Lloyds victory in Birmingham - in perspective

[photoman]

hi, have been collecting information about this and i would like to say how i have done so far, i took copies of the tempelt letters off the internet,1st asking for my account statements, i then got these and in the mean time their had been more charges, i got my statements a couple of weeks later, i sat down and worked out what i was owed off Lloyds tsb, it was just over £630+ int why this as all been going on i opened a new account, which was a good job as i got a letter off Lloyds telling me they had closed my account, ok far enough, know i have got my statement and low and be hold its now gone up to just over £1,200 they have been charging me why my account as been closed, i got an offer from them last week offering me half, yea right i noticed what they had done doubled my account and offered me half so they get their money back, sent them a letter monday just gone and yesterday i got a cheque from Lloyds of £630 so now i am sending it back with the copy of my letter i sent on monday keep you all posted

 

Well done so far !!

 

Have you read around on this site for info on how to proceed ?

 

Also, a good idea to get your own thread going to keep track of how it's going, and get others to pop in and give you advice to your own specific case.

 

First of all read the Frequently asked questions here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

DO READ THE STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS !!!!!!

As you go on, you’ll also find this very helpful:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

You’ll then need to start your own thread;

Go to here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/

 

Find the name of the Bank your action will be against.

Click on it (the name of the Bank in Bold Blue)

On that page, you will then find a label saying "Forum Tools" (just under the list of page numbers).

Click on it. It will show you some options.

Firstly, it's a good idea to subscribe to the Forum ,as you'll then recieve updates from people in similar situatioins against the same Bank. So click on Subscribe. It will ask how often you want updates (Personally I like Daily).

Once Subscibed to the Forum it will redirect you back.

Hit the same button and choose "Start new thread"

Give your Thread a title eg: yourforumname v whatever bank

(choose how often you want updating by email if anyone posts responses in your thread)

 

Then your up and running !

 

Whilst your there, you might want to take some time to have a look at some of the threads by people taking action against your same Bank, very helpful. Remember, any threads you want to follow, you can either choose the thread tools button, and choose subscribe to thread, or simply whenever you make a post in a thread it will automatically subscribe you to that thread.

On the main page I've posted above, you'll also find lots of highlighted "stickies", which have lots of very informative stuff in them too.

Once your ready to start , you’ll need to do a schedule of charges to submit to the bank, try this one:

http://www.zen122856.zen.co.uk/CompoundSheet_v1.9.xls

 

Best regards and good luck

 

photoman

[Mistermind]

 

I have a question about the fees being disproportionate

If the fees are for a service is there anyone who could assertain if the price for the said fees has increase inline with cpi? if it indeed is a fee for service like dentist fees, then i would have thought the increase would be yearly or bi annualy inline with cpi.

Thoughts anyone?

 

Excellent question. Yes, bank penalty charge have risen far faster than CPI, from £2 in 1970 to average £30 today. What would a price in step with CPI be today?

 

Until IT advances in recent years, cheques and credit pay-in slips were physically transported on night One by security vans, from the pay-in branch A to a central clearning hub just like a post office sorting centre. There it is sorted on Day Two and physically transported on Night Two to 10 thousand receiving branches. On Morning Three a cashier or three at the cheque's home branch Z will confirm signatures and dates and things like "words and figures do not agree", then alert the manager to manually decide whether to bounce or tolerate uncovered cheques. If bouncing, then that laborious physical journey is repeated in reverse, from branch Z eventually back to branch A. Hence in 1970 the £2 charge was well justified on grounds of manual cost, even if the bounce involved only a 50 pence cheque.

 

As IT advanced over the last 20 years, the physical travelling was reduced and manual intervention was reduced to a minimum, until today the costs of bouncing have been variously estimated at figures between 50 pence and £5. Instead of a local branch manager who knew about you, it is now impersonal nameless staff at vast Service Centres who in the first instance decide to bounce or not bounce, sometimes incomprehensible telephonists in India.

 

Even as bank costs fell sharply, bank charges rose sharply. Some banker or professor sympathetic to the cause could help us by producing objective evidence filling in the gaps, plotting the year-on-year rise of penalty charges while the OFT slept.

 

As well as comparisons in time, there are also comparisons in space. UK penalty charges are uniquely high. I understand US and Aussie prices are much lower, but only have to hand a concrete figure of £3 charged in Ireland. Anyone with friends and relations in US, Canada, Aus, Singapore, etc could try and find out. I believe Tom Brennan's team have done research on comparative prices in the EC, so would have comprehensive figures.

 

Such a credible comparison survey in time and space would be really helpful and would stand up in court.

 

Better than saying in court "This price is too high -- I can really feel it in my bones, can't you"?

 

 

New thread started:

 

Appeal for price comparisons in space & time

 

[Hercules]

Does Mr Berwick post on this board? is any of the solicitors on here offering him free legal advice? unfortunately I have not passed the bar or would gladly help. However in my role as technical consultant can offer web space and consultation FOC.

[southyorksman]

Any legal opinion welcome on this.

 

CONSIDER

The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

15 Implied term about consideration

(1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.

 

As a simple layman, I interpret this to mean that if the consideration (the fee) for a service is not determined (an actual figure of pounds printed in the contract) then the fee charged for that service has to be reasonable (rather like the UTCCR).

 

I may be wrong but as far as I am aware the actual charge for the defaults is not explicitly stated in the contract rather it refers to the banks current charges schedule. Thereby satisfying the highlighted state in 15 (1) "left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract".

This means that the banks cannot argue that, as it is supposedly a service the bank is providing, the consideration is not relevant. Can they?

Thoughts please.

IAN

southyorksman

[Mistermind]

My reading of Judge Cooke's Approved Judgment is that he did not dismiss Kevin's claim that the "fee" needed to be reasonable. He understood Kevin to say the fee was unreasonable because Kevin did not like it.

 

On his own initiative the judge suggested a pragmatic criterion: the price for the job was deemed not unreasonable because it was the market price, namely no significantly lower price was available from any other UK bank, to which Kevin agreed.

[Kenny Haymes]

My reading of Judge Cooke's Approved Judgment is that he did not dismiss Kevin's claim that the "fee" needed to be reasonable. He understood Kevin to say the fee was unreasonable because Kevin did not like it.

 

On his own initiative the judge suggested a pragmatic criterion: the price for the job was deemed not unreasonable because it was the market price, namely no significantly lower price was available from any other UK bank, to which Kevin agreed.

 

I would respectfully suggest that the manner in which a claim is presented to the Defendant is tactically critical to maximise success - therefore I believe the claim should state that the charges constitute penalties because they are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - citing the House of Lords decision in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79 - and the claim should go on to state that if the Defendant denies this, the Claimant puts the Defendant 'to the strict burden of proof' to demonstrate that the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of (the bank's) loss - i.e. they must produce a breakdown of their costings to demonstrate the charges are genuine.

 

Further, I would also respectfully suggest that it is highly inadvisable to attempt to go to court 'without' any T&Cs attached to any claim.

[voyager9]

HI CAN ANYONE POINT ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF THE RULLING OR STATUTE THAT SAYS A CASE DECIDED IN COUNTY COURT CANNOT BE USED AS A PRECEDENT , I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL IN MY CASE AGAINST CLYDESDALE/YORKSHIRE WHO ARE THREATENING TO FETCH THIA CASE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JUDGE?

 

ps sorry about caps :o

[TUTTSI]

HI CAN ANYONE POINT ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF THE RULLING OR STATUTE THAT SAYS A CASE DECIDED IN COUNTY COURT CANNOT BE USED AS A PRECEDENT , I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL IN MY CASE AGAINST CLYDESDALE/YORKSHIRE WHO ARE THREATENING TO FETCH THIA CASE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JUDGE?

 

ps sorry about caps :o

 

I have just read this from the BBC , an apology from A&L for quoting the case in B'ham. A case in the CC cannot be used as prcedent case only a high court/mercantile court.

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank apology for charges letter

 

DS

[voyager9]

thanks dsilverstein have read that it has helped but i am after the actual statement rulling that says this is the case as i know how bad yorkshire are behaving

 

voyager9

[TUTTSI]

Hi Voyager

Why dont you contact the BBC like the others have done and make a complaint, you will soon see them back off on this point! IMHO!

Let me know how you get on!

DS

[voyager9]

hi ds

 

i have just sent email to bbc lets see what they do now lol

 

voyager

[TUTTSI]

I agree! I do hope that they can help you!

DS

[alexpom51]

I'm in the process of claiming £944 from LloydsTSB (inc interest and court fee). I sent a letter before action and, as I got no response within 14 days, sent the N1 to my local county court.

 

In the meantime, LloydsTSB have already deposited a £750 pay off into my account in "full and final settlement". The money had gone into my account before I could even reply to the letter they sent. I was ready to send a sniffy letter back telling them that I will accept the money as a "payment on account", pending the outcome of the court case, but I am not willing to accept it as "full and final settlement".

 

I was about to write this letter when I heard for the first time about this one-off victory of theirs.

 

I would welcome feedback from others on this site about what they would do in my situation. As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it? (Obviously if I was claiming £thousands I wouldn't accept a paltry £750.).

 

Needless to say, when they turned down my original request, they mentioned the guff about charging £35 a time for providing the "service" of extending my overdraft etc etc - nothing about penalty charges. This so-called "service" charge was, I understand, the basis of their recent success in court.

 

Please let me know what you think:confused:

[TUTTSI]

I'm in the process of claiming £944 from Lloyds TSB (inc interest and court fee). I sent a letter before action and, as I got no response within 14 days, sent the N1 to my local county court.

 

In the meantime, LloydsTSB have already deposited a £750 pay off into my account in "full and final settlement". The money had gone into my account before I could even reply to the letter they sent. I was ready to send a sniffy letter back telling them that I will accept the money as a "payment on account", pending the outcome of the court case, but I am not willing to accept it as "full and final settlement".

 

I was about to write this letter when I heard for the first time about this one-off victory of theirs.

 

I would welcome feedback from others on this site about what they would do in my situation. As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it? (Obviously if I was claiming £thousands I wouldn't accept a paltry £750.).

 

Needless to say, when they turned down my original request, they mentioned the guff about charging £35 a time for providing the "service" of extending my overdraft etc etc - nothing about penalty charges. This so-called "service" charge was, I understand, the basis of their recent success in court.

 

Please let me know what you think:confused:

 

In the Templates Library thre is a rejection letter which you should accept on a partial settlement only and advise them that you have already issued procedings and advise them the balance and that you are still expecting to be paid the full amount + court fees less what they have paid you on account, this is IMHO.

DS

[setmefree]

As the amount they have offered is just a couple of hundred less than what I am claiming should I just cut my losses and accept it?

 

MMM no would they take £20.00 instead of £30.00 charges i think not, so why should you accept there offer.

you have asked for a true figure the same as they do when they apply the penalty charges.

:D :D :D

[TUTTSI]

Quite right setmefree!

[alexpom51]

Thanks for the info.............A

[Iain Francis]

Re deadthings conditions with lloyds - is it possible for a scan of his t & c to go on to this site as I am claiming back to 2001 but have no t & c - i asked lloyds for a copy and have had no reply

 

Thanks

 

Iain Francis

[Kenny Haymes]

My reading of Judge Cooke's Approved Judgment is that he did not dismiss Kevin's claim that the "fee" needed to be reasonable. He understood Kevin to say the fee was unreasonable because Kevin did not like it.

 

On his own initiative the judge suggested a pragmatic criterion: the price for the job was deemed not unreasonable because it was the market price, namely no significantly lower price was available from any other UK bank, to which Kevin agreed.

 

If Mr.Berwick 'agreed' with the judge on various points - is the Berwick case the 'right one' to appeal for the benefit of all ? Somewhat difficult to successfully appeal against fundamental elements of a judicial decision - especially if 'one' has initially agreed with them ?

 

An appeal can only be made based on the evidence before the lower court - and it appears that important evidence was missing in the county court in this case - the permission of the higher court would be needed to adduce further evidence - important evidence such as T&Cs - this permission may be refused - this could then mean any appeal may fail.

 

On the other hand, the judge granted 'permission to appeal' thereby 'inviting' an appeal - 'permission to appeal' should only be granted where there is a 'reasonable prospect' of success - 'permission' has already been granted by the presiding judge ! But is this a 'spratt to catch a mackerel' ?

 

Some element of doubt has crept into claimants since this perverse judgment - imagine the impact if an appeal were to fail - an appeal

'encouraged' by a judge who had just made a decison which 'the world and his wife' would know was misguided to put it mildly - and which decision the judge himself thought could be appealed !

 

The appeal [if any] would be heard in the same building as the original case - and not by a High Court judge - but most probably a local circuit judge - it would depend on how the listings were made.

 

After any appeal - if made - then 'permission to appeal' to the Court of Appeal would be needed - more than likely a circuit judge would not grant permission to appeal his own decision.

 

In any further appeal - the Court of Appeal would not normally allow 'further evidence' to be adduced before it - therefore is 'this' the correct case to be taken all the way ?

 

There can be little doubt that the banks are seeking the out 'the weakest case', from somewhere, to try and set some form of precedent in their favour, even if it means it is only a well-publicised judgment achieved on a procedural advantage or incomplete claim !

[Mistermind]

Kenny, a courageous post from you but one that needs to be made, in case the movement is suckered into an ambush.

 

Even more damagingly Kevin said at the trial he did NOT regard going overdrawn or overlimit was a breach of contract. This cut off the underpinning of Dunlop v Garage 1910 precedent and opened the door to thef first of two Lloyds documented defence points, namely that the charge was a service fee. Fatally Kevin challenged the existence not the quantity of this charge. Even if new T&C evidence is admitted at the appeal it is hard to see how a complete U-turn would be permitted, starting again from scratch, echoes of double jeopardy.

 

Contesting the "reasonableness" of the charge level may be a little easier, if less rewarding. New evidence could be introduced from EU etc and from past charge levels to question "reasonableness". The fact that the same bank AIB charges £3 in Dublin but £20 in UK could be adduced to suggest the "market price" has been manipulated by a UK-wide price-fixing cartel of banks.

 

In mitigation it could be argued the makeshift T&C admitted in court was contained in the bundle of neither the claimant nor the defendant. Lloyds did not bother to show up, while layman Kevin at a moment's notice had to think on his feet. With great novelty the judge presented the T&C evidence.

 

After thousands of similar cases were assigned for court hearing, only for banks to go AWOL, might judges entertain the excuse that the claimant did not expect a contest, so arrived underprepared? Being a layman he did not try to seek an adjournment.

 

If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants.

[Kenny Haymes]

Kenny, a courageous post from you but one that needs to be made, in case the movement is suckered into an ambush.

 

Even more damagingly Kevin said at the trial he did NOT regard going overdrawn or overlimit was a breach of contract. This cut off the underpinning of Dunlop v Garage 1910 precedent and opened the door to thef first of two Lloyds documented defence points, namely that the charge was a service fee. Fatally Kevin challenged the existence not the quantity of this charge. Even if new T&C evidence is admitted at the appeal it is hard to see how a complete U-turn would be permitted, starting again from scratch, echoes of double jeopardy.

 

Contesting the "reasonableness" of the charge level may be a little easier, if less rewarding. New evidence could be introduced from EU etc and from past charge levels to question "reasonableness". The fact that the same bank AIB charges £3 in Dublin but £20 in UK could be adduced to suggest the "market price" has been manipulated by a UK-wide price-fixing cartel of banks.

 

In mitigation it could be argued the makeshift T&C admitted in court was contained in the bundle of neither the claimant nor the defendant. Lloyds did not bother to show up, while layman Kevin at a moment's notice had to think on his feet. With great novelty the judge presented the T&C evidence.

 

After thousands of similar cases were assigned for court hearing, only for banks to go AWOL, might judges entertain the excuse that the claimant did not expect a contest, so arrived underprepared? Being a layman he did not try to seek an adjournment.

 

If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants.

 

Mmm, duly noted Mistermind ! Sadly, even less chance of a successful appeal, in my view - certainly an even bigger risk 'for all' than appeared at first blush.

 

Whilst I agree with your last paragraph, viz. -

 

"If this appeal does not materialise, then we appear to be back where we started, except that an own goal has been scored. As well as fleeing from well-prepared adversaries as before, banks may now try out the additional option of leaping out at the last moment to ambush ill-prepared claimants" -

 

maybe the 'lesson to be learnt' from all of this is - 'be prepared' - 'be very well prepared indeed' - if you are going to court - it is not a picinic by any stretch of the imagination - take your cases seriously - and claimants should play their 'documentation hand' for the long haul so they don't get caught out - i.e. include 'everything' in their submissions - in case there is need for an appeal - 'and' to avoid a 'judge' (?) formulating his own version of T&Cs and how he 'see's it' (or wants to see it)!

 

'If' we are back where we started, then so be it - a strategical retrench - at least it will not have jeopardised the many £millions of refunds that are still due to customers.

 

Let's at least not hand it to them on a plate !

 

Should Defendant banks refer to the Berwick case not being appealed or trying to score points off the purely County Court decision (to call it a judgment seems too much of an acknowledgement and/or compliment) - it might be useful to counter that by including a plethora of info on all the cases settled by the banks todate, thereby readily submitting such info for reference in court and to highlight the banks' weakness and unwillingness todate - save for a case where no T&Cs are properly submitted !

[photoman]

Kenny,

 

I could not agree more regards the need for preparation, and was a bit stern with some newbies recently (which they got a little upset about, but hopefully it made them wake up a to reality).

As I said on another thread:

 

"This is a serious business, and although everything is here online in templated form, it is still necessary to make some effort to understand what is that involved. It is obvious from some of the posts that some people have advanced way down the line without ever doing this.

 

I am just as willing as many others on this site to try to help them (and have very often done so), and the urgency that these crys for help are are so frequently made in means it must be done so quickly and without chastisement.

 

My post was meant more as a cautionary warning to those about to set off. To not get yourself in the same mess. To take some time and effort to do things. Read and understand, post and question, get advice earlier rather than later. Look at all the stages before starting even the first, because it is those rudimentary basics that will prepare you for the more difficult later stages."

 

Regards your statement about having a list of settled cases to hand.

 

PLEASE, TO EVERYONE that wins:

 

Do not just vanish off on some Caribbean cruise. DO please post details of your winning case. ESPECIALLY if it was a settlement AFTER the berwick case.

 

Regards

 

PM

[Mistermind]

Hear hear. What is more BankFodder wants to hear from those about to reach court. There are so many serious threads these days that the truly urgent get swamped.

 

There is a danger that opportunistic banks (more so than cards) could switch to guerilla tactics to pick on stragglers. When they can see from the bundle that the litigant is very obviously under-prepared, their barrister can suddenly arrive in court, to chalk up another win and discourage the movement.

 

When up against a strong bundle they continue to settle and go AWOL, lulling other claimants into a false sense of security. The phoney war could be turning into a war of nerves.

 

 

 

We Need Your Litigation Details!!!!!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....itigation.html

[TideTurner]

I couldn't agree more PM. I wonder whether some people understand the luxury they have in terms of information they can get from this site. We have all suffered loss as a result of the actions of the banks for over a decade.

 

By posting your experiences and Court details, you receive help and help others, and allow the forum to keep an eye on any dirty tricks which may be employed by the banks.

 

Saying that, I'm as guilty as the next man, and haven't revealed details (even going quiet) for a while, for fear the 'listeners' will know my next move.

 

I will contact the Mods now, as I'm determined to beat these bullies and would not like to make any mistakes which would affect others.

 

I'll publish the entire case on my thread when it's over - it will open a few eyes!

 

Tide

[TUTTSI]

I couldn't agree more PM. I wonder whether some people understand the luxury they have in terms of information they can get from this site. We have all suffered loss as a result of the actions of the banks for over a decade.

 

By posting your experiences and Court details, you receive help and help others, and allow the forum to keep an eye on any dirty tricks which may be employed by the banks.

 

Saying that, I'm as guilty as the next man, and haven't revealed details (even going quiet) for a while, for fear the 'listeners' will know my next move.

 

I will contact the Mods now, as I'm determined to beat these bullies and would not like to make any mistakes which would affect others.

 

I'll publish the entire case on my thread when it's over - it will open a few eyes!

 

Tide

 

Tide have you a court date for your case! it sounds like it will make for interesting reading one day, maybe a best seller.

Regards

DS