First victory to Lloyds

[Destinyofsouls]

There is a discussion on Talk Sport very shortly about this case, and bank charges in general.

 

talksport

[Micheyboo]

I sought some informal legal advice from a mate, take it as you will regards the whole matter :

 

The issue of district v higher court decisions goes to whether (and which) court are bound by the judgment (ie. must follow it). A lower court decision will still have weight in a higher court - the court will consider it, but doesn't have to follow it.

 

Re: the status of the Mercantile Court, it is a division of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court - a specialist division for "business disputes, both national and international. It is designed to deal with claims of lesser value and complexity than the Commercial Court.".

As it is High Court, there is still a real chance the banks wont want to risk your case going to the court cos they're risking a binding decision not coming down in their favour. (My HSBC claim has been transferred to the Mercantile Court, which is a High Court, so I'm told)

 

If I were the banks, I'd wait & see how a few more lower court decisions turn out just to test the water, then risk the high court test case. This is for a number of reasons:

 

In the district court action (Lloyds case) it looks like the claimant was unrepresented and the Defendant didn't even appear to make argument - relied upon written argument. This means the claim has not really been vigorously tested. This goes against it as a precedent - its not exactly a good authority to rely on.

 

If the banks take it to the high court, they risk someone lawyering up & making a proper legal ding dong over this.

 

However, on the other hand, the banks may consider that this win in their favour gives them enough of a boost to go ahead & try run it now. I'd say they'll probably only pick one case tho - a test case - I don't imagine they'll run with a bunch of them initially, its too costly.

[Destinyofsouls]

Its Martin Lewis that is on talk sport telling us if it is still worth claiming.

Sometime within the next hr

talksport

[Josie8]

You have just hit it on the nose there Bankfodder

 

 

 

The judge took issue with the first claimants not providing any information in support of his claim.................even though judge had ordered it previously. I guess judges don't take too kindly to their orders being ignored............ lesson for us all

[flower19]

I've just had a look at Martin Lewis site - he is explaining about Mr Berwick's case and its outcome.

 

He is saying that Mr Berwick should appeal and that if this is a problem financially he, Martin Lewis, would happilly consider to helping him and that Mr Berwick should get in touch with him.

[Kevbirch]

Great - I will be filing in Brum

 

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

 

Maybe we should all be considering to file in Brum . . . .give 'em some bulk work to do eh?

[Destinyofsouls]

Why does kev have to appeal? why can he not just re-apply with a new claim ? (maybe with extra charges on since)

[Gez]

Because Lloyds can simply say that litigation for this claim has already been concluded in their favour.

 

If he appeals, it would be a risk for him, but not too much looking at the enormous support currently being pledged, not least from Martin Lewis both financially & with assistance.

[Champnos]

Can someone please update this thread after the Interview on Talksport, i just visited car and it should be on in 5-10mins. I cant leave office again!

 

Thanks

[Destinyofsouls]

OK Martin Lewis is on now about this case

http://www2.talksport.net/index.asp?a=1

 

Wonder if he'll tell them he will support the appeal financially, be interesting to hear what he says.

[Destinyofsouls]

anyone going to ring in?

 

Would be a good time for Talk sport to find out if this judge has presided over any past bank charge cases and the outcome

[indebtstudent]

That si one rubbish website, can't seem to find an archive section...

[Will Scarlet]

Could someone explain to me please. If this case is taken to appeal and settled prior to entering the court room by the defendant, does that have any bearing on the judgement that is currently in place?

[anne.craig3]

My heart sank when I heard this on the news. I hope the Halifax doesn't decide to take my case all the way...I'd be unlucky enough to get the same judge who'd been shipped to the NW for his own safety

 

I hope the claimant gets justice in his appeal

 

Annie

[audiracer999]

Hi

 

I am a bit concerned as I am waiting for a court date re Lloyds TSB and they have forwarded to the solicitors - I have read the consumer contracts regulation 1999 as per previous threads, but cannot find what I need to quote as my defence. AsI am (dumb!) blonde, can anyone help me as if this does go to court I want to be able to quote relevant acts etc but am really going in blind!!

[quietzap]

Thank you very much for this:

 

To most of the above posters I think your concerns are misplaced.

 

This was NOT a judgment on the issues - at all. Therefore it is of absolutely NO relevance to us in terms of the legal issues.

 

The bank won because the judge did not consider Lloyd's T&Cs because they weren't in the bundle of documents before him. If they had been he would have found without doubt that those T&Cs require the customer not to go overdrawn or exceed an o/d limit. Then he would have found that the charges arise in circumstances constituting a breach of contract and are, as we all know they are, penalty charges.

 

The judgment ONLY says that the judge had not been persuaded that there was a breach. That consideration was not one of law, but based on the lack of evidence before the judge. Blimey the judge even had a good look for the T&Cs on the internet himself but couldn't find them.

 

This was ENTIRELY down to an inadequate trial bundle and has nothing whatever to do with the actual issues betwen the banks and their customers. On the basis of the information available to him (or lack of it) the judgment was given in the terms that it was.

 

I personally think the judge's reasoning on implied terms was inadequate. He should have found that the charges or fees only arise when a customer is going overdrawn or exceeds an overdraft limit and as such as a matter of logic that must mean that the charges/fees are imposed in circumstances contrary to a requirement that the customer does not do this. There is no other logical explanation for their imposition in the first place. The service argument is much less satisfactory academically since it envisages a "deemed request" by the customer for a puported service and on any examination of what happens in practice this is just too far fetched. In my view he should have recognised the punitive nature of the charges/fees and matched them with what must therefore be a breach of the bank's requirments about how we operate our accounts. Of course none of the above thought process would have been necessary if the T&Cs had been in the trial bundle.

 

There is NO comfort for the banks in this judgment, except that they will try to sell it to the wider world as a vindication of their plundering of their customers' money. Don't let them. Carry on.

 

The one salutory lesson we can all learn from this is that if you are claiming YOU have to prove every element of your claim, including that the charges are imposed because of a breach of the agreement with the bank. This means that you MUST have your bank's terms and conditions for the current account on which you are claiming in your trial bundle. Note from the judgement that in this case the bank (lloyds) denied in their defence that there was any term requiring a customer to keep in credit or within an agreed o/d limit. That must have been untrue and again the banks show themselves for what they are.

 

Perhaps we could set up a library of T&Cs or at least amend any trial bundle FAQs to include advice to include the T&Cs in the trial bundle, or better, in the template LBA or Prelim to ask the bank to provide a copy at an early stage. In fact in taking this issue a little further we should really be demonstrating to the judges that this T&C imposing a requirement not to go o/d or to stay in an agreed o/d limit applied in respect of every charge. This means that we should have the T&Cs for our accounts that applied for the whole period for which we are claiming, so we may need earlier versions and in this respect we would definately need the banks to produce them.

 

For claims which begin from say 6 years ago I suppose one needs the T & C they published then? and updates as they arose?

 

We are using the arguement that our figures are the best we as amateurs can manage, does the same arguement permit us to use the current T & Cs?

 

Thanks in anticpation of a kind response or two.

[mattxmen1]

If I case does get thrown out as I feel my 'Particular' on the claim form are worded badly with no references to acts mentioned.

Can you claim again?

further still if it does go to court could I not then mention these various acts which favour the customer?

[tommyhduk]

I am about to make a claim for 1,500 to LLoydsTSB. For this claim the fee to claim is £120. If i lose this case i also lose my £120. I cannot afford this. Should i go ahead now or are these claims now going to turn into a gamble?

[smith5757]

Good Afternoon I am also a little concerned with the events of yesterday, as I came to this site a little bit to late and had taken my POC details from ML site. Unfortunately the template does not require sort code or account number and like Kevin yesterday I am worried about lack of detail. I am currently awaiting a court date / A&Q as my case has been transferred to my local county court.

2nd point, after my MCOL was first dedended by DG I sent two packs of information to Northampton (schedule of charges & statement highlighting charges), would it now be OK to sent the same to DG. I have since sent a couple of nudge letters to them with schedules and statements. I really do not want to let myself or anybody else that is claiming down by not being prepared properly. Any information would be gratefully reiceived.

[Gez]

Go ahead as normal. This case was a freak anomaly which was gifted to Lloyds rather than won by Lloyds, and should not deter anyone. Just prepare your case as thoroughly as possible

[mattxmen1]

So guys

 

what are we saying that you can revise you particualars of claim once a court date is issued?

 

If not I`m in deep trouble?

 

I din`t realise you had to really gem up on the legal talk, quoting bill and acts etc

 

I`m worried that they will literally laugh at my claim form??

[anne.craig3]

Oh my Lord....I'm starting to get really worried about all this now! I've struggled to make sense of it all so far, if I have to start finding out the T&C's and quoting them I'll be completely out of my depth.

 

I'm such a procrastinator anyway and now all this talk of legal stuff is really putting me off.

 

Annie

[olliebollie]

I agree all this legal jargon can be very off putting - I am very nervous about getting it all right on the day. The way I look at it - I'm going to give it my best shot, go as prepared as I possibly can and hopefully will get it right and get my money back. I think the best we can all do on here is stay strong and don't back down. As someone mentioned here yesterday - who are the "guests" that are on here - we certainly don;t want them reading that we are getting nervous and on the point of backing out - then they will definately win!! So keep your chin up, get prepared and fight for YOUR money.

 

Best of Luck

 

Bev :)

[Gez]

Every one of you who gives up now because of this minor setback, gifts the bankers with another victory.

Just read a bit more, prepare a bit more, and keep your nerve for your own sake & of everyone who follows.

[anne.craig3]

Bev you're so right!

 

The money they owe me will get me either a new kitchen or a boob job....hahaha not decided which yet

 

Thanks for the thumbs up. I know if I get stuck I at least have somewhere to come for help.

 

Oh for sure, the 'guests' are more than likely BIG BROing us. Well to them lol

 

Annie