First victory to Lloyds

[Kevboy_telford]

I will be getting written confirmation later this week in regards to the final judgment

Dependant on costs etc I hope to appeal

 

Thanks goes to everybody that has help me so far

 

Cheers

 

Kevboy_Telford

[Stornoway]

I will be getting written confirmation later this week in regards to the final judgment

Dependant on costs etc I hope to appeal

 

Thanks goes to everybody that has help me so far

 

Cheers

 

Kevboy_Telford

Kev

 

Do you have a thread running for the claim or can you start one so that we can see what steps you took and how your POC were laid out.

 

Many thanks.

[jubaxt]

did the judge seem bias-maybe he IS a shareholder-!!??

 

did he seem to have his marbles?-are you sure you didnt hear any rolling on the floor

 

he is either barking mad or VERY brave to count in the banks favour-surely

[hammers83]

so where do all of us stand that are in process of trying to get are charges back?do we continue or stop proceedings and wait for more info?

[bennyowen]

The case is not conclusive. In fact it does not stop anything. The bank did not make appearance in court. I think the claimant could not state his case correctly because the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 is very clear.

 

No bank will take the win seriously. I do not think Lloyds TSB will take the win seriously because they already threw in the towel by not coming to court relying on their usual defence statement.

 

It does not deter anyone from claiming their money back. I think its business as usual.

[davethorp]

The judgement was only in county court and has no bearing on other cases in that court or any other court in the UK. Only a high court ruling would do that.

 

I'm just glad I don't live in Birmingham as I won pretty easily this morning in similar circumstances (with Lloyds failing to show). The judge didn't even get me to prove my case and entered into judgement (with a couple of revisions to what I'd calculated but nothing major and I even got a default removal order)

[hammers83]

ok thats reasured me thanks for info.

[Stornoway]

The judgement was only in county court and has no bearing on other cases in that court or any other court in the UK. Only a high court ruling would do that.

 

I'm just glad I don't live in Birmingham as I won pretty easily this morning in similar circumstances (with Lloyds failing to show). The judge didn't even get me to prove my case and entered into judgement (with a couple of revisions to what I'd calculated but nothing major and I even got a default removal order)

Rhetorical Question : How many cases have we won like yours (V) this 1 single case where a bank has won.

 

It is un-nerving for people like me who are at court soon but suspect we need to keep it in perspective for what it is. Would love to see Kev' s POC though.

[olliebollie]

If you weigh up the success stories for the claiments against this one win to Lloyds its still got to be worth carrying on with all our claims.

 

Puts a bit of a cloud over it but hopefully only a one off!!

Keep on fighting! I am! If the awful does happen and I lose - hey at least I had damn good try!

 

Bev

[tooth_fairy]

Basically as I read the article, the fees were for servicing an unauthorised OD, if we were claiming for bounced DD's/Cheques, the way might still be clear.

 

I hope that the claimant takes this further though.....

[bennyowen]

Kev,

You have to consider an appeal. However, your appeal must be watertight - no sloppy statements but correctly stated legal arguments using UTCCR 1999 and SOGA including Limitation Act if your claims are above 6 years limit.

 

My suggestion to everyone is business as usual. If Kev will allow the forum to offer support and guidance on the appeal process, the forum need to see the exact POC - remove personal info.

 

Business as usual. The rules in this forum should be followed to the letter in all POC.

[FunnyMan]

I am literally at the beginning of our claims (starting with Crap1 and Halifax - they received my S.A.R's. this morning) and I initially felt that I had missed the boat, but then of course I realised that for the one case Lloyd's won today how many cases have the banks lost today? My guess is the ratio will be 1:100's (including those that the banks settled before entering Court).

 

Obviously the Judge has had his/her reasons for this, but so have the numerous other Judges' who have ruled today. Let us wait for the full details and see if an appeal will be launched and then if it will be contested by Lloyd's. In the meantime it is full steam ahead as far as I am concerned (I have to research Yorkshire bank for a claim going back to 1991/2).

 

My advice, for what it is worth, is 'stand firm'. Even in the summer we get rained upon sometimes!

[bally35]

First Trust Personal Finance

 

First Trust in Northern Ireland displays referral fees i.e to pay an item when you go into unauthorised ovradraft as a penalty.(SEE ABOVE)

How is that different from other UK banks for delivering exactly the same "service?"

If Kev wants an original of their terms and conditions for his appeal, then I will ceratinly forward this to him.

Also The Competition Commission has today announced new rules on the way banks in Northern Ireland operate their fees and charging structure, which will have wider reaching consequences across the UK

[Stornoway]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/35751-kevboy_telford-lloyds-2.html

[Gemma Young]

Last Updated: Tuesday, 15 May 2007, 11:56 GMT 12:56 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Bank's overdraft charges upheld

 

Lloyds TSB has become the first bank to win a charges case

 

Lloyds TSB has become the first bank to win a court case after being sued by a customer for imposing supposedly unfair overdraft penalty charges.

District Judge Cook, at Birmingham County Court, dismissed a claim for £2,545 from Kevin Berwick.

Mr Berwick argued Lloyds TSB's charges for having an unauthorised overdraft were illegal contractual penalties.

But Judge Cook decided the bank's charges were in fact legitimate fees for servicing an overdrawn account.

As such, the judge said they were legal.

"Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank....he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it," he said.

Mr Berwick said he was annoyed by the outcome. "I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case," he said.

He is now considering an appeal after the judge gave him leave to do so.

Blow to claimants?

As this judgement has come from a district judge, it is not binding on any other court, in the way that a High Court judgement might be.

However, as the first judgement of any kind in this sort of case, it could be a blow to the hundreds of thousands of people who are still trying to claim that they have been overcharged by their banks for running unauthorised overdrafts.

So far, many claimants have been successful because their banks have settled their cases before the issue came before a judge, precisely in order to avoid an adverse legal decision.

Now, the first decision in which a judge has given an opinion on the law has gone in a bank's favour.

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, a leading bank charges campaign, said he was very disappointed.

"We feel the judge has not considered the fact that disguising penalties as a fee for a service is a very common device for circumventing established law.

"The judge appears not to have looked behind the words on the contractual document," he said. Although Mr Berwick turned up at the original hearing in Birmingham to argue his case and was questioned by the judge, Lloyds TSB chose not to attend and relied simply on a written defence which it had submitted in advance. Neither did the bank have any lawyers present in court when the judgement was handed down.

[dannyboy660]

I'm sure most of you will have already seen this

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

 

Remember, BLS Collections are part of Lloyds.

 

I thought I'd mention it in case anyone is fighting a DCA on the grounds their debt is for illegal bank charges.

 

It's only one case and not exactly an earthquake, but it needs to be noted.

[wjpshaw]

We do not know what the details of Mr Berwick's claim and argument were. He considered it to be well-argued but there could well be elements he overlooked. Everyone should remember that it comes down to one key fact: the bank must prove that its charges do not exceed its costs. There is plenty of legal precedent for this but no mention in the article. They might well claim that they are charges for a service but this is not what is stated in their T&Cs. I think the Judge in this case made a poor and uninformed decision. I really feel that something must have been missing here and I for one will keep on with my claims.

 

P.S. Has anyone else experienced the courts not sending out allocation forms and booking 6 or so people into one hearing? Any feedback welcome.

[beresd]

so those in the know, how do you think this effects any future people claiming against banks? Must put the s**ts up them no...

[nellystew]

Basically as I read the article, the fees were for servicing an unauthorised OD, if we were claiming for bounced DD's/Cheques, the way might still be clear.

 

I hope that the claimant takes this further though.....

 

That's what I was thinking.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

If in initial letters asking for the charges back I had included fees for servicing the OD, am I able to remove them from what I claim using MCOL?

[Annoyed from Caerphilly]

Hi,

Does anyone have any views re todays' reporting of Lloyds winning a case at County Court.

In case you haven't seen the story on the BBC news website, it can be found at BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

What do you think ? Has it sunk us renegades or it is likely to be a flash in the pan ? Also, is the Complainant a member of the CAG, if not can he be approached and offered assistance with his appeal ? A successful appeal may benefit all of us.

Any thoughts ? Cheers, Eddie

[tictac]

ok, i'm really concerned now and need a little help please.

 

I have had an order from Judge at Hitchin County Court asking me to resubmit my claim, as it "makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR 16.4 (1) by setting out a concise statement of the facts. I must amend or substitute my particulars of claim setting out my case in plain English by 4pm on 18th May. If the order is complied with the Defendant has permission to file and serve an amended defence in accordance with CPR 16.5 setting out its case in plain English." !!!!

 

Now, the original standard letters I used to send to the bank were from a different website (Martin Lewis' site) so I really want to ensure I now send in a concise point by point document setting out my claim. I really dont want to #### up at this stage!! Can anyone help me??

[archer_66]

oh dear what on earth was he thinking! no documents from the bank couldve been there for disclosure as the bank or solicitors didnt even turn up! whats going on! full disclosure should be made compulsory now for the appeal surely?! i live in birmingham and am waiting a court date! am i worried now?!!!

wonder if he was a CAG member?

[Micheyboo]

Has anybody seen this??? Just posted this afternoon on BBC!

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

 

Is it time to get worried?

[OscarK]

yes I have seen it and can only say that it worries me.

'As this judgment has come from a district judge, it is not binding on any other court, in the way that a High Court judgment might be'

 

However what do the bosses of CAG think - some guidance or reassurace from them would be good .......

[noomill060]

What on earth was the judging thinking of?

 

As stated earlier in this thread, the mods of this site should make it their number one priority to help kev with an appeal and have this judgement filed in the appropriate place.

 

The time for mutual backslapping and general encouragement is over.

 

Maybe we have become complacent?

 

Still, the judge must be barking!