Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hobnail you don't know Elms too well yet. I am surprised that they got as close as they did to adding up to 30. I think the poor dears get confused because most other letters they send out are to give 28 days notice. They even  have difficulty with their two times table and often consult with the char lady to confirm that 2 plus 2 equals 4.  Just act on the notion that they are total numpties and you won't be far out.
    • To carry on from the above post it may be helpful to go through their WS using their numbers. 9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land. First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract. b] the signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the No Stopping signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and the creditor be identified.  10]There is no mention of £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian. 11] no matter how often VCS say it, it is NOT a contractual clause   22]" the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site". No it hasn't. This is a road leading to the airport. All sorts of people are going to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS wth any sort of permissions. The land owners yes, but not VCS . There can be no sort of analogy between a car park and a major thoroughfare where VCS have no place as it is not relevant land.   23] there can be no contract as there is no offer only a prohibition. And it is not relevant land no matter how Mr Walli attempts to prove otherwise. 25] VCS may have won a few times but none quoted was on an airport covered by the RTA and its own Byelaws. They also have lost more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs. 26] First one has to consider if there is a contract. Is it relevant land? No. Does a valid contract exist betweer VCS and Peel? NO.  27] the signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible  29] already stated that a WS between VCS and peel is not a valid document 31] it will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant no matter who was driving. 32] there is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employedd relationship. VCS are muddying the waters because they have no way of transferring the driver's liability to the keeper 33] this a red herring. There is no list of highways at all  on the Highways act 1980 so this is a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. 34] there ican be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. Totally fatuous analogy.  35] yes the landowners can bring in their own terms but what the cannot do is overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. 39] surely the paralegal cannot be that ignorant of PoFA. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and so the specious argument about FGW is rubbish   36] what on earth is he talking about with Permits. There is no mention of permits on the signage and even if there were  would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on No Stopping roads? There are enough examples on CAG to counter act their idiocy on continuing charging the extra £60   46] VCS had NO reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. No valid  contract with the landowners No stopping is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for a motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP so not valid the WS contract does not appear to authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.   48] what is this guy on? You weren't in a car park you were on a bus stop 59] this case is totally without merit. I am not surprised that the paralegal will not be turning up. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. Could have been said in at least half the time without the repetition and trying to make a case where none was there. One particularly bad example of misdirection was in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear  unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.      
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote...   your defence doesnt need any return of docs.. carefully read what has been posted here and in the other threads i pointed to in your old thread merged here too.   redwood/harwood or STA or brachers.   just use our enhanced google search box.   uni fees is useful too.   this guy is just in front of you    
    • Tech firm CEO Jeff Lawson warns bosses not to make hasty judgements about their employees.View the full article
    • I have just spent last few hours registering and signing up and filling in all the details.   Below is a POC I have drafted.   The defendant is a parcel delivery company DPD (UK) LIMITED On 09/08/2021 the defendant agreed to deliver the claimant's parcel containing a PlayStation 5 Disc Version value £530, to an address in the UK. The delivery fee of £7.79 was paid by the claimant. Parcel tracking number: ???????? Parcel reference no: ????????? The defendant failed to deliver the parcel and have reported it as lost on 20/08/2021. The defendant refuses to refund the full value of the item and the delivery fee. The claimant seeks £530 being the value of the item, £7.79 delivery cost and legal fees.        (Sorry for being stupid but this POC is supposed to go where it says    " Claim details Why you believe you’re owed the money: " right? Reason why I'm asking is because I don't see anywhere it specifically says what are your particulars of claim)   Tomorrow being the 15th day, I will be ready to click it off (assuming the POC is ok)    I have read a few more hermes/packlink etc stories where they were resolved and gives me hope I will regain my lost money.  Will carry on reading up as much as I can.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

LTSB give away money voluntarily!


elsinore
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5170 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I received this from LTSB yesterday. It is referenced to my, now closed, business account.

 

From Business Banking

Colmore Row.

 

Dear Elsinore,

We recently wrote to you concerning a refund of charges and notice that we do not yet appear to have received a reply.

 

We have identified that, unfortunately, some customers were incorrectly charged an unauthorised borrowing fee when their account went overdrawn or above their overdraft limit without prior arrangement. Our policy is that we do not charge in such situations when the amount involved is £50 or less.

 

Please accept our sincere apologies for this error.

 

In calculating your refund we have reviewed our system records which date back to September 2001. On this basis your refund amount has been calculated as £20.00

 

In addition, we will be adding interest calculated at 12% P/A gross, from the date of the incorrect charge, to arrive at a total amount due which will be confirmed on payment.

 

To allow us to send the refund to you, please complete the attached payment instruction form and return it to us in the enclosed pre-paid envelope.

 

You will appreciate that we may need to make additional background checks to ensure that the refund is paid to the correct business.

 

If you have any other queries or concerns, please telephone 08345 603 7259 between 9am and 5pm.

 

We aim to provide the highest level of customer service possible. However, if you experience a problem we will always seek to resolve this as quickly and efficiently as possible. A copy of our ‘How to voice your concerns’ leaflet can be obtained by contacting us. The complaint procedures are also on our website www.lloydstsb.com/business/contactus.

 

Once again, please accept our apologies for this error.

 

Yours sincerely

Gary McConnell

Senior Manager – Customer Support

 

Has anbody else received one of these? In my case it's only £20, but I imagine there will be a lot of business account holders being offered significantly greater sums. The payment instruction form referred to in the letter is quite innocuous and contains no 'conditions'.

 

How odd!

 

Els

  • Haha 1

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh??!!:-?

 

Some mistake, surely!!

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my first reaction, Gary.

 

However, this morning I got another one! An exact duplication of the first letter, which implies that it is a template letter, which in turn suggests that it's going out to others.

 

Anyway, I'm returning the payment instruction form, so we'll see what happens!

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Push for CI, push for CI!!!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all ,i got one one of them letter's sent to me after i lerft lloyds i was offered 50+interest which amounted to 84 quid, i took it, 2 may is my court preliminary hearing for allmost 3k inc interest +costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Els!!

 

I received one of these letters back in september 2006. It amounted to 7 x £10.00 charegs plus £48.40 interest (tot £118.40).

 

I have two thoughts on this:

 

1) Maybe it was intended as a sweetener so I wouldn't go attempt to reclaim any other charges?

 

2) Could they have been starting with the lowest charge amounts and then work thier way upwards ( ie. £10, then £20, then £25, etc...) all the way to the £60 they charged me on several occaisions (including one particular day that they charged me £60 TWICE!!!!

 

Suffice to say, I heard no more!!! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffice to say, I heard no more!!!

 

You mean they didn't pay up?

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha! Got this today!

 

"Dear Els,

 

Thank you for returning the completed form as requested.

 

In repect of the refund of unauthorised borrowing fees we have

calculated the amount due and enclose a cheque as follows:

 

Refund of unauthorised borroowing fee £20.00

Plus interest from the date of the unauthorised borrowing fee

until 5 days after the date of this letter calculated at 12% P/A

gross £12.24

Total Amount £32.24

 

If you have any futher queries, etc; etc"

 

Thank you, LTSB. That'll buy a case of six bottles of Els's favourite

tipple!:D

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm currently investigating this phenomenon and would ask for the assistance of any of you who have received one of these letters.

 

Please could you let me know roughly what the UB sequence number of your letter is? (No need to be too specific, nearest 100 or 1000 would suffice).

 

eg. Mine is around 12290.

 

Thanks,

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve...

 

Thanks for the PM. I have PM'd you back. For what it's worth, my ref no. began U0... not UB.

 

Also, it's an interesting line of thought on your thread and may be worth anyone who's had one of these letters having a read through.

 

Look forward to your thoughts.

 

pass :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replied to your PM TeamD.

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

I HAD A REFUND FROM THAT same template letter mine came to £58, they sent letter soon after i started my claim for 3k, i won chek my thread

 

Thanks for the PM replies folks.

 

Bobcatman, did you utilise the fact that what they were attempting to refund wasn't your losses amounted to as a result of their error in your court action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, my ref no. began U0... not UB.

 

Just checked, my mistake, I didn't have a copy in front of me. Mine starts U0 too (although god help them if they have to use the most significant digit!!!!!)

 

Has anyone received one of these for a personal account? I get the feeling that it seems to be restricted to business accounts at present. But that's probably not surprising in that they use different computer systems for personal and business accounts (as my account manager explained to me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have recently received a letter offering an increased sum in respect of this issue and interest at 30%! No confidentiality clause or other conditions. Lot's of waffle about stuff that just doesn't fit with the fact that they have effectively admitted that I am correct and that they have misrepresented the extent of losses incurred by their unauthorised borrowing from our account.

 

Not sure where to go from here, the amount is not really the issue (now circa £150 + £150 compensation) but the principle is that I believe that they should now (in the knowledge that they have got their sums wrong) fix everyone elses losses in respect of this matter. So far they have not offered to do this so I am loath to let it lie since it would appear that this has affected at least 30,000 accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...