so desperate for some help and guidance!

sugarthief · March 23, 2007

hello.... i have received a court date against HSBC.. I have had no problems so far with the whole process - nice and easy printing off letters etc.. the problem is now the directions for my claim from the court.. I am well and truly at a dead end. I have been asked to do 4 things: send schedules of charges etc which is fine, and copies of statements proving the charges were made, which is also no problem.. I just don't understand:

1) Send A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise.

2)Send copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

I have already looked at the court bundle shown on here, and its just gone way over my head.. i don't understand exactly what these 2 things i am being asked for means exactly and the things on the court bundle, just seems like a bunch of stuff i don't understand too.. i just don't understand any of it.. am i supposed to just print everything off as it is and send it off? I am so scared that i am going to lose now, as i just don't know what to do. I have come so far and i feel like its all going to be a waste of time.. i just need things simplified - what parts of the bundle apply to each direction i have been sent for my case? I feel like i have lost already. Somebody please help me.. i would be so grateful x

Advoc8 · March 23, 2007

This is the link to the statement of evidence template

There are decided cases and legal materials in the court bundle, things like extracts/copies of the Dunlop tyres case and the UTCCR. Have a good read of this bundle. If it's a case report or a copy of a law put it in.

nettyg · March 23, 2007

hey sugarthief don't be down on yourself!! take a deep breath and calm down lol. read the link i'm sending and get back if there's anything you don't understand ok? don't worry, we're behind you all the way.

here's some info from guidance notes in the library GOT A COURT DATE? A guide to the later stages there's more in the guidance notes.[/url]

sugarthief · March 23, 2007

oh thank you so so much both of you... that is just what i needed.. I was so lost! lol the statement of evidence template is just the kind of thing i needed.. to be set out infront of me how to set it out and what to be in it etc.. i didn't know that existed! thanks very much again advoc8!!!

Nettyg... thankyou tons too!! I have not managed to have a good look at that yet as i have to go out now.. but i am aiming to spend my evening getting all this done so i can enjoy my weekend without it all at the back of my mind and worrying about it! :o

I am so grateful to both of you.. and i am sure i will stumble across something i can't get my head round later, at least i know where to come for help! I will be breathing a sigh of relief when this is all in the postbox and done with! lol Seriously.. you have made me feel much better now!!

many many thanks again! xxxxxxxx

nettyg · March 23, 2007

hopefully you won't need it and they'll send you an offer before the court date - this is what's been happening of late, so fingers crossed for you.

Eve22 · March 23, 2007

Yeah as netty said it probably wont get that far. If you take a look at the Wilkins v Halifax thread you'll really see how close to court it can get and then they back out!

Dont worry you'll be fine x

lateralus · March 24, 2007

also, i tried to put all the things you need and where they are in this link:When you have filed your AQ................

when exactly do you have to have this ready - it is about 200 pages (give or take) of infor which mostlyyou don't have to do anything to - you just need to copy it out - also - if it goes to court - you will need copies of it for yourself and for dg - so that's 600 pages of copying.

i'd leave it until about 5 days before the court date -

if you want a little encouragement - look at lizvp's thread - i think it was called DG dirty tricks. and you will see they dragged hers out forever and the very day she got it all ready - just before the court date - they sent a full offer. - that's just part of their silly games.

so, when is the date?

i'm asking because if you go on my thread - "when you've filed"- in the same post 1 of it - there is a nudging letter - you can tweak it - to say you'll take a little less or not - do what you feel - but send the letter to dg - just to pressure them a little - (have they filed their aq? ring the court to find out - they often don't) obviously write only what is relevant to your case. you don't have to offer to take less - just leave that bit out. but the idea of saying - come on guys - let's get this over with - and at worst - you can then show that you were willing to talk to them - at best - they may be spurred on to an offer - send a copy of your breakdown and a copy of your aq with it.

hth.

get back with questions

sugarthief · March 28, 2007

hi!

Sorry about the delay in answering.. i have been so busy trying to get all what i need sorted.

My court date is on 12th June

the directions say i have got to send all my documents within 28 days of service of the order.. it is dated 5th march, so my time is very nearly up.. and i am still struggling.

I have printed off all of the basic court bundle. Do I just send all of that as it is? I don't need to add anything to it or change it do i? :confused:

I have found this so hard so far.

I am struggling with the statement of evidence too... The bits i have to add my own comments too, i just don't know what to put.. if i put something wrong.. will i lose my whole case?

I know people say not to panic but i am.. and i can't help it.. i wish now i had just accepted the offer they made to me which was not the full amount but i think i was hasty in being stubborn as i just feel out of my depth now *sob*

thanks for all your help so far x

lateralus · March 28, 2007

oh poor you!!!! just keep going - yes, had i been advising - i'd have had you writing to dg a bit earlier - trying to get it sorted - but it's seems too late for that now - just bite the bullet and say it - in for a penny.....

you'll be ok - yes, the court bundle goes as is, your statements - just the pages with charges on them (i see no point in copying all of the pages - just those with charges),

a) your schedule of charges.

b) your statements showing the charges. Alternatively, the list of charges which the bank provided under your S.A.R (subject Access Request) (only send the statements with charges on them.)

c) A Statement of Evidence: (post 55 in the new strategy): New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

d) All the statutes and decided cases on which your claim relies. ie, UTCCR's, UCTA's, SOGA, case law, etc. For this, I'd just submit the whole of the Basic Court Bundle.

you'll get there - just keep going - i wish i could be there to help. i'm willing you on........ very good luck for getting it together and in to them - then a big rest.

sugarthief · March 28, 2007

Hi! thanks!

I did recieve a letter from DG solicitors before i received my court date, and they informed me that they could not pay me certain charges back that i had already had refunded (at times of some charges in past i had rang bank and demanded to have them refunded- which they did - and DG supplied evidence that i had received them back, but the funny thing was... the dates and charges which they were saying i had refunded - i had never actually included in my claim anyway!!!! It amounted to a few hundred quid over 2 accounts.. so my last letter to them was informing them that they had not bothered to compare my breakdown of charges to their dates of any charge refunds i had received! and to check for themselves to see that i had not claimed for any of them! I haven't heard from them since! lol

I never had to send for my statements.. i got all my charges info from my online statements going back 6 years.. and i have printed off all the pages which include a charge on them. so that is done..

i am just getting my head round the statement of evidence now.. its so hard to know what to add in yourself - without sounding completely that you don't know what you are talking about! lol

i should be completely finished by tomorrow, then i will be popping it all off to dg and the court.. then it is just a case of hoping for the best!

Do you think i should contact DG solicitors in the meantime to tell them i will be happy to settle before the court date for the full amount + interest + court cost? or is this not a good idea and shouldi wait?

many many thanks for your support.. i am very grateful! x

lateralus · March 28, 2007

yes, i think that's a very good idea - after all this is submitted - have a rest for a couple of days - get back to me and we'll work out a letter for an amount that you would be happy with and we would hope they would accept - but, no rush - court date is far away - let's see what happens for about a week after you file all this - then get back and we can do a letter.

i know you have all this - just trying to do anything to be helpful. - at least it's right here by you. wish i knew more and could help you - sounds like you are almost done.

let others see this lot and they would be glad to take a slightly reduced offer to avoid this stuff - this is for stronger stomachs than mine - i'd have died if mine had gone this far - you keep going - you are almost there!!!!!!!!!!!

here's that statement of evidence post:

Heres the 'Statement of evidence' which can be used for direction c).

Remember this is not to be submitted with the AQ, but after the judge has ordered directions.

The first statement is to be used if your bank has defended the claim on the basis that the charges are a legitimate contractual service charge - Ie. Lloyds TSB

The second statement is to be used if the bank has defended on the basis that the charges are proportionate to, or a pre-estimate of, their actual losses - Ie. Abbey

One or two banks don't plead in detail as to why their charges are not a penalty, only that they were debited in accordance with the T&C's, etc - Ie. Barclay's. If this is the case, this statement would be the most suitible - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/barclays-bank/36692-peter-rabbit-barclays-2.html#post492578

Please think carefully about what does or does'nt apply to your own particular claim and amend as necessary. Similarly, if you can think of any more evidence relevant to your claim, add that in too.

Usual disclaimer applies - Im not a lawyer (far from it!) and the following is just my interpretation which I prepared for my claim and that I have amended to be relevant to others. Its offered without liability.

text in black - template

text in red - guide notes

text in blue - examples. Replace with your own information.

'SERVICE CHARGE' STATEMENT -

Quote:

Claim Number:*******

Between:

Your name

(Claimant)

and

Bank Plc

(Defendant)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

1. The Claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising out of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

2. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

3. The Defendant avers that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.

4. The Claimant believes a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty.

5. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915], Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for “a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorum of the offending party”, i.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat.

6. The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding contractually agreed overdraft limits, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Add an example of a charge incurred due to going over by a small amount, for example -On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence.I was then penalised for this breach of the terms and conditions of my account of by way of a charge of £**. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

7. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. Here, add in details of any correspondence in which the bank referred to the charges as ‘penalties’, ‘defaults’ or ‘exist to cover costs’, etc. For example -In correspondence with Lloyds TSB’s ‘Customer Service Recovery’ department in July 2006, Martin Orton, who is manager of the department, stated this in a letter: “As you are aware, I am afraid that it is the case that any items that are returned incur a fee in order that we can recoup our costs”. This was in response to a direct and plain request to justify Lloyds TSB’s charges. Throughout the letter, no mention was ever made of the charges as being the cost of any sort of ‘service’.(If anyone wants a copy of this letter, drop me a PM with your address and I'll post it to you.)

8. Additionally, the [claimant believes there to be a high possibility that the] terms and conditions of [his / the claimants] account contract explicitly describe the charges as to be levied in instances of breaching those terms. This is true of the contracts of other customers of the defendant that the claimant is aware. However, the bank has failed to provide me with a copy of the account contract, despite repeated requests to do so, so unfortunately this cannot be proved. A right of subject access request for this document was submitted to the defendant under the Data Protection Act 1998, on 8th September 2006. The defendant has failed to comply. Here, if your account contract states the charges as ‘breaches’ use the text in black. The blue bit was true in my case and I’ve left it there as an example. If it applies to you, keep it in, if not, take it out.

9. The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s. With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

“4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”.

10. As pleaded above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to his account to be disproportionate contractual penalties. The Claimant vehemently refutes the Defences contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges.

11. However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event that the charges were accepted as being a fee for a service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

12. Further, under the UTCCR:

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

The cost of Lloyds charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

13. Following on from the above, the claimant does not accept The Defendants contention that the charges are enforceable as a service charge. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

14. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman 1848 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

15. Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -

“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach”

16. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

17. On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

18. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

19. Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

20. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

21. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

22. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £** by carrying out this completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

23. In a telephone conversation with the personal banking department of Lloyds TSB on May 24th 2006, a member of staff told me directly that the charges were imposed automatically. A transcript of this conversation is provided. I made a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request to the Defendant for a recording of this conversation. Unfortunately it “could not be located”.

24. Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

25. On 22nd May 2006, the house of commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house discribed such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

26. The Claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

27. As set out previously, it is submitted that The Defendant’s charges can not be considered to be a service charge. In arguing that they are, they also effectively admit that they make profits from these fees. The Defendant seemingly contends that their charges are not subject to an assessment of fairness. This implies they can set these fees at whatever level they like without regulation. Similarly, as set out above, the charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They, by The Defendant’s own admission, are not a pre-estimate of loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, and unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are a contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

I, the Claimant, beleive all facts stated to be true.

Signed, dated.

Documents attached in support of this statement

Letter from Martin Orton, Lloyds TSB Customer Recovery Centre - or any letter or material in which the charges are described as 'defaults', 'penalties', 'covers costs', etc.
Account Contract - if applicable. See para 8
Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006
House of commons early day motion, May 2006
Automated charge notification letter/s. Include a couple of examples. Preferably use ones where charges have been incurred over ridiculously small shortfalls and if possible, include 2 letters notifying of charges incurred on the same day
BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission
Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - http://www.clcv.net.au/downloads/Med...20Report .pdf
Transcript of telephone communication with Lloyds TSB 'personal banking' department.
DPA Subject Access Request for evidence of manual intervention
Transcript of radio interview with Peter McNamara, former head of personal banking, Lloyds TSB.
All pre-litigation correspondance between the parties

This next statement is suitable for claims in which the defence contends that the charges are proportionate to or a pre-estimate of their actual loss.

Again, think carefully about what applies to your claim and amend to suit if necessary.

Text in black - template

Text in red - guide notes

Text in blue - examples, replace with your own.

'GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE' STATEMENT -

Quote:

Claim Number:*******

Between:

Your name

(Claimant)

and

Bank Plc

(Defendant)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

1. The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges imposed because of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

2. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

3. The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding the contractual limits of overdraft facility, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Add an example of a charge incurred due to going over by a small amount, for example -On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence.I was then penalised for this breach by way of a charge of £**. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

4. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman 1848 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

5. Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -

“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach” and;

“The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage”

6. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

7. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. The Claimant contends that the charges made by the defendant are disproportionate, excessive, exorbitant and extravagant and believes it to be inconscionable that they represent, are a pre-estimate of, or are in any way related to, its actual loss suffered as a result of the Claimants breaches of contract.

8. The defendant has declined to answer the Claimant’s written requests for information regarding its administrative costs, or other such costs, incurred as a result of the contractual breaches from which its charges arise. Further, the Defendant has declined to offer any explanation whatsoever in regard of how its charges are calculated, or any other such justification thereof, despite repeated requests to do so.

9. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

10. Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

11. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

12. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

13. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £** by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

14. In a telephone conversation with the personal banking department of Lloyds TSB on May 24th 2006, a member of staff actually told me directly that the charges were imposed automatically. A transcript of this conversation is provided. I made a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request to the Defendant for a recording of this conversation. Unfortunately it “could not be located”.

15. Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide me evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

16. The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

17. The claimant cites the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s.

18. On 22nd May 2006, the house of commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house discribed such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

19. Further, under the UTCCR: