First victory to Lloyds

[noomill060]

Yeah, dont give up kev, you'll win in the end.

[Shoestring]

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.

 

I tend agree. Although Berwick atended the court to argue his case, Lloyds TSB didn't bother, relying on a written defence. Equally significant, Lloyds TSB's lawyers were not present in court when the verdict was handed down.

I am inclined to treat this as an anomaly unless it happens again soon. At that point I'd begin worrying.

 

Not that the bank won't be looking at this eagerly. After all, it is unreasonable to expect them to sit still and pay back all their ill gotten gains without a very serious fight. My guess is that rather than fight openly they will fight behind the scenes...

 

Shoestring

[GaryH]

 

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

 

 

copied from martins lewis site

Not for the first time, Martin has his wires crossed.

 

There were 2 claimants. The first didn't show, and as his claim was insufficiantly pleaded the judge threw it out without considering evidence.

[bennyowen]

This case is a lesson for anyone who is writing a POC to ensure it fully conforms to the information given on this site.

 

There is no need to pursue a case to court when you fail to present the correct information. It does not help anyone but the banks.

 

I do not blame the judge. I think it was an error in presentation - incomplete info.

[Louiselouise]

Do we think its the Judge trying to get his 15 minutes of Fame - as no doubt this will make the news and the newspapers? - and he is trying to make a name for himself. At this time, would it also be appropriate to ask if Judges have to declare anywhere ( as they have to in Government and in a variety of other positions) if they are a shareholder or have any interests in a company - it certainly would be very interesting to find out...

[Destinyofsouls]

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/docs/Summary.pdf

 

Tell me I'm wrong, but.....

The Mr berwick used a correct template and still got his case thrown out, because the judge says that these charges are not ' a breach of contract' they are a service.

[noomill060]

Now- this looks interesting!

 

I think kev may unwittingly have been the Test Case...

 

 

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Was the bank victory an accident?

 

 

The victory of Lloyds TSB in a bank charge case at Birmingham County court is interesting for several reasons.

 

One is that it seems to have come about by accident.

The policy of all banks has been the same when fending off claims from customers accusing them of charging too much for unauthorised overdrafts.

The banks stall and stall - and then pay up before a claim is actually heard in court.

Tens of thousands of people around the country have had this experience, in some cases receiving cheques for thousands of pounds to pay them off.

Judge Cooke said: "I have not been made aware of any case in which the merits of such a claim have been ruled on by a court."

Written defence

So how did a relatively small claim make it all the way to the judge in Birmingham County Court for him to make a decision?

In all other cases...terms of settlement had been reached between the parties, usually involving payment in full

 

 

Judge Cooke

 

 

Initially the claimant, Kevin Berwick, had tried to sue for his money using the government's online service for small claims.

This operates out of Northampton County Court.

If a claim is defended than it is automatically referred to a real court.

Lloyds TSB offered a partial settlement but Mr Berwick rejected it.

The bank duly filed a written defence.

However the bank's lawyers did not turn up for the hearing before the judge in April and, most unusually, did not try again to settle with Mr Berwick either.

In fact he had had no contact with the bank for a couple of months before the judgement.

When Judge Cooke eventually handed down his ruling a month later, the Lloyds TSB lawyers did not even turn up to hear the good news, although admittedly they had known in advance what the decision would be from his draft decision.

Judge Cooke commented on the bank's inaction since filing its written defence.

It was "unusual in that the defendant appears to have taken no further action since doing so," he said.

"In all other cases in the same list, including several involving this defendant, terms of settlement had been reached between the parties, usually involving payment in full on the amounts claimed, without admission of liability," he pointed out.

How come?

The banks have been terrified of losing a case in court in case it set a legal precedent.

The Birmingham case does not do that, as it was decided by a district judge.

But even so it would have been very embarrassing to lose a case there.

Campaigners against bank charges have suggested that the banks are so swamped by claims that they, and the outside legal firms they employ, are in some cases simply losing track of the paperwork, and that this one slipped through.

Mr Berwick suggested in court that might have been the case with him.

"He may be right in that," commented Judge Cooke.

The Lloyds TSB headquarters only appeared to know of the case when informed by the BBC after the judgement was delivered.

It hardly seems likely that one of the biggest, and most profitable, banks in the world would have willingly allowed a legal case to go ahead, with no one in court to argue its side.

Losing might have opened up the disagreeable prospect of paying hundreds of millions of pounds to other customers in similar circumstances.

What happens next?

Mr Berwick is pondering whether or not to appeal and has 14 days to make up his mind.

If he does then the case might eventually go to a division of the High Court, and that is where things would really get interesting.

Cases decided in the High Court do set a precedent for lower courts to follow.

If Lloyds TSB lost there that would be most unfortunate - for it - but would almost certainly be pursued further up the legal food chain. Either way, Lloyds TSB may be feeling pleased with itself today - but that feeling may evaporate quite soon.

[thetenter]

Not for the first time, Martin has his wires crossed.

 

There were 2 claimants. The first didn't show, and as his claim was insufficiantly pleaded the judge threw it out without considering evidence.

To clarify,judi3's post was a combination of posts take from that site not a quote from martin himself. Full thread here - Bank Charges case upheld - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

[noomill060]

Kev- appeal. You'll win.

 

Winning a High Court appeal will set a precedent...

[Pagan98]

Okay, I've had a quick skim of the judgement and this is my (non-expert) take on it.

 

There were 2 claims covered by this judgement.

 

The first claim was poorly articulated and did not present any rationale as to why the charges levied were unlawful. Therefore it failed.

 

The second claim failed because the claimant stated that issuing payment instructions that took him over his overdraft limit was not a breach of contract. The fee was therefore a service charge not a penalty charge. As the action was not a breach of contract, the terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations that cover penalty charges on breach of contract could not apply.

 

The alternate argument, under the Supply of Goods and Services Act failed because the judge required the claimant to make the case that the charge was unreasonable and the claimant was not able to do so.

[photoman]

Interesting to see so many "guests" on this thread....... hello Sc&M.... will you all be back in the office spying on threads, instead of attending court when it actually comes to the time of attending a case and providing disclosure ?

Enjoy your 5 minutes of glory, then get back to your day jobs of trying to defend the indefensible.

[dubliner10]

 

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

 

 

copied from martins lewis site

 

The paragraph above pertains to the Judges comment on Haughton - NOT Berwick. Kevin Berwick as the judge states he submitted his bundle in good time - in fact the Judge called him "a model litigant"....

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/docs/Summary.pdf

 

 

The judges findings seem to focus on the fact that he doesn't believe the charges were anything to do with breach of contract - i.e. there was no 'express term of contract' applying to Mr. Berwick therefore the charges did not apply relating to contract.

He found that the eivdence from the media relating to the charges being excessive to the banks costs were inadmissible.

 

The judgement goes depressingly on and on...and sadly seems to make sense.

 

Hopefully a more legal skillful mind than mine will find some hope.

[lateralus]

well, i've just read the judgment and i think kevin berwick did a superb job, answering all of the judges questions and was as prepared as you are ever likely to be. the judge just decided that the bank was within their rights to charge what they like - and i think that is probably where he will come unstuck.

yes, there were 2 cases - one didn't turn up and had a terrible poc - very inadequate - and his case was for £200ish. The other one, Kevin Berwick, was for £2k and he appears to have done a very good job. I think we need to wait and see what bankfodder and others make of it.

apparently martyn lewis is already offering to help with his appeal - but i'm sure it is in hand. let's just take a step back and see what happens.

 

Approved judgement [424KB]

 

 

 

here's his thread - anybody catch that he put the total amount of the overdraft interest into his claim.

 

Kevboy_telford Vs LLoyds (1 2)

Kevboy_telford

[judi3]

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

[Destinyofsouls]

Kev- appeal. You'll win.

 

Winning a High Court appeal will set a precedent...

 

 

How can he win when the judge states it is not a breach of contract?

 

Can someone explain this to me?

[Destinyofsouls]

Okay, I've had a quick skim of the judgement and this is my (non-expert) take on it.

 

There were 2 claims covered by this judgement.

 

The first claim was poorly articulated and did not present any rationale as to why the charges levied were unlawful. Therefore it failed.

 

The second claim failed because the claimant stated that issuing payment instructions that took him over his overdraft limit was not a breach of contract. The fee was therefore a service charge not a penalty charge. As the action was not a breach of contract, the terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations that cover penalty charges on breach of contract could not apply.

 

The alternate argument, under the Supply of Goods and Services Act failed because the judge required the claimant to make the case that the charge was unreasonable and the claimant was not able to do so.

 

That's how I understand it- which means we will all lose in court

Does it not??

[Pagan98]

That's how I understand it- which means we will all lose in court

Does it not??

I don't think so. If and when you're asked "Is it a breach of contract to write a cheque that bounces due to lack of funds?" you'd answer "Yes, definitely!".

[christinajanep]

my husband has just called to say that its just been announced on the radio that lloyds tsb have won a case in court, apparently the judge said the charges were reasonable...

 

does anyone know anything about this

[car2]

It's just my luck, things like this always happen to me- just as im about to get my hands on the money that is rightfully mine, the chance is taken away. I just cant believe it, I hope lloyds victory is a one off!!

[tedededdy]

I don't think there is too much to worry about, there have been so many successful claims.

 

With all the resources available to the banks, they would have (If they could have) avoided paying back the millions they have so far by going to court and winning,(which incidently they were not even aware they had done if you go by the BBC report).

 

We don't know the ins and outs of the claim, and if there is an appeal and it goes to a higher authority I'm sure the banks would lose way too much if they fell foul there, and couldn't risk it.

 

Keep going everyone, this one (i believe) may have had some mistakes and just shows that you should just read and learn from all on this site, and I am sure you will be refunded.

[dubliner10]

As I read it the Judge didn't find any express term in the contract which forbids the customer from exceeding there overdraft limit.

"...of the bank accepts the customers request it is entitled to debit the account...if the bank declines the request it is not in breach of contract...and nor is the customer for having made the request in the first place...."

 

in a word b*ll*x

 

and big hairy ones at that..........

[bangerracer]

I'm a little worried about sending my AQ now, don't know whether to carry on persuing lloyds.

[m4rtin]

i think its best to wait a few days see what pans out. lloyds were probably just lucky with this one and wont let any others go to court. i guess the flipside to that is they may let every case go to court now

[christinajanep]

i think there's alot of people thinking the same thing

[hudu]

Just wondering if we can expect some official type statement from CAG mods this evening? I think it will help a lot of the worried people arriving on hearing this news.