Is your bank quoting the Lloyds victory to put you off claiming? - Contact the BBC

[GaryH]

It seems that Abbey ARE doing this - I've seen two letters from their solicitor today containing this -

We also refer you to the recent judgment in Berwick & Haughton -v- Lloyds TSB wherein it was found that “there was no ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges he has paid to it.”

The fundamental issue in Berwick v Lloyds concerned whether or not the charges were imposed as a result of a breach of contract.

 

The judge decided that the claimant did not demonstrate a breach of contract, so found in favour of the bank's "service charge, not default" defence.

 

Abbey admit that their charges are default charges arising from breaches of contract - they defend on the basis that they are a pre-estimate of the loss suffered by Abbey as a result of your breach.

 

Berwick v Lloyds is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant!

 

....and the reference to it in the letters they have started to send out should be disregarded as intimidatory and yet another shameless trick in their abusive litigation strategy.

 

Don't let them bully you into accepting a lower amount, and write back rejecting their reference to the Lloyds judgement and request its withdrawn. Also quote the claim's in which their defence has been thrown out by judges as an abuse of process.

Dear Ms ******,

 

Thank you for your letter dated [date].

 

Unfortunately I am not willing to reconsider my position in respect of the amount at which these matters will be settled, until such time as Abbey discoses its true loss incurred as a result of each of my contractual breaches.

 

Furthermore, I am wholly disappointed that you have chosen to erroneously cite the case of Berwick -v- Lloyds as relevant in respect of my own claim against your client.

 

As you are surely very well aware, the issues upon which the recent judgement was made in favour of Lloyds TSB fundamentally differ from those of my own claim. The District Judge at Birmingham County Court found that in the particular case, a breach of contract was not demonstrated by the claimant, and therefore upheld Lloyds defence that the charges were fee's for a service, as opposed to default charges. This small claims track judgement is not binding on any other court, and is in fact subject to an appeal.

 

Abbey Plc does not attempt to "cloak" its charges in the same manner - it readily admits that they arise from breaches of contract, and you do in fact refer to them as 'defaults' in the very correspondance to which this letter is in reply.

 

Therefore, I quite reasonably consider your letter to be part of Abbey's wider strategy of attempting to intimidate claimants and dissaude them from pursuing legitimate complaints.

 

May I also refer you to claim numbers 7DC42005 and 7NB00229, where your defence was found by the respective district judges to be an abuse of court process and resultingly struck out.

 

Accordingly, I respectfully request that you reply to me by [date] retracting your reference to the case of Berwick -v- Lloyds TSB, and furthermore apologising for this transgression.

 

I look forward to your prompt response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Copy to;

 

***** County Court

[GaryH]

25%!!!!!! PMSL!

 

You'd think that Abbey's solicitors would know very well by now that CAG members won't be fooled or intimidated by their underhanded tactics, would'nt you?

 

I would probably suggest that they try another one. This one is just making them look a bit silly!

[GaryH]

Tis indeed.

 

Can I have your autograph?

[GaryH]

Excellent. I would suggest you mention Abbeys continuing abuse of court process and their clear strategy of damage limitation by intimidating claimants. Also quote the (at least) 2 cases where their defence has been thrown out by judges as an abuse of process.

 

Incidentally, they retracted the reference to Berwick v Lloyds in an e-mail to a user yesterday so it'll be interesting to see if they continue to quote it or not. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/69269-conncat-abbey-5.html#post845550

[GaryH]

Fantastic, well done to both of you!!

[GaryH]

Maria,

 

Yes, I believe something is being worked on - although the Lloyds thing sort of hijacked the agenda for most of the last week or so, so I think it went on the backburner.

 

I'll ask BankFodder about it.

[GaryH]

Really? What, about Abbey quoting Lloyds? What did you say? When is it going on air?

 

Ooooooooooo how exciting!!!!!:grin:

[GaryH]

Did you get any CAG plugs in?:grin:

[GaryH]

Thats ok, must have been nervewracking! Was it live?

[GaryH]

Here you both are! - BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'exploit charges judgement'

[GaryH]

Fantastic stuff, well done Fiona!!!

 

Can't wait to see it later.

 

Do you mean you're on the radio tomorrow morning as well?

[GaryH]

Great job Fiona - you did great.

 

When's the next stop on the tour of the worlds media outlets then?

[GaryH]

Excellent!!!!

[GaryH]

Great, well done Maria! Regarding the abuse orders, yes?

[GaryH]

Wow!! Excellent! Now I really do want your autograph!!

 

Good work.

[GaryH]

Thanks! Not at all though - you did the hard work, I just gave you a template.

[GaryH]

Thats fine. We can work with that. She's stated she wants to settle so thats a good sign.

 

I'm still rushing around a bit at the mo - let me think about it for a bit and I'll have a suggested response for you by tomorrow morning at the latest.

[GaryH]

No problem - in fact I must admit I do quite enjoy these little exchanges with Inga! To be fair though at least she and Abbey are communicative to a point - I'm used to dealing (or not) with Lloyds solicitors, who are a joke. Completely ignorant and uncooperative. I've always actually found Inga to be very courteous and professional.

[GaryH]

go on Gary, fess up, tell us the real reason why you like dealing with Inga

How dare you spread such ridiculous and unfounded rumours!

 

And, hut hum, I don't think you're one to talk about Abbey sols and their accents, do you?