First victory to Lloyds

[terry1]

bloody hell, i didnt realise that martin lewis was so pashionate,

love watching her squirm, total spin

[anne.craig3]

Sorry photoman but I was fully aware that I'd have to prepare for court and have never made it a secret that I found the whole process daunting!

 

I actually have a low post count because I, like many others, have other things to do! Sorry if that sounds like an admonishment, but no more than your post did!

 

I have read the FAQs and while I'm not the brightest button in the box with this sort of thing, I will muddle through and get it sorted.

 

I'm more a practical person than a 'brain box' and can turn my hand to anything I try...but even this is overwhelming for me!

 

I really don't like the tone of your post....many posts or not, it doesn't give you the right to be rude!

 

Annie

[corsicanpine]

I believe that everybody should realise that one day, one of us would come across a hurdle. Maybe we stumble, maybe we fall, but we then get up, dust ourselves down and prepare for the next hurdle!

 

So lets do it, this is nothing more than a hiccup in the process, although it does show that we should all be aware that entering in to Court claims we should be well prepared! (unlike the banks)

 

Take comfort that you/we are all in the best place possible for up to date advice and help should we need it.

 

But I reiterate, we need to READ before doing the DEED!!

 

I won against halifax last week, have ltsb and natwset to challenge!!

 

GOOD LUCK AND KEEP THE FAITH

[empowered]

Just wanted to comment, that the people who seem to running around flappin like headless chickens the most, are those with the lowest post counts.

Many of those panicking have also just jumped right in at the deep end, skipped all the rudimentary reading, and just started proceedings without actually understanding what they are really doing ??

 

Only NOW have they just started asking really very basic questions !

 

 

You are taking somebody to court !!!!!!!!

 

 

If you were not willing to actually go into a court, then why did you start the process in the first place ?

 

You have far far less chance of winning the lottery, than of ending up in court over this. Yet despite the amazingly slim chances of winning the lottery, you do really believe that "it could be you", and do have a decent chance of winning, so keep playing.

 

Well the chances of ending up in a court due to taking these actions is much greater and much more real by comparison. So actually in this case much more so "it could be you", as was amply demonstrated yesterday.

 

 

Also, if you quote laws and cases, make sure you do actually read them first!

 

Your probably the same people, who without ever having used one before, go out and buy a new computer, then plug it in without even a cursory glance of the instructions.

You then take it back to the shop wondering why it wont work ........

 

...... aaaahhhhh haaahhh......actually that would also explain the low post count !!

 

Thanks Photoman! Very succinctly put but very apt! My thoughts for a lot of the recent posts from people we have never heard from previously but I was not brave enough to put it in print! As somebody said on another thread, "this is not a jolly"!:o

[anne.craig3]

Ahh so basically what you're saying is that those of us who don't post very often and who have really nothing to add to what all you 'bigger posters' have to say shouldn't be posting?

 

Well I think you have made your point very clear....if we don't post all the time we're not welcome! What a crock!!

 

I've been a member here since 2006 and have been plodding along at my own speed thanks very much.

 

The post wasn't succinct it was rude and made me for one feel very unwelcome here, just because I've only made 18 posts to date....19 with this one! :mad:

 

Annie

[fluffycloud]

http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=24657

If you haven't seen this yet, I suggest you have a look.

Martin lewis on GMTV regarding Lloyds win.

(thanks to moneysavingexpert.com)-playfire1

 

ARISE SIR MARTIN (well its a possibility)the man deserves a knight hood... I am so so thankful that after years of stress with my business account vs Lloyds TSB this group and all of its wonderful participants/members are standing tall against the banks (especially Lloyds)... as Martin said we must not give up this is just a ridiculous blip and I hope that I win my case against Lloyds otherwise I will cry! Funny how the bank lady always finds it difficult to understand Martins questions! I would like to ask her how many businesses she has ran with a bad bank manager ?? I hope the personwho lost to LLoyds appeals against the ruling and eventually has a success.

[royboy68]

Just wondering if this has any bearing. Taken fron a current LloydsTSB T&C.

I refer mostly about Section 9.2 where it states you will have broken the terms of the account.

1. Your Account

9.1 We provide you with your Card so that you can operate your Account more conveniently. The Card itself does not give you an automatic overdraft or any other form of credit. We will be entitled, under the terms of the Account, to charge interest at our standard rate for unauthorised overdrafts and to debit that interest and any resulting bank charges from your Account.

9.2 If you do use your Card to create an overdraft we have not agreed or to exceed an agreed overdraft limit, you will have broken the terms of the Account and you must repay the unagreed amount immediately. 9.3 On each banking day, you will make one payment to us equal to the total amount of all your Debit Transactions plus all Cash Machine Transactions made at machines outside the LINK network that have become due since the previous banking day. You will make this payment by our debiting it from your Account. We will also debit any other amounts you owe us under this agreement.

9.4 We may deduct from your Account any charges payable as specified in our published tariff of charges. We may change the tariff at any time but we will send you a copy of the new tariff before any changes take effect and you can get a copy of the latest tariff from any of our branches.

9.5 When you use your card at a Retailer, bank, cash terminal or other machine, the Retailer, bank or owner or the terminal or Lachine may hevy a charge for their service, or a tax charge, in addition to those outlined in this agreement. We have no control over these charges and will not be liable for informing you of any such charge or reimbursing you for any charges taken.

[corsicanpine]

Hi Annie,

 

I'm sure thats not what was meant, there seems to be a hint of stress in the way people are communicating , especially since yesterdays ruling!

 

Let it be remembered there are some people out ther that are for the cause and some that are infiltrators from the banks. I am not saying that your responder is but who knows??

 

If those others see the infighting, then surely they will assume they have won a battle.

 

I am sure we can all prove that they may have won that battle, but they certainly have not won the war!!!!

[empowered]

Ahh so basically what you're saying is that those of us who don't post very often and who have really nothing to add to what all you 'bigger posters' have to say shouldn't be posting?

 

Well I think you have made your point very clear....if we don't post all the time we're not welcome! What a crock!!

 

I've been a member here since 2006 and have been plodding along at my own speed thanks very much.

 

The post wasn't succinct it was rude and made me for one feel very unwelcome here, just because I've only made 18 posts to date....19 with this one! :mad:

 

Annie

 

Good heavens this wasn't directed at you! There are a lot of people who have filed their claims, got case dates etc and still have no idea of what they are doing and are still asking basic questions only to find out that they have fouled up because they havn't read/researched the basic stuff - unfortunately they think this is a get rich quick scheme and just jump on the band wagon. You have been a member a lot longer than me and have probably read a lot more! No insult was intended from me!

[nicsussex]

All this talk of 'battles' and 'wars' is getting out of hand - this was a one of case where Lloyds 'got lucky' - they didn't even attend either of the hearings.

 

As for Annies' post above - it is a shame that you were made to feel unwelcome here I am sure that is not what Photoman intended. To be fair he does have a fairly valid point - there is always a great deal of activity on this site when things like the events of yesterday and whistleblower etc occur. Many of the posts that are made at such times are ill informed and psoted in panic. I am sure that Photoman did not mean to offend anyone but at such times many new users migrate here from other sites and cause a certain amount of mayhem.

 

Time to calm down and let the dust settle on this i think

[macie]

Isn't the judges treatment of whether the fees represent a penalty, even though contained within the contract, contrary to this case

 

CMC Group Plc And Others V Zhang [2006] EWCA Civ 408 which states; “'Whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty as a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time that the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred.”

[nicsussex]

Isn't the judges treatment of whether the fees represent a penalty, even though contained within the contract, contrary to this case

 

CMC Group Plc And Others V Zhang [2006] EWCA Civ 408 which states; “'Whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty as a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time that the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred.”

 

But the judge deduced and Kevin agreed that there was no breach of contract

[Jeff2000]

But the judge deduced and Kevin agreed that there was no breach of contract

 

 

And this is the crux of the matter!

 

 

Jeff.

[macie]

Re Zhang

 

Fair Point.

 

But the summing up of Zhang also contains reference to paragraph 4© of the speech of Lord Dunedin in the

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres case where he said that there was a presumption that it is a penalty when:

"a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage."

 

Do you think that maybe playable or am I quoting out of context?

[corsicanpine]

nicsussex,

 

Apologies for not reading your threads elsewhere, but I assume you have received all your claims?

 

I agree this is just a hiccup, but we all need to be aware that this is not a case of entering a court case and assume that you will be paid in full without getting to court. It is a battle and will continue to be so.

 

I was fortunate that I could actually afford the court payment, there are some out there that can't, for these it is a battle against everyday living!

 

Just for info, I received full payment from halifax ;ast week and am awaiting defence from both ltsb and natwest.

 

Regards

[paulpb123]

Hi Annie,

Don't be offended by what Photoman said, it was not meant as a personal attack. What I think he was saying is that there are a lot of people out there who are getting worried about this silly judgement because they are not very well informed. He has a point. There have been lots of posts on this thread (and others) where people are saying things like "oh my god, I put in the POC that I want my money back" and they have not followed the advice. There does seem to be a correlation between those people and the number of posts they have made. Let's face it, there are a lot of bloody stupid people out there who just think they can go blasting in without doing the research. Apparently, people have even ended up suing themselves instead of their bank! You are clearly not one of them. To be quite honest, I don't think Martin Lewis and his loud hailer is helping very much. The tried and tested method is here on CAG and you have to do it to the letter. I work as a lecturer and if I submit an article for publication that is flawed, it gets rejected. That is why we are winning and the banks are losing. That's life, and a bloody good job too!

[photoman]

Ahh so basically what you're saying is that those of us who don't post very often and who have really nothing to add to what all you 'bigger posters' have to say shouldn't be posting?

 

Well I think you have made your point very clear....if we don't post all the time we're not welcome! What a crock!!

 

I've been a member here since 2006 and have been plodding along at my own speed thanks very much.

 

The post wasn't succinct it was rude and made me for one feel very unwelcome here, just because I've only made 18 posts to date....19 with this one! :mad:

 

Annie

 

Annie,

My observation regards post count was a generalisation, and should maybe have been coupled with an observation on the period of time the poster has been a member, and the tone of questions they ask.

 

There just seems to be a lot of posts from peeps all of a sudden who have only just popped up, and appear to have just signed up, downloaded the templates, stuck stuff in the post and then sat back.

 

I apologise if I caused you offence personally.

 

My frustration is with the fly by night members, who have viewed this as some get rich quick scheme and not understood the implications of their actions.

I am sure they frustrate you equally.

 

They skip all the "boring" stuff and go straight for the jugular, then get into a panic when they realise what could actually really happen.

They then start frantically posting, expecting others to then sort out their mess.

 

If the Banks are going to go on from this point and "cherry pick" some cases to make examples of for a bit of cheap publicity, these are exactly the victims they will choose.

 

They were asking for trouble, and probably deserve it, it's just that it messes the whole state of affairs up for those who DO take matters seriously, and tars us all with the same brush.

 

Once again, I re-iterate, no offence was meant at those who are indeed taking this matter seriously (which it sounds like you personally are)

[KJD]

Calm down guys! It's beginning to sound like threads on 'another' site! Group hug now...

 

Thanks to all those who have posted here and BankFodder's sticky, which have put my mind at rest. I think the advice given over and over again is read, read, read, and, if in doubt, ask

 

And thanks for the GMTV link earlier - although all I get is an advert for a stool-softening product Not that the banks will need that once they realise their 'victory' is short-lived! :D

[anne.craig3]

Sorry :o Had a bad time with the Halifax over the last 2 weeks culminating in a nasty e-m from a client in USA last night, who has still not received the £600 bank transfer I initiated on April 27th!!

 

It would seem that despite the repeated reminders of the real bank acct number and the right SWIS number etc etc they still got it wrong and the money is out there in cyber space somewhere!

 

I am making a formal complaint and am hoping that I get somewhere with it...not least that the 2 people who have caused the problem get the wrists severely slapped!!

 

Bad day, bad mood, your post just made me go

 

And if you read the previous posts...my kitchen...or concensus of opinion says boob job, may be at stake lol

 

PS didn't know there was another site

 

Annie

[GERMANY2006]

Every member, fly by night or not are valuable, because the more people that are educated to the facts the better. If we seggregate people because they don't appear to be as interested as those with higher post scores then we are no better than the banks at discrimination.

 

I don't have many posts because I am very busy, does that mean I am not worthy despite trying to push for a criminal conviction against a particular bank?

 

I realise there are many newcommers who I am sure everyone apart from the banks quietly observing are happy to welcome.

 

Word out.

[KJD]

Good luck with that anne. Hope you go all the way... would hate to think of you having to settle for half a job (kitchen or boob!)

[KJD]

PS Have noticed on Martin3030's signature he's asking for any old Terms and Conditions anyone might have knocking about. Start rooting them out guys. There's an email address to post them to.

[GERMANY2006]

The final decision from District Judge Cooke:

 

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/docs/Summary.pdf 25.86 MB’s

 

In the Judges statement he mentioned that cases regarding credit cards are different as customers are under an obligation to make minimum payments and to ensure the total amount of purchases to the account does not exceed the limit, otherwise be in breach of contract. The Judge must have only based that decision upon the evidence to hand otherwise the claimant could have shown that the overdraught charges were due to a breach of contract, which they are. Instead the judge used the evidence provided regarding services and dwelt upon that evidence. If evidence was available to put into doubt Lloyd’s argument of the charges being for services and not a penalty. The out come may have been completely different.

 

Under a contract, as the Judge states, all services could be deemed unreasonable if they differ from other services provided by other banks. Is it reasonable for a bank to make these huge charges when most services are free. Could adding this to our claims give us an extra edge. It is not reasonable that they make a charge when you have overstepped your agreed limit when they don’t charge for basic banking.

 

In part 36, the Judge hints that there must be a plausible reason to consider an action as a separate service from a contractual service for section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 to apply. How about this;- you have exceeded your limit therefore you have broken the contractual agreement, therefore the service charge they have provided is a non-contractual service therefore a non-agreed service?. What do you all think about that.

 

If you challenged them to disclose what service was actually being supplied and for what reason, then do you think they would let this be known to the world, especially as they are not too keen to let people know about the breakdown of the costs of their charges. I wonder why that is!

 

Thanks for reading.

[Muffintop]

thanks for that Gemma. I have only just embarked on my LBA for my partner with LLoyds after getting all confident after winning from my own bank, now a little apprehensive to say the least.

[BlueSmartie]

Ahh so basically what you're saying is that those of us who don't post very often and who have really nothing to add to what all you 'bigger posters' have to say shouldn't be posting?

 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I think the point is that some users ( 1 post or 100) have made comments that suggest that they have started claims without really doing their homework first and are just now realising that a day in court is to be expected and prepared for!

 

All users are equal and all were newbies once!

 

BS