Lloyds TSB Won!!! Read Now

[williamtcforsyth]

Look at link and read below

 

Link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

 

Lloyds TSB has become the first bank to win a charges case

 

 

Lloyds TSB has become the first bank to win a court case after being sued by a customer for imposing supposedly unfair overdraft penalty charges.

District Judge Cook, at Birmingham County Court, dismissed a claim for £2,545 from Kevin Berwick.

 

Mr Berwick argued Lloyds TSB's charges for having an unauthorised overdraft were illegal contractual penalties.

 

But Judge Cook decided the bank's charges were in fact legitimate fees for servicing an overdrawn account.

 

As such, the judge said they were legal.

 

"Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank....he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it," he said.

 

Mr Berwick said he was annoyed by the outcome. "I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case," he said.

 

He is now considering an appeal after the judge gave him leave to do so.

 

Blow to claimants?

 

As this judgement has come from a district judge, it is not binding on any other court, in the way that a High Court judgement might be.

 

However, as the first judgement of any kind in this sort of case, it could be a blow to the hundreds of thousands of people who are still trying to claim that they have been overcharged by their banks for running unauthorised overdrafts.

 

So far, many claimants have been successful because their banks have settled their cases before the issue came before a judge, precisely in order to avoid an adverse legal decision.

 

Now, the first decision in which a judge has given an opinion on the law has gone in a bank's favour.

 

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, a leading bank charges campaign, said he was very disappointed.

 

"We feel the judge has not considered the fact that disguising penalties as a fee for a service is a very common device for circumventing established law.

 

"The judge appears not to have looked behind the words on the contractual document," he said.

 

Although Mr Berwick turned up at the original hearing in Birmingham to argue his case and was questioned by the judge, Lloyds TSB chose not to attend and relied simply on a written defence which it had submitted in advance.

 

Neither did the bank have any lawyers present in court when the judgement was handed down.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

[williamtcforsyth]

Any comments, is this the beginning of the end of the revolution?

[PKea]

Its being discussed

 

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

 

and

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/90277-lloyds-win-case.html

[Seminole]

Actually this isn't the first time it's happened. Several years ago Nat West won a case using essentially the same legal argument. In that case and I suspect this one, the claimant didn't deploy the correct argument to defeat this preposterous interpretation of the law.

[Muffintop]

Just sent my LBA off and have to admit despite winning previously with Nationwide twice. Im worried of the impact this will have. was it contractual interest that the client had tried to claim for. Dont understand how when so many cases have been won, this one was thrown out?

[GAVINB]

Shouldn't he also have claimed for unlawful charges and not 'illegal' charges. Could simple terminology like this be enough to loose the case. I think also - he has the opportunity to appeal.

[williamtcforsyth]

From what has been said and by hints in the article, this guy didn't really prepare properly.

 

I guess what we can all learn from this situation is that, don't go to court unles you prepaired to prepare a statement explaining the charges etc

[maybelline]

yes, also spotted this news item and it is a shame but you have to prepare properly and ask for help if you dont understand it, better to ask than have this happen.

[brightestsparkler]

Geez just when I get on this bandwagon something goes T U

Guess i'll be requesting lots of help from the experienced people on this site soon as I am total pants with legal terminology

 

Ho hum!

[brownie24]

Could it not be a victory in disguise? If he decides to appeal the decision in the High Court and he was eventually victorious would this then not set a precedent for us all. Maybe it's the judges way of forcing the banks hand because in the high court they would finally have to disclose the information regarding the actual cost of their charges which to date they have still not done. At the end of the day at the moment these cases are clogging up the court system and maybe this action could put an end to them once and for all with the banks having no option but to pay up and avoid the uneccessary stalling tactics which they are employing at the mo.......heres hoping:)

[HydraUK]

If the Judge was able to consider the charges fair in lieu of a service....does that mean Lloyd's have disclosed the cost of breach of contract?

[dubliner10]

Without being a doomsayer...having read the judgement, it looks like the claimant was well prepared. There were two cases heard and one of them 'Haughton' didn't even submit Sched of Charges.

The case in question 'Berwick' the Judge stated had a well prepared case, and was in fact "a model litigant".

 

In two minds myself as to what to do. Tempted to go ahead as there is little to lose (financially!)

[Bookworm]

Could you please keep all those discussions on this thread:

 

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

 

Thanks.