First victory to Lloyds

[carter56]

hopefully not but i bet everyone has been shaken by this outcome. i have just read about it on the martin lewis site and he is looking to find out who the gentleman was and he is willing to help him fund his appeal.

i think a group hug is needed to calm things down

linda

[querkyone]

At the risk of ending up with egg on my face I am going to say this is nothing to worry about.

Read it carefully - Lloyds did NOT even turn up, yet got a judgement in their favour.

 

The Judge SAID "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,"

 

So this guy (Mr K Berwick) had "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,".................. Basically I think he was just badly prepared and allowed complacency to creep into his case.

 

I would suggest this is no more than a case of "Make Sure you're ready in FULL!"

 

Nothing more, nothing less. 1 win out of how many nation-wide?? It was always going to happen eventually and IT made news. Means nothing to those who ARE prepared properly.

 

Querky

[podgydad]

Knowing Birmingham court as i do, and if I was being cynical, I would say this had more to do with do with reducing Birmingham's workload than anything else.

[GaryH]

Lets all keep this in perspective.

 

It was a small claims case - no precedent can be set. It was one small claims court judgement - no more, no less.

[GaryH]

It is one win out of thousands of claims. It was in the small claims court.

 

No precedent can be set. People should continue with there claims as normal and keep it all in perspective.

[hudu]

Certainly not panicing just yet, But a little concerned that this will give lloyds chance to drag cases out even further. Could this be the case?

[beresd]

OK, it doesnt set a precedent, but surely the PR Lloyds are going to get out of this is goingt o put others off, and it will surely effect how Lloyds TSB react to future claims, they may let them all go to the small claims court...

[noomill060]

From the sound of this, the claimant didnt make a great job of presenting his case.

 

"Embarrassing" was one of the adjectives Lloyds used in their defence.

[dubliner10]

The biggest blow from this case is the effect it will have on the bank's solicitors. I imagine that they aren't going to settle before the hearing now meaning that everyone will either have to go to court or give up - a bit of a gamble for the judge if he was thinking that the finding might reduce the workload on the courts.

 

I'm mightily p****d off over this. Have just finished court bundle and was getting excited now feel utterly sick:(

[RedVixen]

Great - I will be filing in Brum

 

I will be bouncing plenty back on forward on here to make sure it is correct

[judi3]

 

Join Date: May 2007

Post Count: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

 

 

Reading the ins and outs of the pdf notes on the thisismoney site, in a purely "non legal" sense, I feel the claimant didn't present his case correctly, as is noted by the judge,in paragraph 5, the judge states no details of the claim were forthcoming from the claimant ie account details, list of charges, and in the banks defence they evenstate the claim to be "embarrassing and insufficiently particularised "

As Martin states this is not a precedent at all, although worrying, it shouldn't deter anyone from attempting to claim.

(EDIT) Potentially libellous comments copiedfrom another site removed

 

copied from martins lewis site

 

updated this post please read this thread further i judge on listening to gossip .

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf

[Destinyofsouls]

Lloyds are using the 'service' aspect for their defence of unauth o/d fees. The G& S Act S15 state;

15 Implied term about consideration

(1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.

(2) What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact.

I imagine that the judge thinks that the banks do operate a reasonable charge. Seems like it is up to them, not law as to what is reasonable.

Have I got this right?

[noomill060]

The solicitors will be aware that this was a one off among hundreds of thousands. They will also know they werent exactly fighting a master of litigation with a mind like a sabre, able to slash through a defence with elegant ease.

 

The dude fkd up. simple as.

[lateralus]

at least now i know why the system is practically in meltdown.

i'd say just watch and we will soon see bankfodder's and the other's reactions which will show us what's going on -

they haven't misled us this far have they? just watch and learn.

[m4rtin]

looks like at least from what judi3 has posted everyone needs to check several times that their claims are 100% accurate and that they send all information required into the bank. i guess without statements in the court there is simply no evidence

[Micheyboo]

I hope this doesn't affect the offer DG just made me!?

 

Fingers crossed we are all panicing for nothing

[plymss]

I see this as a positive, it is 1 of two things the Judge has done here

 

1) he has made a decision without reviewing all the facts, which would make this judgment his opinion only, and no other court has to follow this.

 

or in my opinion

 

2) he has made judgment against so as to get this to the court of appeal, if it goes to appeal, that is where precedent will be set. I cant imagine the court of appeal justifying that going 30p over your limit entitles the bank to charge £35 for example.

if it does go to court of appeal then you can bet this guy will be flooded with offers from law firms to represent him.

 

 

basically decide is it a) crap judge or b) crafty intelligent judge.

 

plymss

[tallfella90]

Was just this minute about to file on-line at moneyclaim, then spotted this.. does anyone think this is an isolated case, the judge could be trying to set a precident but i doubt it, im going to press ahead with my claim and see what happens. As was mentioned there will most likely be an appeal which would force the bank to reveal is charging structure in court, my guess for what it`s worth is that it won`t, as any bank revealing it`s corporate structure with regards to `charges` (penalties) would open it`s self up to the other banks and put itself at a massive disadvantage.That`s what iv`e been lead to believe anyway...

 

What do you think??? Comments on this development would be very useful!!

[rbrears]

Two cases were being heard.

 

First guy didnt even serve a schedule of charges as ordered by the court and his case was dismissed because of it.

 

Second guy did not have in his bundle the Lloyds Terms and Conditions governing his account - you know, the bit that says you must have sufficient funds in your account to cover any payments - that bit that is in EVERY single bank's terms and conditions.............Well, the bank didnt provide a copy in its documents, just a template defence and the claimant hadn't requested the T&Cs from the bank or found a copy himself. As it turns out the judge did have a quick look on Lloyds website to see if he could see the terms and conditions - guess what? They're not on there - surprise surprise. So..... the judge decided that the claimant couldn't show that he was in breach of contract by going overdrawn or exceeding an overdraft limit - therefore no breach of contract, no penalty.

 

Most unfortunate for the second claimant - the moral of the story is if you are going to a hearing and alleging that charges are penalties MAKE SURE you have the terms and conditions with you and make sure that they require you not to go overdrawn or exceed your overdraft limit. I hope he gets these documents and appeals, although the appeal might not be allowed on the basis that he should have had this documentation in the first place.

 

The judgment is absolutely nothing to worry about - excpet that it is being reported everywhere as "bank wins judgment on penalty charge case" and that the judge found that they were appropriate fees - all totally incorrect.

 

You can read the judgement on the BBC News website.

[judi3]

 

Join Date: May 2007

Post Count: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

 

 

Reading the ins and outs of the pdf notes on the thisismoney site, in a purely "non legal" sense, I feel the claimant didn't present his case correctly, as is noted by the judge,in paragraph 5, the judge states no details of the claim were forthcoming from the claimant ie account details, list of charges, and in the banks defence they evenstate the claim to be "embarrassing and insufficiently particularised "

As Martin states this is not a precedent at all, although worrying, it shouldn't deter anyone from attempting to claim.

Edited please do not post comments of this nature.

 

 

copied from martin lewis site

 

updated this post please read this thread further i judged on listening to gossip .

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf

[OscarK]

Ok, I stand corrected. Let's wait to see what happens and in the meantime stick to our original plans.

THanks for replying.

[Louiselouise]

God what on earth is the judge thinking of!! Edited If he thinks that kinda fees are fair - we are definately paying him too much as a Judge!!

Don't give up Kev - we're all behind you

[flyboy80]

It looks like - with all respect to Kevboy, that he went into this unprepared, and as a result unfortunately left himself wide open. It means that we all must make sure that we submit correct and orderly paper work, in a timely manner and the correct POC's. Failure to do so with result in a failure of your case. If in doubt ask for help, there are many here that have gone through the process without any problems, again with watertight paperwork. My thoughts are with Kevboy, I implore you to appeal but appeal with help from the guys on the forum, use the buddy system if necessary, post your POC's so that they can be amended etc.

 

Good Luck

 

Flyboy80

[fifixx]

Hi - there's a thread on this in the Lloyds section:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/90246-first-victory-lloyds.html

 

I think the dust needs to settle....and let's watch the next few weeks of cases and judge's comments.

 

good luck to everyone!

[nicsussex]

I understand that GaryH has been working quite carefully with Kev on this - so I would expect there to be further developments.