Jump to content

Nervous about Particulars


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5567 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all,


Given the pedantic nature of Lloyds TSB's lawyers and their attempts to get cases struck out because the Pariculars are not up to scratch, and given that I've had to change the template in several respects, I wondered if I could ask those with more experience to cast a quick eye over my proposed Particulars and comment on them...? Many thanks!!!
























1. The Claimant has an account("the Account") with the Defendant. (I don't have the foggiest when it was opened - 15-20 years ago I'd guess - but not important, right?)


2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.


3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.


4. The Claimant contends that:


a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.


b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.


c) The Defendant owed him a duty of care in the form of a fiduciary duty not to gain extra profit and by way of ‘fiduciary impropriety’ and that by adding interest to the unlawfully levied charges, the Defendant breached that duty of care and made ‘profit by wrongdoing’ from that breach at the Claimant’s expense forming an ‘unjust enrichment’. (not on the template, but suggested on another thread - is the wording OK?)


5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:


a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £XXXXX and any interest charged thereon;


b) Court costs;


c) Interest at the defendant’s contractual rate of 18.4% as set out on the attached list of charges up to the date of judgment or earlier payment or, in the alternative, interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just. (differs from the template - is this OK?)


d) Restitutionary damages, in the nominal sum of £100.00, for ‘unjust enrichment’.


6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).


I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

If I've helped, please tick the scales at the bottom left of this message!


17th Sept: Found this site! :)


Lloyds TSB


22 Sept: Subject Access Req.

3 Nov: statements arrived. Charges calulated at:

A/c 1 - £2,178.01 + int of £1,206.54 (18.4% authorised)

A/c 2 - £206.11 + int of £211.07 (18.4%)

7 Nov - prelim.

3 Dec - LBA

13 Dec - £750 offered

23 Dec - £750 credited

28 Dec - rejection letter

2 March - issued

16 April - complained at court failure to forward defence




22nd September: Subject Access Request.

4th November: No reply so LBA giving 7 days.


Cap One


22nd September: Subject Access Req.

5th October: Letter saying no record of account!

15th October: Replied telling them to try harder...

22nd October: Subject Access Req acknowledged.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...