First victory to Lloyds

[I_feel_cheated]

looking at Kev he was spot on and took it as far as he did, and didn't back down only mistake was not getting help for his day in court, and of course being landed with that mu@@et of a judge.

 

There's no way someone goes that far only to give up now, good luck mate. Lloyds must be bricking it, someone's gonna get the sack from this, I would'nt like to be the one at the agency to take the flack for this oversight.

[Castlebest]

gbd, maybe thats what was in the Judges head when he made the judgement, he has allowed an apeal so the whole court system now has a way forward to get some precedent set and I noted Tom Brennan is also on the case, this isnt going to go away for Lloyds TSB.

 

pete

[Alphageek]

This afternoon I thought it was typical that this came along just as I was getting started. Having read all the opinion & the ruling, I think a test case is the most likely out come via Kev's appeal.

 

I also now think this will turn out to be good news sooner rather than later.

[sandysdad2]

No doubt like thousands of others, I shall be glued to the CAG website over the next few weeks to check on the fall-out from Tuesday's judgement in Birmingham. It's great to see so many positive comments and to witness a general determination to press on with the campaign. I'll admit I was feeling pig-sick an hour ago after spotting the court news on Teletext – my own claim is into its final stages. Now, following my dash to this website, I shall sleep a lot better than I might have otherwise done. Good luck, everybody. Nighty-night...

[indebtstudent]

I'll be watching this with great interest. I did get the sinking feeling when I heard the news on the radio but the judgement is no sensical- how exactly was Kev supposed to provide this data?

 

Couldn't he use the rates in Ireland (where the law has been changed)? this is all I could come up with.

 

I feel a lot better for reading this and do hope we get a ruling in a higher court. Something else to consider, I have insurance for legal costs up to £50,000, no chance Kev has anything similar?

[indebtstudent]

Oh and just another thought can't we use info by others (I'm sure I've seen some where the banks have turned up and lost?) to counter the arguments made by the judge? He and his colleagues cannot both be right...

[mark capel]

Kev, my heart goes out to you and I will sell a vital body organ on ebay if that’s what it takes to ensure funding for your appeal.

However, as down as you may have been when you first heard the judge's ruling has any body considered how SECHIARI CLARK & MITCHELL must be feeling (the bank's solicitors).

Spare a thought for them, what could be perceived as a major victory for UK Banks and all attained when they couldn’t be ars(k)ed to turn up for the gig ?

Wow, I don’t know how much LTSB are chugging them every year in fees to look after their legal interests, and Lloyds get their best results when SC&M are not there!

Great value to the bank and share holders alike!

I would like to be a fly on the wall at their next performance review!

Should we start a pay pal account to help the senior partners who: "retire on health grounds" in order”to pursue alternative interests" ......BIG ISSUE anyone?

[Lorraine2503]

GMTV this morning....

 

Go Martin and Go Andrew Castle!!!!

[maranatha]

Looking at the text of some of the judgement:

 

Quote

34. In my judgement ... in considering for the purposes of section 15 [supply of Goods and Services Act 1982] what is a reasonable charge for the service provided by the bank, an assessment would have to be made of the whole package of charges made by the bank for the whole service it provides. Potentially this would be a very difficult and expensive exercise. It is certainly not one which can be conducted within the confines of this case and on the evidence before me

Endquote

 

The Judge at Birmingham has decided that in his view, the charges are for "services provided" and not charges.

 

Now this argument that they are 'services provided' started to be seen from the banks about 6 months ago or more, as a way of diverting attention.

 

The "services provided" argument seems to me to be the kernel of the judges ruling ... Therefore,,

 

We need to focus on this argument. And take it apart. I'd love to see

Kev's Statement of Claim and the Banks Defence. But we need to focus.

 

I'm helping someone with her Lloyds TSB Claim so I'm a little worried.

 

Blessings

maranatha

[rbrears]

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.

[Frodobing bong]

Mailed my court bundle re Barclays on the day the judge ruled in favour of Lloyds! Not a good omen. Court date in June. Any support greatfully received.

[thinkfirst]

Hope you're right Champnos - and hope the Judge has just made one big whacko mistake. Will try to be as optimistic as you are though. Very good luck with your claim - I have only just sent the SAR letter so am early on in mine.

[thinkfirst]

Hi Frodo. Yes its a worrying development on the surface - but remember we don't know the details of that particular case yet. Have read other posts and agree the judge could have just made a whacko mistake, or could be forcing it to appeal to be examined/decided at a higher court. Or maybe the bank selected one case to defend that it thought was quite weak. Who knows at the moment ... but common sense, logic, and all expert opinion is still saying the charges are obviously punitive - so keep going. The public must win out in the end - despite a seemingly crazy early decision .......... I've only just sent the SAR letters so am early on in my claim. Good luck with your claim - I'm sure all will turn out well, and keep reading the posts for latest news ....

[olliebollie]

GMTV this morning....

Go Martin and Go Andrew Castle!!!!

 

I missed this - what was said this morning???

Thanks

[tzaddiqim]

Surely this is a good thing, the current decision sets no president if it is appealed it will go to the high court that will set president.

 

I can't think of any other way a bank would allow a claim to progress this far, that said I would imagine if a serious appeal is lodged they'll settle in full before it goes that far. If they do allow it to progress, out of either arogance or indifference, and then fail would they appeal again?

 

Either way this single judgement does not change the situation or give any weight to the banks argument, however it may catalyse some actual legal tests. This can only be to our advantage.

[tina9776]

I hope they do appeal, but remember that this is one case won by a bank versus thousands that have simply paid up.

[empowered]

I'm confused that the judge tried to research the T&C's on the bank's website. Surely the T&C's are only relevant if they are the ones in existance when your account was opened - today's version may have no bearing on an old account?

[monopoly23]

Question 1) If Kev wants to appeal does he not have to send Lloyds a LBA giving them 14 days? I thought he only has 14 days to appeal anyway?

 

Question 2) Since when did the banks want to end up in court? If this case DID slip through the net, there's no doubt that SC&M will be aware of it now. Won't they just pay up before an appeal is started so as to avoid the court as usual? It seems even more likely that they will do so if they wouldn't be able to settle at the last minute.

 

Of course they're not going to let this go to the High Court.

I don't think this will get interesting at all.

Lloyds will settle and make it all go away as usual.

JMHO

[enaid]

Can I just ask, is this the first Bank charge reclaim that this Judge has had in front of him, and if not how did the other claims fair. Just wondered.

[davethorp]

What kind of message does it send if lloyds settle up before it is heard by a court of appeal.

 

Lloyds are on a double edged sword. Allow the appeal and they risk setting a precedent for all the thousands of other cases against not just them but the banking industry as a whole. Settle and given this cases high publicity whether they admit liability or not settling would be seen as an admission of guilt by the public and the press

[lsba02853]

Interesting:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf?bcsi_scan_3CC2F976B940F09F=hjtWi3THnzHDyLMzocR72AIAAACDEqUF&bcsi_scan_filename=15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf

[monopoly23]

So why aren't all the other settlements seen as an admission of guilt? It will be settled as a 'goodwill gesture' the same as the rest and i'm sure they'd rather do that than risk a precedent being set. If they went to court they'd have to prove their charges are reasonable-which they CAN NOT do-so they will just settle first no matter what the media thinks IMO.

 

The judge even stated that (and this isnt a quote as I can't remember the exact wording) even though he ruled in favour of the defendant, this didn't stop them from still making a goodwill payment to the claimant. What's all that about?

[empowered]

Hi guys I`m new this and deperately need some advice.

I am at the stage where the bank (lloyds) have acknowledged my claim.

I must say that reading about lloyds being the first bank to win has dampened my spirits slightly.

anyway ive noticed that in the 'Particulars Of claim' section most people seem to be taken templates from these forums with all the legal jargon.

 

wheres I simply cobbled together the following 'I wish to claim mlonies from lloyds TSB.i feel that i have been charged excessively over the past year and a half.i have two accounts with Lloyds.my bank charges have totalled £1195 pound and with interest,£1235 pounds.i feel that these charges are illegal.The bank cannot justify that their charges are fair for the amount of work they are required to do when a cheque is not honoured or a direct debit exceeds an overdraft limit'

 

What do you guys reckon, is this particulars part increibly important??

 

 

The Particulars of Claim are INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT! Why "cobble" something together instead of using the prescribed template for the POCS? Where is your reference to Supply of Goods and Services Act and the cases which have been upheld in court - these form the basis of your argument about the banks enriching themselves by disproportionate charges! It will be returned by the solicitors as "embarrassing" or worse still, get to court, and get thrown out by the DJ as in the case we are discussing. There are no short cuts to claiming your money back - don't forget you are taking on banks and the courts!

[milecastle]

I have already said this in another forum but wanted to repeat it here as I think it could be imporant - correct me if I am wrong.

The judge is saying that the charges were for a service as they were not in breach of T&C's. If other banks (Nationwide) specify that you can't go over the agreed overdraft (or must pay it back straight away), in their T&Cs, then you are in breech of contract therefore any charges are penalties?

Can someone with more legal knowledge tell me if this is correct??

It seems we may now be in the bizarre position of having to prove that we were in breech of contract!!

[Destinyofsouls]

Can I just ask, is this the first Bank charge reclaim that this Judge has had in front of him, and if not how did the other claims fair. Just wondered.

Good question-needs an answer I think

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