First victory to Lloyds

[GERMANY2006]

Nothing to worry about.

 

Firstly every case is different.

 

Secondly the judgement accont effect any other case.

 

Thirdly it is more than likely the claimant did not add Section 13 & section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 regarding the charge for service. Banks all deny the charges are penalties so you also have to show that they are not a reasonable charge.

 

Fourthly evey case is different so just copying template letters could leave you unstuck. You have to do your homework until you know everything on the subject and adapt your case accordingly.

 

There is also the possibility that Lloyds paid someone to make a claim that would fail. If I was working for a bank and I wanted to put people off then that would be one of the first things I would do. It isn't illegal as long as the person filing doesn't make a claim that they were bribed.

 

Lloyds are the most devious. Keep fighting.

[GERMANY2006]

 

The main argument the judge ruled, like Lloyds always state in their defence, is the claimant was not in breach of contract and if he was then he would have a case against the bank for excessive liquidated damages.

I thought the charges concerned were made due to reasons of going over the contractual limit. Therefore the charges were levied for breaching the contract. I think the claimant may not have had evidence to show this. The intent to charge for going over the limit is in the name ‘Overlimit Charge’, therefore if the bank states it is a service then they would be lying and therefore in contempt of court.

 

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. This is easy. In your particulars of claim put it to the bank to prove what service is being provided. Let me make it clear. They probably would not let this be known, but if they did they will state the charge is for administration costs for dealing with your over limit action. Isn’t going over your limit a contractual breach? Therefore not a service but a penalty.

 

Up until you go over the limit banks don’t charge for their basic banking services, so what changes. Going over your contractually agreed limit.

Under a contract, as the Judge states, all services could be deemed unreasonable if they differ from other services provided by other banks. Hang on Mr Judge, why do we have to compare the charges to other banks to deem them reasonable? If we don’t get charged for basic banking services then what changes to be lumbered with huge penalties. Going over the limit, and is it reasonable for a bank to make these huge charges when most services are free. Doesn’t the charge denote itself as being a penalty? Are the banks charging for free banking with these penalties? Of course they are and that is not reasonable as they don’t charge for basic banking and charge when you have overstepped your agreed limit.

 

The judge isn’t as clever as he makes out. The claimant could have been better prepared. BUT THIS IS A GOOD THING, because we know what to expect and we can deal with it as follows.

 

Put it to the bank to declare what service is being provided and why.

Put it to the bank to state what the contractual limit of the account is.

Put it to the bank to state what an over limit charge means.

Put it to the bank to declare the actual full costs of each charge.

Put it to the bank why the charge was made in the first place.

 

All this would damn any bank.

 

They will not supply this information so apply for a court order to force the bank to supply the evidence. Give full detailed reasons for your request to the District Judge.

 

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 charges we are talking about all refer to actions of exceeding our contractual limit. The judge has contradicted himself by stating the claimant had not breached his contract, mainly concentrating on the charges being a service, this also makes me assume the claimant did NOT supply evidence to show the charges as penalties or showed that the charges were added after exceeding his limit. Showing this on its own is a case winner.

 

I will finally add here a little something of my own to pressurise the banks in retaliation to today’s happenings. When making your Subject Access Request for the first time or second if you feel like spending a tenner (you can only do this after exactly 6 months of any previous request) then add the following to your request;

 

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.

 

If none of this information is provided and chances are they will not provide it as the evidence will be damning against them, then you can claim compensation under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Set the maximum value of your claim to £5000 (claim fee £120 and further Court Allocation Questionnaire fee of £100) and watch them squirm.

Best advice I can give is study every aspect, put in the work even if it means hundreds of pages of evidence to scrutinize and don’t give up.

 

 

[GERMANY2006]

Respecta

[GERMANY2006]

Nice. I wouldn't call it a setback though as thanks to Mr Judge's recent decision we know what to expect in the worst situation, so now we can all prepare more precisly.

[GERMANY2006]

If the personal information is for a specific purpose for say 'providing evidence in court that the defendant has unlawfull administered penalty charges' the judge could rule in favour of the release of information. A friend of mine has added the run down of costs to their S.A.R so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[GERMANY2006]

Yes I agree. A S.A.R can be for any personal data, not just numbers on accounts.

[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.

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs33

 

What were these charges called?

[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.

[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.

[GERMANY2006]

Tigs 33

 

getcha now.

[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.

[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.

[GERMANY2006]

Definitly just a blip. Like it.

 

To date not a single claim has been cotested. Further, the clerk stated to me that this (Birmingham) was just a blip!

Be prepared (I think that was my old Boys Brigade Motto was?)

We will win.

 

broke dave.