First victory to Lloyds

[photoman]

Davethorp

I agree.

The Bank are on a sticky wicket either way.

This is probably the EXACT same reason they have not taken the judgements in default that have gone AGAINST them onto appeal.

 

They have accidentally shot themselves in the foot by letting this one slip through, and any jubilation will be short lived once the realisation of what could happen next dawns upon them.

[diskmandave]

Now, I know why I couldn't get on the site this afternoon!

 

This is one of the few times i've been able to get on since Saturday afternoon!

[terry1]

i have applied to the online court, and havent heard anything as yet when can i put this

 

I also require a complete breakdown of each Late Payment fee and Over Limit fee charged to this account, or any similar related charges. The complete breakdown of each charge must contain the following:

 

 

Hourly rate of each member of staff involved with each administration of the fees / charges. The time each member of staff spent on the administration of the fees/charges. Details of the work carried out and completed by each member of staff involved with each administration of the fees/charges. Total cost of the paper, envelopes, ink, and postage of each automated and manually written letter relevant to the issuing of the fees/charges, and any other costs incurred in each fee/charge including other employee’s involvement, their hourly rate, time spent on the involvement, and what their involvement consisted of.

 

 

You can even add:

declare what service is being provided and why.

state what the contractual limit of the account is.

state what an over limit charge means.

declare the actual full costs of each charge.

why the charge was made in the first place.

[rogue99]

It's just been on the ITV News - S**T only filed MCOL about an hour ago :o

 

It did say though that it wasn't binding, but still it's a worry.

[GERMANY2006]

terry 1.

 

It would have been better to add it to your Subject Access Request before entering your claim. If you have already entered a S.A.R then you could wait until the defendant enters a defence then make an application to the Court for a release of information stating the reasons why you need this info, to prove disprove the aspects of the defendants defence. To prove their so called service charges are actually penalties.

[Tigs33]

They have accidentally shot themselves in the foot by letting this one slip through, and any jubilation will be short lived once the realisation of what could happen next dawns upon them.

 

Got to agree with you photoman, I think the banks have made a mega mistake by not paying this claim before it got to court.

 

Even if Kev doesn't appeal (and I hope you do Kev!!) if any of us face a similar situation, then we will be in a similar position to appeal as well and take this to the high court.

 

I am hoping I can take my new (pre 6 year claim) with Abbey as far as possible as I had four charges for no apparent reason, wasn't overdrawn, no cheques, SO, or DD bounced. I will take this claim as far as I can even if it might mean an appeal.

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs33

 

What were these charges called?

[davethorp]

It is important to keep this in perspective. It is only one judges opinion. Many others (myself included) will have won against banks today and on many other days

 

The important thing is this could pave the way to the test case we have all been after in the high court

[chocolatte]

This is a bit of a worry? Any thoughts, just about to submit court papers! :o

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

[Tigs33]

unauth o/d fee !!!! lol and my bank statements show for nearly a year I wasn't overdrawn, not even close!!! we were always in credit

[noomill060]

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

 

 

 

A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges.

 

Judge David Mackie QC issued the warning at the London Mercantile Court, in the Royal Courts of Justice.

He said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so.

He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them.

About 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges have been lodged at the London Mercantile Court this year.

Typically these have been referred from County Courts in the hope that one might be heard in the High Court and produce a test decision.

"If the banks had won, many fewer customers would have sued," said Judge Mackie.

"If the banks had lost, the claims would have been much easier to sort out than they are now," he added.

Fantasy

In such cases banks have so far settled out of court, usually a few days before their case is due to be heard.

This is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial

 

 

Judge David Mackie QC

 

 

Expressing some frustration at this situation, Judge Mackie said: "On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial.

"But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial."

Brian Capon, of the British Bankers Association, defended the stance taken by banks saying they were confident their fees are legal.

"They take the court process very seriously, but ultimately they would prefer to settle disputes with their customers outside the court process," he said.

"Where a customer's complaint dates back over a long period or is complex the bank will need longer to investigate the complaint properly."

The consumers association Which? rejected this.

"It seems that the banks are deliberately dragging their feet in the hope that their customers will either give up or accept part of the money they are owed," said a spokeswoman.

Unreasonable behaviour

Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience.

Such claims have been unsuccessful so far, but he warned he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to:

• fail to respond to some claimants letters
  
• fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set
  
• demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter
  
• settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court
  
• fail to show up in court

"Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour," said Judge Mackie.

"From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this."

Frustration

Judge Mackie's comments appear to reflect growing judicial annoyance at the banks' attempts to avoid a test case at all costs.

It would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation Nationwide

 

 

Judge Roger Kaye QC

 

 

Last month, Leeds Mercantile Court listed 77 cases in one day, all of which were settled out of court.

Afterwards, Judge Roger Kaye QC said "it would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation nationwide".

In Bristol County Court a successful claimant was recently awarded £84.41 in costs as the judge ruled Lloyds TSB wasted the court's time because it had had no intention of defending the claim.

In January, a Judge at Lincoln County Court threatened to strike out some banks' defences for abusing the legal process for the same reason.

At the time Judge Paul Collins, speaking on behalf of county court judges in London, said: "It would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not," he said.

The latest warning from Judge Mackie left the banks with what sounded like a final warning. "There may be a need for a more radical approach if the number of cases continues to grow," he said.

[Tigs33]

I reckon the average amount in that account at any one time was about £1,000, lowest it was about £200.

[davethorp]

Check these two threads

 

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

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/90426-lloyds-victory-birmingham.html

[noomill060]

A High Court Queen's Counsel Judge out ranks a District Judge somewhat, yes?

[rob-the-viking]

Whilst I am gutted for Kev, (I hope he appeals and takes them to the cleaners by the way!) I for one have no intention of dropping my claim against the bank. Todays events have only made me more determined to make sure I've got everything right when I get my day in Court. I've filed my AQ and am waiting for a court date to come through. I intend to post here in due time and seek the advive of the forums extensive knowledge base. I can understand that some people may now be very worried, but my advice is simple.

 

Harness any worries and fears you may have and channel the energy into making sure you are 110% prepared for any possible outcome. In the FAQ's which should be the first thing to be read and re-read before you even beging to start a claim it clearly states that this may end up in court. I myself have been guilty of getting a little complacent and thinking "It'll never get that far!" and in most cases up until this point the bank have settled before it gets to Court.

 

Today has been a rude awakening, this isn't just an easy way to make a fast buck, it's serious stuff. An appeal could end up in the High Court! That's a place that I've only seen on the TV! It's not easy money, but if you get it right, (as I hope I have and continue to do!) then I firmly believe that cases will still continue to be won.

 

I say all hands to the pumps and lets keep fighting the good fight. If it goes to Court and you lose, face it what's it cost? £120 possibly for MCOL and another £100 for the AQ. £220 to pay for having a damn good go at the bank doesn't seem all that bad to me. If I quit at this stage I'd regret it for a very long time. I've already paid my £220 so the only thing it's going to cost me from this point on time spent in research and preperation.

 

It is by no means the end , the Fat lady hasn't even got the part yet let alone started warming up!

 

Don't go to court unprepared and use the wealth of subject knowledge at your disposal on this forum.

 

I look forward to seeing how kev proceeds now and I hope he appeals against the Judge in Birmingham and gets the result he deserves.

 

peace

 

r-t-v

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs33

 

unauth o/d fee suggests exceeding your limit, if you were to ask the bank if that was the case and get a letter from them confirming this then that would prove it was an action by the bank for you breaching your contract. Therefore not a service but a penalty.

 

Just hope you don't get the confused judge.

[oneofakind]

Are you serious, Iver?

 

YOU do what you're supposed to do. Don't worry about them!!!

 

:grin: :grin: :grin:

[Tigs33]

Germany2006 I will not be bringing these four charges to the attention of the bank, either way, service charge OR a penalty, they should not have put these four charges on my account which in turned did actually cause a couple of further charges being applied to my account at a later date.

 

My point to any judge would be that we were not overdrawn, never had been since the start of the account and the bank had no right to levy these charges. I would agree a fee (although not £15) IF we had gone overdrawn, but we didn't, if you saw my bank statements you would not believe it!!!

 

I just know that if I write to the bank to confirm the position, they will very quickly see their mistake and refunded these particular charges back to me, which at the moment I do not want them to do as it is going to strenghten my case.

[jo1006]

Reading through these messages. Its a real shame for Kevin, but I am convinced that if he appeals and takes time to get everything right (dotting i's and crossing t's etc) he should win.

Everyone else, this should just add fire to our bellies. Remember David and Goliath...come on folks, don't get disheartened. We CAN win, and we WILL win.

It was unnerving to hear on the news that LTSB have won, but bear in mind, it wasn't planned, they had no legal representation there.

Keep it up everyone. This is ONE case. The little people have won THOUSANDS! We ourselves have won a huge amount back from LTSB and are on with another case (awaiting a court date)

Good luck all,

Jo and Mick:D:D

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs33

 

Sorry, I thought you intended to sue for the four charges. I thought if you had additional evidence in writing from the bank you could use it against them to disprove their agruement that they are charges for services when they are actually penalties.

 

I've got my 21st case looming soon and it is to do with an overdraught on a current account, so due to the release of the judges minutes I will be endevouring to go that little bit further to prove the charges are a penalty and not charges for services.

[RCR50]

Just catching the news this evening made my heart sink....however, thank heaven for this site...my immediate panic reaction was, `Where is Gary H, Guido and PM`.....Having read through some of this stuff briefly it seems that today`s win by LTSB is just one of those things - a bit of a fluke - circumstances - and it is a lesson - to me at least - to take this all very seriously and be well prepared.

 

Good luck to all....You are all going to get your money back!

 

PS KEVIN - GOOD LUCK SHOULD YOU APPEAL.

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs 33

 

getcha now.

[jayspud03]

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

 

Sorry to hear about today can't believe it!!!

Hope all goes well for you with appeal,keep us all posted.We are all with you:shock:

[MARTIN3030]

Great to see all your input and support.

However its important that we dont make assumptions on anything that we cannot substantiate.

One ot two suggestions of possible bribery and shareholdings should not become a part of this discussion.

There are implications and whether these are posted from other sites or not is not the issue.Comments of this nature will go no way in assisting claimants nor addressing the matters in hand.

If you see anything which can be questionably libelous or cannot be substantiated with fact or proof can you please report it or tell the poster to remove it.

Common sense please !!

[gbd]

Am I the only person who is quite pleased by this ruling?

 

This now opens up a route to the court of appeal - a precedent setting court.

 

And, as an appeal against an existing judgement, the bank can't just settle on the steps of the court without admitting it accepts the original court judgement was wrong.

 

While I feel sorry for the claimant in this case (I would hate it if I were in his shoes); I feel the judge here has done us all a favour - we are a step closer to the "dreaded day of judgment and reckoning"

 

With this judgement, if appealed, the end of banks getting away with this is nigh.

 

 

(plus - the Court of Appeal can order full disclosure of costs incurred by banks and they won't be able to get away with not doing so like they do in the County Courts)