GOT A COURT DATE? Important, please read......

[paulsuebank]

Re Witness statement for LLoyds customers (above)

Gary - this 'one hell of an argument' thank you for all the work you've done on this. I am claiming as a business

so can I confirm that all i need do is delete para 20 & 25 which refer to Consumer acts?

Also in Foot Anstey defence they deny Unfair Contract Terms Act apply to business - Is this correct?

(details here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=156006)

Cheers Paul

 

Sorry link should be http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-811800.html

where item 7 says "It is denied that the Unfair Contract Terms Act or the Unfair Terms inConsumer Contracts Regulations apply to business customers"

 

I'm just learning how to display links and hope additonal post will save you time

cheers Paul

[Johnsworld]

MGP,

It would be a good idea to get the stuff for your bundle together. If you create a file for the letters you sent on your computer and copy the court bundle stuff from the CAG site and save that it will save you a lot of time. You also need the letters from the bank and the spreadsheet of charges, but don't print the spreadsheet until you need to because it will be adding interest. I wouldn't print or copy anything until you are directed to do so by the court.

Regards,

John.

[mgp]

Many thanks for advice.

Do you think I should send a nudge letter?

[amber_ellie]

I have two of my own T&C and the Morton one from Gary. I know he has been asking for everyone's T&C's. Are these available for any of us to use and if so where are they posted please as I seem to have missed them and want to send in my Court Bundle on Monday. Thanks.

[Johnsworld]

MGP,

 

I guess there's no harm in sending a nudge letter. It's doubtful you will get a reply but you can show the court that you are the one attempting to resolve the issue.

 

Have a look at this thread for some examples courtesy of lateralus

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/71343-when-you-have-filed.html

 

SHE (don't make the same mistake I did) has written a few letters and you could probably pick the bits you like to suit your case.

 

Regards,

John.

[mgp]

Help

part of the wording in their defence

 

Insofar as part of the Claimants claim is based on charges levied on their account prior to six years from the date of issure of the claim that is 19.4.2001, this part of the claim is statute barred by sction 5 of the limitation act 1980. The Defendant is unable to verify the amount claimed prior to the 19.2.2001 as the particulars of claim does not show how the amount claimed is arrived at.

 

The claimants claim is denied in its entirety . It is further denied that the Claimants entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum from the BANK

 

Unsure what this means as took all info from statements received from them.

Appear I may have made a stupid mistake

Should I give up?

[Johnsworld]

MGP,

 

Why would you think of giving up? This sounds worse than it is and you are more concerned than you need to be because it's all new territory for you - but it's not for the bank. Don't be intimidated - you have lots of people on this site who will help and support you.

 

I didn't claim beyond six years but from what I've read since I wished I had. If I understood things correctly, if the charges are unlawful then the 6 years statute does not apply.

 

As for the defence that "The Defendant is unable to verify the amount claimed prior to the 19.2.2001 as the particulars of claim does not show how the amount claimed is arrived at." Did you use MCOL or did you submit an N1 to the court? Did you complete a spreadsheet using the template on the CAG site itemising each charge and did you submit it with your N1 or send a copy to the court?

 

I'm guessing you might not have. I can't think of any other reason why the bank could question what you're claiming.

 

If you post details of how you claimed and what you submitted (no personal details) I'm sure you'll get the advice you need.

Regards,

John.

[mgp]

The information for the amount claimed was taken from the banks statements sent to me. Used MCOL and submitted a spreadsheet (calculated from Martins Money calculater) to the Bank prior to that. My case has now been transferred to my local court and in the process of submitting this info to my local court as advised by this website.

Your are correct I am running scared.

 

Mandy

[Johnsworld]

Try not to be scared. Just think that they've let you get in a mess and then stung you bigtime - you should be angry!

 

It seems you have done things correctly. Not sure why the bank is questioning what you are claiming. Maybe someone else might have a view.

 

As well as what you are sending to the court, I'd be inclined to send a letter to the bank in reference to their comments with another copy of the POC showing latest total with interest accrued.

 

Regards,

John.

[Johnsworld]

Had a thought.

 

When you listed each charge did you show what it was for?

 

John.

[Mistermind]

Help

part of the wording in their defence

 

Insofar as part of the Claimants claim is based on charges levied on their account prior to six years from the date of issure of the claim that is 19.4.2001, this part of the claim is statute barred by sction 5 of the limitation act 1980. The Defendant is unable to verify the amount claimed prior to the 19.2.2001 as the particulars of claim does not show how the amount claimed is arrived at.

 

The claimants claim is denied in its entirety . It is further denied that the Claimants entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum from the BANK

 

Unsure what this means as took all info from statements received from them.

Appear I may have made a stupid mistake

Should I give up?

 

Mandy,

 

I infer the date of your claim was 19/4/2007, and the 6th anniversary before it being 19/4/2001. I believe "19.2.2001" in the Lloyds letter is a typo intending "19.4.2001".

 

Bankfodder has a sticky post on how to reclaim going further back than 6 years. I believe the enabling principle is that if you can prove Lloyds levied penalty charges while fully realising they were unlawful, then that act would have been criminal, and the 6-year civil limitation act would no longer apply.

 

Type 1 reclaim

 

You are reclaiming Lloyds bank penalties not Lloyds card penalties, so this opens the door to one potential complication. Lloyds recently started sending out a new template letter (text posted as a hyperlink earlier on this thread) outlining their stance post Berwick-v-Lloyds. Translated into plain English I believe they were saying that if you only reclaim charges accompanying straightforward cheque and DD bounces, they will not fight your claim in court.

 

Type 2 bank reclaim

 

If you try to reclaim charges triggered where bad cheques and DDs were HONOURED when presented, then they will defend these in court as commercial service fees (Lloyds providing money-lending service for your benefit and incurring risk of bad debt for Lloyds, this service over and above the normal account administration service).

 

If your reclaim does include Type 2 on the grounds that they were Dunlop-type penalty charges not commercial service fees, and if the judge rules for Lloyds and against you, then the situation gets complicated. It becomes unclear whether charges were knowingly, criminally levied, hence unclear if the 6-year civil limitation remains applicable.

 

Partial success

 

I have asked on the forum several times without response, that if some claims are upheld but others dismissed, whether in Small Claims Court you will be paid in part, or whether your claims will ALL be dismissed, good and bad. I shall try to send a PM to a leading CAG lawyer.

 

I personally would be very queasy about reclaiming Type 2, for the reason that I cannot think of a good retort to the Lloyds "service fee" defence, which in the wake of two Lloyds successes will surely be put up in court, not just threatened to be put up.

 

Mandy -- just my humble opinion without legal training. I suggest all claimants investigate and digest the recent changes to Lloyds stance re Type 2.

[mgp]

If I send a letter to the bank with the new value and also to the court am unure if this will stand up in court.

 

Yes did list each charge but not what it was for.

[mgp]

MISTERMIND

 

Yes the date of the claim was 19.4.2007

 

Have checked and one of the claims was for an unpaid SO

 

After reading your message I am unsure where to go from here , if like you say the they are defending this type of claim, perhaps I should withdraw.

[Mistermind]

No Mandy, I said the opposite.

 

If they bounced your DD without paying it (Type 1), they were PENALISING you, they offered you no benefit, did you no service, so no justification of a "service charge". In which case this pure penalty charge is good for reclaim, and they will not fight it so far as I understand.

 

If they honoured your DD when you had no money to pay it (Type 2), then I myself cannot put up a convincing argument why Lloyds had not done you a favour, a benefit, a service, deserving of a service fee. Alright to try claim these when Lloyds did not fight it up till April. But after Kevin it looks as if Lloyds made a policy change. Lloyds have continued to settle many cases before court, but I suspect mostly type 1 reclaims. Without a central info clearing house on CAG it is very difficult to keep up with rapidly devloping events, to confirm if these continuing settlements were all Type 1.

 

If you only want to reclaim type 1, by all means go ahead with flag flying and drum beating. It is your money and they owe you. But most certainly you will need to identify the reason for every charge, and make full statements available, certainly if you get to court, which I doubt.

 

GL xx

[mgp]

Yes have re read everything again and you are correct it does come under type 1. I think I made two mistakes, 1) not stating the reason and 2 )claiming 3 months too many. If I were to resend a new schedule of my charges to the bank (copy to the court ) with full reasons should I take off the amount for the 3 months? and would I have a hope that this would stand up in court, I thought once submitted that was it.

 

Mandy

 

Have read the thread you suggested , thanks .

[Mistermind]

Good news. I have heard of many straightforward and quick full settlements offered by Lloyds long before court date.

 

So far as I can see, provided you have T&C, Type 1 claims can be proven in court to be Dunlop-type penalty charges, eligible for full refund less Lloyds cost in bouncing. Because Lloyds do not want to face the question "what is your true cost price" they do not want to face you in court.

 

In theory then, these unlawful charges were levied with knowing criminal intent, so the 6-year limitation does not apply. Two considerations:

 

(A) Not many people on CAG have reclaimed beyond 6 years, you will need to find them (perhaps via ADVANCED SEARCH of keyword "limitations") and prepare yourself with all the extra documentation and arguments. If you find the best helper it could be quite easy, I don't know. I certainly know nothing here.

 

(B) Whereas "manilla" reclaims will be nodded through, an unusual 6+ years reclaim may receive special attention from Lloyds barristers, taking extra long time. It could be they will find a high-powered man to find holes in your documentation, so as to make another "Kevin" example of you to discourage others.

 

I think it is a tradeoff between how much you stand to gain (known quantity), and how much you stand to lose (unknown quantity). But you need advice from a 6-year specialist, not me, someone who knows more than the minimum necessary.

 

Good luck Mandy. XX

[Mistermind]

Mandy,

 

SEARCH

ADVANCED SEARCH

Keyword "limitation"

search thread title only

 

This returned 36 threads -- appears to be a regular industry.

[fairwinds]

Hi,

 

Sorry for hi-jacking this thread, I don't know how to start a new one:-|

 

I am just about to send in an N1 claim form, do I need a covering letter?

 

I am also sending a copy to the bank, is there a covering letter for them?

 

Any help welcome. x

[Mistermind]

fairwinds, try

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/welcome-our-forum/69359-cant-find-what-youre.html

All-in-one links, abbreviations, acronyms, terms

 

To start new thread, keep clicking backward arrow until you reach the list of all Forum names. Click the forum you want, then click "New Thread" button to start new thread.

 

To research any topic: Click SEARCH, SEARCH ADVANCED, specifying either keyword or author, specifying search by contents or search by thread title.

[mgp]

Hi M

Will have a look at the threads today.

 

The total cost of the extra 3 months is only just over £50 so not a huge amount. Still unsure if I should re submit the schedule minus extra months, as feel very out of my depth. But unsure if the re submitted version both to the bank and court would stand up in court. I thought once submitted that amount was set and unchangeable.

 

My case has only just been tranferred and have not as yet submitted any schedule to the local court. But probably need to do this asap.

Mandy

[Mistermind]

Mandy, since the watershed Kevin case Lloyds have fundamentally replaced their submission to court with no objections, so I see no reason why a claimant should not also submit a new version pleading necessity in the light of Lloyds defence changes.

 

I cannot comment further on 6-year-plus reclaims, with 36 threads it looks like a PhD research project and I do not have time. I have yet to receive a response from the prestigious zootscoot, on whether if you reclaim (A+B), and A is upheld but B is dismissed, whether you will get paid for A, or have A thrown out and leave court penniless. If or when I get an answer I shall post here.

 

You might consider making a straightforward claim up to 6 years back and no further. When this is settled in full, hopefully before court, you could mount a separate action for the £50 without jeopardy. That reclaim is based on a different legal argument, so quite in order to do it separately, you would not be thrown out as Abuse of Process (bothering court twice for same claim). The fact that Lloyds had settled in full up to 6 years back could be argued as a tacit admission the charges were unlawful. You then only need to prove they levied unlawful charges knowingly, and then the civil limitation act becomes inapplicable.

 

In the light of recent dynamic developments, and a possible crunch showdown in court coming, on the pragmatic target of getting paid, it would seem the sooner the better. At the moment banks will repay Type 1 charges in full because they do not want to face court. If eventually the greedy buggers resign themselves to a compromise lower figure, say £3 or £5 or £10 as a lawful alleged "cost price", then your retrospective refund would only be for the full amount less £X.

 

GL Mandy,

X

[mgp]

Hi M

 

Still going through the threads......

 

Have asked on another thread if by re submitting the schedule it will stand up in court, so far no answer

 

Their defence states that I am unable to verify the amount claimed

 

surely by taking this from their own statements the amount is verified.

 

 

It also says It does not show how the amount claimed is arrived at

 

this is my fault I think , as although listing every charge only stated what they were for on an accompanying letter, so looks as if I will have to re submit scedule whatever.

 

After reading your comments I am leaning towards deleting the extra 3 months , but have no idea how to word the letter making comment to the Kevin case, so any help would be appreciated.

 

Thank you for your time

Mandy

[Mistermind]

If for now you wish to drop claims for those 3 months,

easiest would be to reply to Lloyds in everyday English that:

 

"Whilst I remain convinced all my claims are justified in law,

to save time and effort, and because I am a thoroughly nice gal,

I am now content to limit my current reclaims to charges levied after 19APR2001."

 

Such a letter keeping your future options open would stand up in court, and I believe judges, lawyers, and readers such as myself, not to mention writers such as yourself, will be hugely relieved the letter is not in gobbledygook.

[Mistermind]

posted on wrong thread.

Moved to Jimmyboy v Lloyds thread.

[Pen]

If they honoured your DD when you had no money to pay it (Type 2), then I myself cannot put up a convincing argument why Lloyds had not done you a favour, a benefit, a service, deserving of a service fee.

Hi Mastermind, just caught your post above and thought that i could put forward a very convincing argument why by paying a DD when there was no available funds to pay it, LTSB did not do me any favors.

A couple of years ago I had 2 DDs one was set up to pay my council tax of £120.00 and if LTSB had paid it I would have been just £3.00 overdrawn. LTSB did not pay it and i was charged both by LTSB and the council. The other DD was for a LTSB loan, again for the same amount of £120.00 and by paying it I was overdrawn by £120.00 yet I did not want this paying as I could not afford it, i thought the council tax was more important, LTSB however did not see it that way. they did not pay my loan to do me any favors, the only reason they paid the loan was because it was their loan. they did not care if i was over my overdraft limit as long as they where being paid. So by making me OD for £120.00 rather then £3.00 they did in fact do me a mis-service. I did try to cancel the DD for the Loan but was informed that because it was set up by LTSB it could not be canceled.