

However. This is one course of action that will certainly end up in court, and even though you may say you are holding your cards close to your chest, remember your opponent is bigger, richer and far more experienced than you. To maintain your card game analogy.

You cannot bet on even the best winning hand, if you don't even have the chips to do so !!

If they win, they will then, not only have ruined your past life, but will continue to do so for the rest of it.

I implore you to seek qualified legal advice on this route.

Not some Sunday supplement "no win no fee" company, but a professional highly trained and specialised company. They would be able to advise you on every step. The way to calculate costs fairly, the grounds you will need prove, the implications and costs and the time effort and stress involved.

The better firms will also be able to take out insurance, so that even if you did lose, you will be covered for costs and fees (look up After The Event (ATE) insurance on the web for an explanation). This type of insurance or security is not available to litigants in person, so don't even think about it.

How you go about finding them is a matter for your own determination. Even if anyone here knew of anyone, it would be against forum rules to post such info.

I can say this much though:

You will not be able to get very much support on this site. Very few members have such levels of knowledge, and even those that do,would be very wary of being responsible for giving you what could turn out to be unwitting ill advice.

[RedDeath]

Thanks for the advice photoman, I do appreciate it.

 

As usual I will research every bit of advice offered. The way I see it with regards to cost, the worse I could expect would be around £7,500 which I would cover with my actual claim for the fees and 8%. That way I end up back at step 1, but 30 years from now I'll know that I fought for what I believe in and that probably means the most to me. MetallicA teaches you that!

 

I understand this now moves into an area where not many people can or are willing to advise me on, and I fully accept that. I am pushing the boundries of what has been deemed acceptable. Of course I won't pick my legal reppresentation from the back of a newspaper, that is what google is for, but by day I am a pricing analyst consultant for a major blue chip company, so playing around with numbers, discussing contracts is my bread and butter. Quantifying the precise damages is going to take some work, but I have loads of time and I won't fire my first shot (or raise the pot in poker terms) until I am confident enough in what I have.

 

Taking it all the way into a court though is new territory for me and I will see how far I can go by myself before I seek legal advice. At this stage I think that I have the capability to go it alone, but I still have loads of time and if I don't feel the vibes then I am not going to go for it.

 

My odds at getting my fees are 100%

Odds of CI maybe as much as 95%

Damages well, i think its 50%

 

I don't think I need to convince the judge 100%, as long as I can convince him 60% that could be enough for a win. In fairness though, I don't feel that my arguement is flawed. Maybe rough at the moment, but

still simple. I dispute the damages were caused by the charges (enter the maths bit) and I can plot those numbers across 5 years. If you (the bank) disagree with how I calculated the damages then please inform me what the real costs were. You can not accuratley calculate damages without disclosing costs.

 

If I lose because I calculated my charges wrong then fair enough, but if that means that they also have to stand in a court of law and publically disclose their charges then I still walk away a winner.

[RedDeath]

Just another thought. Does anyone know who the CEO for LloydsTSB is?

I take it that I can call witnesses, then why not call him. He will know how much it really costs to return a direct debit.

[photoman]

Thanks for the advice photoman, I do appreciate it.

 

As usual I will research every bit of advice offered. The way I see it with regards to cost, the worse I could expect would be around £7,500 which I would cover with my actual claim for the fees and 8%. That way I end up back at step 1, but 30 years from know I'll know that I fought for what I believe in and that probably means the most to me. MetallicA teaches you that!

Red, if you lose, you lose EVERYTHING not just the damages..... the court wont award you just the charges and just dismiss the damages aspect... and you will still then have to cover the costs and their legal fees (which could be tens of thousands), and wont get a bean from your claim to cover any of it !!

 

I understand this now moves into an area where not many people can or are willing to advise me on, and I fully accept that. I am pushing the boundries of what has been deemed acceptable. Of course I won't pick my legal reppresentation from the back of a newspaper, that is what google is for, but by day I am a pricing analyst consultant for a major blue chip company, so playing around with numbers, discussing contracts is my bread and butter. Quantifying the precise damages is going to take some work, but I have loads of time and I won't fire my first shot (or raise the pot in poker terms) until I am confident enough in what I have.

 

Taking it all the way into a court though is new territory for me and I will see how far I can go by myself before I seek legal advice. At this stage I think that I have the capability to go it alone, but I still have loads of time and if I don't feel the vibes then I am not going to go for it.

No legal firm will pick up a case half way through. They cannot take the risk of losing based upon your own previous errors.

 

My odds at getting my fees are 100%

Odds of CI maybe as much as 95%

Damages well, i think its 50%

 

I don't think I need to convince the judge 100%, as long as I can convince him 60% that could be enough for a win. In fairness though, I don't feel that my arguement is flawed. Maybe rough at the moment, but

still simple. I dispute the damages were caused by the charges (enter the maths bit) and I can plot those numbers across 5 years. If you (the bank) disagree with how I calculated the damages then please inform me what the real costs were. You can not accuratley calculate damages without disclosing costs.

 

If I lose because I calculated my charges wrong then fair enough, but if that means that they also have to stand in a court of law and publically disclose their charges then I still walk away a winner.

They will have your case thrown out of court based upon your damages claim even before you even get into a court. That way they can avoid the pressure you may feel you can exert by pushing for disclosure.

 

Red,

Either go for the tried and tested route that is available and proven to be possible by everyone. Or try for a higher risk, higher stake game, but only with legal help from the outset. There is no middle road.