John72 v Lloyds TSB

[GaryH]

Yep, thats far more like it, all four examples. What sort of letters are they?

 

You'd still need the T&C's.

[John72]

Gary

 

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by "what sort of letters are they?". They are all from the local LTSB business banking manager written personally to me.

 

John

[GaryH]

I'm trying to figure out how much weight they would carry.

 

They will be very useful, but at the end of the day its the contract which the claim is determined on. Only within that are the overriding obligations of both parties in the operation of the account to which you both signed agreement to. Letters could be dismissed as just one member of staff not understanding the underlying terms.

 

So have you got the T&C's?

[John72]

Hi Gary

 

No I don't have the T&C's - can I get copies anywhere?

 

John

[GaryH]

There are a collection in the document library within the templates library.

 

What type of account(s), and when did they open?

[John72]

Thanks Gary - I'll have a look. Essentially I have two personal accounts (one of which was an original basic TSB account opened in 1992 but which has now migrated to an "enhanced account" and the other is a Lloyds TSB "enhanced account") and a business account opened originally with TSB in 1992. I'm afraid I've lost track over the years of the T&C's that have applied to each account, especially as they have changed the type of accounts whilst keeping the same account numbers, if you know what I mean.

 

John

[GaryH]

Oooh theres some lovely TSB terms in their from 1996 - banged to rights in terms of breach for unpaids as well.

 

Post-merger you'll have to rely on the LTSB debit card T&C's which only provide for a breach upon OD excess and unpaid cheque.

[John72]

Gary

 

Many thanks for your help. I've printed the T&C's off and will take them to Court with me on the 26th. I'm hoping that as my claim is made firstly on the basis of "breach of contract" (and secondly on the unfairness angle) that the Judge will agree that the OFT case is not wholly relevant to me and allow my claim to continue?

 

John

[GaryH]

Exactly.

 

Take the OFT's particulars along with you so you can point to the fact that the penalty issue is not being covered. Therefore, you can argue, that its a waste of time and totally unfair to stay a claim waiting for an outcome which will not test or effect the principles upon which the majority of your claim is based.

 

The OFT's POC are linked from the Stay template thread in the library.

[John72]

Thanks Gary, that's what I was hoping - all I have to do now is persuade the Judge! From all i've read on all other threads regarding stays, the Courts seem to be happily going along with the idea that ALL cases should be stayed pending the outcome of the OFT case simply because they have received some kind of "directive from above". I can see the advantage of this from a local Courts point of view (as it clears their lists considerably) but if we could see the actual directive it would be possible to address that somehow?

 

Is there a way of obtaining more information on that?

 

John

[John72]

Any idea where I can obtain details of the actual "advice" given to local Courts on how they should approach stays in these cases?

 

I've received from SC&M today a copy of their "Skeleton Argument" for the hearing tomorrow wherein they repeatedly refer to "complex issues" and how a stay would facilitate an orderly resolution and not undermine the (OFT) test case.

 

The hearing in Court is tomorrow - does anyone have any last thoughts on this?

 

J

[GaryH]

Not a clue, sorry.

 

As for complex issues, yes, you accept that in relation to the UTCCR aspect but not where there is a clear, easily demonstrable breach of contract (as evidenced by T&C's) - the issues in that case are simple, if the cost is disproportionate to the charge its a penalty. Also the OFT case will not deal with the penalty issue (as evidenced by OFT POC) so a stay on that aspect of the claim would be utterly pointless.

 

Also see the template witness statement for the usual other objections.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/114505-bundle-stay-hearing.html

 

Good luck!

[John72]

Thanks Gary - I'll let you know what happens!

 

J

[John72]

Well I had my "day in court" yesterday seeking to overturn the Stay in my case. LTSB sent along Counsel (from Lincoln's Inn in London, no less!) to argue their case and to apply for costs against me.

 

Although the Stay was not lifted (the claim was adjourned generally with liberty to restore), the Judge was extremely sympathetic to my case and spoke of the terrible injustices being carried out by the banks towards claimants insofar as they were arbitrarily settling some cases and not others. He accepted that I had a good case to argue that my claim was primarily on the basis that the charges were penalties rather than an unfair "charge for services" (as covered by the OFT case) but, on a practical basis, said by the time a full days hearing could be arranged it was highly likely that the OFT case would have been heard. Alternatively, there would be a risk that my claim would otherwise become a "test case" with all the costs implications of that.

 

Counsel for LTSB stated that the banks intend that the OFT case would be expanded to deal with the "penalties" aspect and that it was anticipated that following the hearing (set down for 8 days commencing 14 January 2008) judgment would be issued in March 2008.

 

On the question of costs the Judge (who had seen many of these cases before) said he was reserving an order on those until after the OFT case decision - on the basis that if the matter went against the banks it was highly likely to be settled and would not return to Court. If the banks won (and therefore my claim failed) then it would be up to the bank to return to Court to ask for costs against me - a matter that the Judge particularly stated would only be dealt with by him personally.

 

All in all I feel that it was a worthwhile excercise - if only to hear the overwhelming support the Courts have for claimants like me, in the light of the way the banks have so far dealt with the judicial system.

 

I think that it is now just a question of waiting - although I am seriously thinking of commencing a claim now for the bank charges levied in the period 1991 to 2001. Any thoughts on the merits of that?

 

J

[GuidoT]

Sounds like you had a good judge, which court please?

 

As to your 1991 to 2001 charges, if the claim means you will be allocated to the fast track (>£5K) then I would not commence until after the OFT test case, due to the cost risk exposure.

 

If you charges are

[John72]

Hi Guido

 

The Judge was excellent - in fact he said that he had given as clear an indication as to where his sympathies lay and that how he felt that LTSB could have dealt with this in a much fairer and more just way. Sadly, I don't think LTSB are listening.

 

It was Cambridge County Court.

 

My present case has been allocated to the Small Claims track, even though it is inexcess of £5,000. If I do issue a further claim for the earlier charges I suspect a defence would be issued by LTSB at which stage that too would be Stayed. If that happened then the risk of exposure to costs should be minimal?

 

John

[alexpom51]

Glad to hear you had a sympathetic judge! My case (-v-Lloydstsb) went to Bromley County Court yesterday (the culmination of several months aggravation). There were about 6 of us bringing cases against different banks. First of all we all had to troop into the court -together - where the judge told us he felt he had to "stay" all our cases pending the outcome of the big test case. Not being happy with this, 4 of us went back - separately this time - to appeal against the stay. The judge simply informed me that it would be a "waste of the court's time" to make any decision in my case until a decision in the test case was made. There was a woman representing Lloydstsb sitting there who didn't need to say a thing as it seemed that the judge was presenting the banks' case for them! The same (non) result was obtained by all of us who appealed. I know this doesn't impact on your situation. I just needed to offload because I felt so angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!