Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


dave&sueb

Proof positive of fees being profit driven!!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4890 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I'm sure I'm not the only one attempting to find supporting evidence in the fight against these pirates but this is really interesting.

 

The following text appears in the 2005 annual returns for Lloyds TSB (see page 8 of 44)

 

Other income, net of insurance claims, on a comparable basis and excluding the strengthening of reserves

for mortality, increased by £260 million, or 6 per cent, to £4,659 million. Fees and commissions receivable

increased by 9 per cent to £3,315 million as a result of higher income from the strong volume growth in

current account fees and an increase in fees from large corporate business and asset based lending, as a

result of growing customer transaction volumes.

 

The full link is here

 

http:www.investorrelations.lloydstsb.com/media/pdf_ir/2005_ltsb_full_results.pdf

 

This is prove positive, in any context, that the fees are part of their profit building regime!!!

 

Hope this helps someone......I am certainly adding the text to my court bundle and statement of evidence.

 

Interestingly, LloydsTSB refer to their charges as an impairment charge..............see some more text from this document...

 

Our impairment charge expressed as a percentage of average lending increased to 0.66 per cent,

compared to 0.61 per cent in 2004 (page 37, note 13). On a statutory basis, impaired assets totalled

£4,122 million, compared with £3,515 million at 1 January 2005, representing 2.3 per cent of total lending, up

from 2.1 per cent at 1 January 2005, but unchanged from 30 June 2005.

 

Perhaps someone here with more knowledge and experience than me, could make more of this.

Happy reading


Mission accepted!!

All comments are my personal opinion or based on experience I claim no legal expertise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else have any opinions on this, I think this is a good find dave&sue.


Prelim Req sent 12 June 2006,

LBA sent 26 June 2006,

Confirmation of court action sent 24 July 2006,

Court return date 20 October 2006 - LTSB did not reply,

Court hearing date 27 October 2006 - Decree granted in my favour,

Recall of decree recieved 16 November 2006,

1 December 2006 assigned as recall of decree,

26 January 2007 assigned for full proof hearing,

16 January 2007 1st offer recieved and declined,

23 January 2007 2nd offer accepted, awaiting monies to hit bank account

 

All advice & opinions of o0oLiamBeeo0o are personal opinions, if in doubt seek advice from a qualified professional !!

 

vvv My Thread vvv

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe someone could use this in court to support their case


You may think that but . . ......

____________________________________

Total repaid to date £1947.58

 

Lloyds Currrent a/c £745.27

Moneyclaim filed 17th June

Defence and AQ 25th July. Case struck out 11 Aug

reinstated and hearing 15th Jan 2007

 

Lloyds loan a/c D A request expired 19th June

Proceedings under S7 Data Protection Act issued 29th June defence and counterclaim 27 July

Hearing Jan 3 2007

Listed final hearing April 2007-

Judge declared an interest and disqualified himself

new date to be set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...