Are bank charges penalties?

[Aequitas]

Please note:

 

1. I am a lawyer, but not a mercantile lawyer. Hopefully, what I say that follows is correct.
   
2. In case there is any misunderstanding, I am against the high level of charges made by banks.

I surfed into this site and immediately noticed the following statements of the law:

 

1. The law of penalty charges permits the recovery only of losses caused by a contractual breach

1. Penalties which make profits are unenforceable at Common Law and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

I think they bear examination and that is why I signed up. If anyone else has made similar points, I apologise.

 

 

The first thing that needs to be said is this: The law does not permit penalties. If a contract contains a provision for the payment of a specified sum if a party is in breach of contract, that sum must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The important words there are “if a party is in breach of contract.” This is quite different to a contract providing a fixed price for goods or services to be provided. The parties to a contract are free to agree whatever price they wish. One party may drive a hard bargain and the other party may feel the price is excessive, but the law does not intervene or make any enquiry as to whether an excessive profit is being made.

 

 

Leaving aside that the very word “penalty” carries with it the suggestion of a windfall for the person to whom it is paid, the law does not distinguish between “penalties which make profits” and “penalties which do not make profits”; both are equally prohibited.

 

 

Whilst it is true that The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations provide that any term “requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” is an unfair term, they also provide that “the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.” It seems to me that this is essentially the same distinction as I make above as to the difference between paying a penalty for a breach of contract and agreeing a fixed price for goods or services.

 

 

When you sign a contract with a bank to provide services the bank sets out a list of the charges it will make in certain circumstances. Since they are charges agreed for services to be provided they cannot be penalties. Further a penalty is something that is conceived as following a breach of contract. How can doing something that incurs a bank charge be a breach of contract if the contract permits you to do it? (I concede that the contract may provide a charge for doing something that the contract does not allow, but it would be an oddity if you could get away with the charge only if you were in breach of contract.)

 

 

Bank charges are not penalties; if they were penalties the law would not allow them. The law does not regulate the level of bank charges.

[jansus]

1) if the answer is this simple - why has not one bank appeared in court to put this defence:confused:

2) Every time they increase the charges should this not be regarded a new contract to give you the oppurtunity to sign and agree to the charges and move banks (oh no they all charge about the same costs!)

I think we all understand that the charges in principle are not disputed - but there is something in the small print from the financial institutions themselves that the charges should be a relection of costs and in proportion - as we are trusting them to operate our accounts in a fair way.

 

3)Also I have seen threads on this site where the banks have sent letters themselves using the word "penalties " in black and white. so maybe someone should tell them they are not.

 

Sorry about my simplified explanations - wanted to study law but never quite achieved my ambition:grin:

 

 

 

jansus

[gyzmo]

There are many things the law does not allow but yet the existence of the forbidden act continues. The viewpoint to the contrary is idealistic (nothing wrong in that) but unworkeable in this society.

 

Corporations regularly flout the law because:

1. They know enforcement against them is ineffective

2. If action is taken against them, the penalty comes nowhere near the profit they make from carrying on the forbidden act.

 

Tesco, for one, is a public enemy (probably No. 1) in the eyes of Trading Standards. The resources available to Tesco however, far outweighs those available to the local authority. I cannot begin to describe what they get away with (and I'm not just talking about TV exposes here). BUT TSOs know that they cannot hope to win a case against them.

 

The same applies to banks (which have the detriment of a government body acting against them, and not a local authority that gives a miniscule amount to it's enforcement branches). The only reason Banks have not gone to court is that they fear a precedent being set against them. If they were so convinced of their arguments, they would take every issue to court.

 

They haven't. And why?

 

I have taklen my bank to court (for which they appeared) and asked them to provide evidence that they actually incurred the loss that they charged me for. They wouldn't, and so the judgement went in my favour.

 

If the banks want to show that they do indeed incur a charge equal to the amount they charge you, then let them show documentary evidence of this as opposed to their "Customer help leaflets".

[indebtstudent]

I'm not sure what bearing this had but doesn't a bank in Ireland charge £3 for a returned item? (as they are prohibited by law from charging more than thier costs).

[jansus]

Please note:

1. and that is why I signed up. If anyone else has made similar points, I apologise.

Leaving aside that the very word “penalty” carries with it the suggestion of a windfall for the person to whom it is paid, the law does not distinguish between “penalties which make profits” and “penalties which do not make profits”; both are equally prohibited.

 

 

Whilst it is true that The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations provide that any term “requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” is an unfair term, they also provide that “the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.” It seems to me that this is essentially the same distinction as I make above as to the difference between paying a penalty for a breach of contract and agreeing a fixed price for goods or services.

 

 

When you sign a contract with a bank to provide services the bank sets out a list of the charges it will make in certain circumstances. Since they are charges agreed for services to be provided they cannot be penalties. Further a penalty is something that is conceived as following a breach of contract. How can doing something that incurs a bank charge be a breach of contract if the contract permits you to do it? (I concede that the contract may provide a charge for doing something that the contract does not allow, but it would be an oddity if you could get away with the charge only if you were in breach of contract.)

 

 

Bank charges are not penalties; if they were penalties the law would not allow them. The law does not regulate the level of bank charges.

 

 

lloyds victory a view of the judgement - this thread makes good reading in this respect

[Perseus]

When you sign a contract with a bank to provide services the bank sets out a list of the charges it will make in certain circumstances. Those circumstances ARE the breach of contract, i.e. if you exceed your authorised overdraft, we will each day 'charge' you £25, plus interest. This is not a service, it is a forewarning of a penalty/charge for a breach of their T&C's.

Since they are charges agreed(not individually negotiated) for services to be provided(again, a forewarning of a charge to be levied should you breach a Term or Condition) they cannot be penalties. Further a penalty is something that is conceived as following a breach of contract. How can doing something that incurs a bank charge be a breach of contract if the contract permits you to do it? (I concede that the contract may provide a charge for doing something that the contract does not allow, but it would be an oddity if you could get away with the charge only if you were in breach of contract.)

 

The 'Contract' or agreement to a banks T&C's does not allow for a consumer to breach those T&C's - it merely warns (making their 'charges "fair and transparent") you of their costs.

Bank charges are not penalties; if they were penalties the law would not allow them. The law does not regulate the level of bank charges.

By applying a disproportionately high cost charge to a breach of T&C's or contract, penalises the consumer for having done so. The case law available in the Case Law library confirms that. If the creditors were to charge a proportionate amount for their losses whilst the breach occurred, their would be no legal challenge - but - other than the quote for Irish Banking - that's possibly a long way off happening yet!

 

By the way, welcom Aequitas!

 

JMO

 

Perseus

[Aequitas]

I have found and read the whole of the judgment in the LLoyds Bank case here : http://tinyurl.com/2gh9bb

 

I think the judge thinks the law is the same as I do. It is of course a county court judgment and not a binding precedent.

 

I concede that where a customer exceeds his overdraft limit it is difficult to see where the bank supplies a service, unless to let you know the fact! However, I cannot see that exceeding your overdraft limit is a breach of contract. The bank has discretion as to whether to allow you to exceed your limit (perhaps it is considering whether or not to allow you to exceed your limit that is the service they charge for). I expect the contract says something like "If we allow you to exceed your overdraft limit we may make a charge" rather than "you must not exceed your overdraft limit".

[Aequitas]

There are many things the law does not allow but yet the existence of the forbidden act continues. The viewpoint to the contrary is idealistic (nothing wrong in that) but unworkeable in this society.

 

Corporations regularly flout the law because:

1. They know enforcement against them is ineffective

2. If action is taken against them, the penalty comes nowhere near the profit they make from carrying on the forbidden act.

 

Tesco, for one, is a public enemy (probably No. 1) in the eyes of Trading Standards. The resources available to Tesco however, far outweighs those available to the local authority. I cannot begin to describe what they get away with (and I'm not just talking about TV exposes here). BUT TSOs know that they cannot hope to win a case against them.

 

The same applies to banks (which have the detriment of a government body acting against them, and not a local authority that gives a miniscule amount to it's enforcement branches). The only reason Banks have not gone to court is that they fear a precedent being set against them. If they were so convinced of their arguments, they would take every issue to court.

 

They haven't. And why?

 

I have taklen my bank to court (for which they appeared) and asked them to provide evidence that they actually incurred the loss that they charged me for. They wouldn't, and so the judgement went in my favour.

 

If the banks want to show that they do indeed incur a charge equal to the amount they charge you, then let them show documentary evidence of this as opposed to their "Customer help leaflets".

 

In the case of banks there is no regulation of their charges and so the regulating authority cannot do anything about it.

 

I cannot say why banks have avoided court cases. It may be the fear of setting a precedent. It seems that the LLoyds bank case slipped through by mistake. I suspect that the reason banks have not contested is because claims are made through the small claims preocedure and they cannot claim costs if they win. In most cases the expense of sending someone to court probably exceeds the amount claimed, so it is cheaper to settle.

 

Since I do not live in England I have not been following the campaign to reduce charges (I assume there is one) but if those who have been running it have suggested that the answer is in the current law then I think they are wrong. Up until the LLoyds Bank case having recourse to the law seems to have been successful simply because the banks were not defending their position, but now that the banks have won (despite not appearing and putting their case and even though only at county court level) I fear they are going to take a tougher stance.

[StormWarrior]

In most cases the expense of sending someone to court probably exceeds the amount claimed, so it is cheaper to settle.

 

From front page of CAG

Total Returned:

£11266080 to 7677 people.

 

thats over £1400 a person, I suspect that the banks would have 'blown' a few grand to defend a few of these claims just to stop everyone else claiming. It would not be a binding precident, but certainly a persuasive one.

[StormWarrior]

Just found this BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'exploit charges judgement'

 

Should we be worried?

[Perseus]

Absolutely Not!

All banks are now relishing the idea that a little publicity over a case 'won' if you can call it that - and it's not through Lloyds presenting a legal challenge!! - is going to scare people from making claims, even use it as part of the reply to your LBA/prelim...

 

Stand firm, the law hasn't changed, neither has the unlawful nature of the charges they've taken!

[Aequitas]

Let's put the problem into a wider context. For better or worse we live in a capitalist society and the brakes on the system depend on the value judgements made by those in government. Whoever is in government there will be some some restraints, but equally whoever is in government there will be consumers being ripped off. Stopping people being ripped off, and in particular controlling prices, is difficult to do without interfering in the free market and producing unintended or undesirable results. We only need look back to the direct controls on inflation introduced by Edward Heath (which many at the time thought were a good idea) to see how ineffective such interference is. Rules of competition must be respected, but prices are a matter for the market.

 

 

Take greetings cards. The price of them is quite ridiculous and what you pay is many times what it costs to make them. They are a rip off. But I do not hear anyone arguing that because you cannot buy reasonably priced greetings cards that the price of them should be reduced. No one says that you are paying a penalty because excessive profits are being made.

 

 

So are bank charges qualitatively different from greetings cards? I do not think they are.

 

 

Let's look at the history. It's a classic case of consumer demand having consequences. Thirty years ago everyone paid bank charges and they complained. People demanded free personal banking and they got it. But of course it was not totally free and charges for certain services were increased, or levied if you went into the red. This led to the cautious paying nothing and the incautious paying more; or to put it another way, to the incautious subsidising the cautious.

 

 

When I lived in England almost every other day I would receive letters from credit card companies with offers of free interest periods on balances transferred. There are those who are constantly transferring from one company to another. Well there is no such thing as a free lunch, but sometimes it is a case of someone else paying for your lunch! All that free credit needs to be paid for, and it is those who who do not pay in full and the late payers who are paying the cost. And the same sort of thing is happening with bank accounts.

 

 

What I say is this:

 

1. Let the banks pay proper interest on all your money they hold (and that includes stopping money disappearing into a black hole for three or four days when it moves round the system).

1. Do away with free banking and let's all pay according to the use we make of the services on offer, even if it is a flat fee if you make limited use.

Those in business should remember that banks are in business to sell money; it is a commodity like any other. Negotiate with them when you need a loan. A well-run business should be able to cope with bank charges. Keep a keen eye on things. Let your bank know if you have drawn funds in expectation of a receipt that does not materialise or is arriving later than expected. Things do not always go well, despite your hard work. If you start to get into difficulty go to your bank straight away and discuss your problems with them. It is in their interest to make sure you sort yourself out; they do not want to have to write your loan off. If you put your head in the sand the charges will go on mounting up.

 

 

If you are in dispute as to how or whether a charge should be made, by all means resort to the law. Beyond that, the law does not control the level of bank charges and I think it is futile to look to the law for assistance.

 

 

Change can only come from consumer pressure.

[HSBCrusher]

Poor little old lady.

Has an income of say... £800 per month.

Outgoings of say... £800 per month.

 

One month something goes wrong, payment comes in late or something.

Poor little old lady gets hit with a £35 charge.

Next month £835 outgoings, oh dear, ther goes another £35, oh dear not enough in there to pay that heating bill, return the cheque, oh dear...

 

before long the bank has all her money, and not through her being "incautious".

 

So are bank charges qualitatively different from greetings cards? I do not think they are.

I disagree. cards are a luxury. Having a cheque returned (because of last months crop of charges) for the princley fee of £35 is not a luxury. Or a service at that.

 

Charges are a penalty, and a wicked one at that. One that preys on the poor and lets the rich off scott free.

[JOSH_IOU]

Aequitas ? as in Vanquis?

[JOSH_IOU]

if the banks are so bothered about how much we overspend why do they charge us?

 

I wonder if a bank manager that thinks about his or hers customers pocket for more than 1 second rather than the banks, would last for long.

[dave]

The card analogy is a bad one, as you are not forced into buying it for one thing.

 

Secondly, it's a price for a product - NOT a price for a breach of contract, which is unlawful and not enforcable under English law.

[catw75]

'The parties to a contract are free to agree whatever price they wish. One party may drive a hard bargain and the other party may feel the price is excessive, but the law does not intervene or make any enquiry as to whether an excessive profit is being made'. Aequitas, your post is really interesting but I'm not sure that I agree with the above paragraph, as the new Consumer Credit Act 2006 has a section about 'Unfair Relationships' that addresses situations where an excessive profit is being made by a party driving a hard bargain, I think it recognises that the parties to a credit contract are not always equally free to agree whatever price they wish because a lender is in a more powerful position, particularly with more vulnerable consumers in the sub-prime market. The old Consumer Credit Act of 1974 had a similar section called 'Extortionate Credit'. Of course I may be wrong or you might interpret it differently, so it would be interesting to hear your views on this.

[patdavies]

Let's put the problem into a wider context. For better or worse we live in a capitalist society and the brakes on the system depend on the value judgements made by those in government. Whoever is in government there will be some some restraints, but equally whoever is in government there will be consumers being ripped off. Stopping people being ripped off, and in particular controlling prices, is difficult to do without interfering in the free market and producing unintended or undesirable results. We only need look back to the direct controls on inflation introduced by Edward Heath (which many at the time thought were a good idea) to see how ineffective such interference is. Rules of competition must be respected, but prices are a matter for the market.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but the very basis of your argument is flawed.

 

Yes, we live in a capitalist society. However, the 'brakes' on the system is market forces - pure and simple. This is why all banks offer 'free' banking; this is why charges for the use of ATMs haven't stuck.

 

The function of government is to

a) prevent the formation of monopolies which effectively removes the market for the monopoly sector, and

b) to prevent collusion or the formation of cartels for the same reason, and

c) provide a framework for the market to operate (eg SoGA).

 

Further regulation is applied to the market to protect national interests rather then individual interests

 

 

If you start to get into difficulty go to your bank straight away and discuss your problems with them. It is in their interest to make sure you sort yourself out;

 

Yeah, right.

 

Years ago when I was made redundant, I did just this - I kept my bank informed. their first action was to withdraw my cashcard; not to my face, but the next time I tried to use it. This left me with no way to get any cash out of my in credit account, as my own branch was several hundred miles away, without going into a local branch and having them ring my branch at £10 per time.

[Perseus]

Let's put the problem into a wider context. For better or worse we live in a capitalist society and the brakes on the system depend on the value judgements made by those in government. Whoever is in government there will be some some restraints, but equally whoever is in government there will be consumers being ripped off.

This is exactly why statutes, regulations and laws exist. It then creates an equal playing field (or the ability to create one) so that neither party is discriminated nor his right to contractual fairness is undermined!)

Stopping people being ripped off, and in particular controlling prices, is difficult to do without interfering in the free market and producing unintended or undesirable results.

What is difficult, is getting the regulatory bodies to enforce and act upon the laws, trites and torts and statutes breached/broken. If the Trading Standards, FSA, OFT and ICO had half the teeth they are paid to own, this problem would have been resolved by the cca1974 - 33 years ago.

Ineffectiveness in the authorititive bodies is compounding the inequality in non-negotiable or pre-determined T&C's of contracts - hence this consumer revolution.

We only need look back to the direct controls on inflation introduced by Edward Heath (which many at the time thought were a good idea) to see how ineffective such interference is. Rules of competition must be respected, but prices are a matter for the market.

There is no 'rules of competitiveness' when consumers require credit. A finance company provides a service to those who cannot pay cash for it, knowing that without their service - the 'lower echalon' of society would go without. It is therefore a captive market, and one which the consumer must 'Take or Leave'. No competition, or a right to challenge it's terms exist in plain sight.

 

 

Take greetings cards. The price of them is quite ridiculous and what you pay is many times what it costs to make them. They are a rip off. But I do not hear anyone arguing that because you cannot buy reasonably priced greetings cards that the price of them should be reduced. No one says that you are paying a penalty because excessive profits are being made.

Your analogy is misplaced IMO, the greeting card is in one shop (of which there are many - like banks), the choice of card is also widely available throughtout those shops (as are accounts in banks) - but the consumer has a choice to agree to pay whatever the price is for the appropriate card - nonetheless this choice is not a requirement nor enforced 'allegedly' by a consumer credit act that purports to uphold the shops right to sell at that price - whereas the banks purport that their charges are not only legal and fair, but offer the consumer credit act to enforce what is unlawful (a disproportionate amount in compensation for a breach of contract, or provision of a letter etc).

 

So are bank charges qualitatively different from greetings cards? I do not think they are.

I'm starting to think that you are a bank employee or legal representative at this point. How the hell can bank charges (which are unlawfully misrepresented as a fair charge) equal the consumers right of choice in purchasing a greeting card at which-ever price he is willing to pay - or to go elsewhere and choose another better value item elsewhere, or to make one at home!

 

Let's look at the history. It's a classic case of consumer demand having consequences. Thirty years ago everyone paid bank charges and they complained. People demanded free personal banking and they got it. But of course it was not totally free and charges for certain services were increased, or levied if you went into the red. This led to the cautious paying nothing and the incautious paying more; or to put it another way, to the incautious subsidising the cautious.

Or maybe the poor paying what they haven't got in order to fund the rich and famous having what they enjoy free of charge.

I'm sorry, Consumer demand is a huge thread which won't start here. The banks opportunity for unjust enrichment from unlawful penalties (or to break it down - the bank removing money under the guise of a legal contract), when Mr & Mrs A go 15pence overdrawn for 1 day, and get charged £25 plus interest for that 'occurrence' is justified is it? I put it to you that (as is in my other halfs situation) when an account is 2 pence - yes 2 whole new pence was overdrawn (and as a direct result of a benefit agency making a late payment), for just 2 whole days, the Alliance and Leicester charged her £25 for day 1, plus interest, then £25 for day 2 plus more interest. Is that consumer driven? Is it morally right? Is it a disproportionately high amount to recoup the losses of the bank?

 

 

When I lived in England almost every other day I would receive letters from credit card companies with offers of free interest periods on balances transferred. There are those who are constantly transferring from one company to another. Well there is no such thing as a free lunch, but sometimes it is a case of someone else paying for your lunch! All that free credit needs to be paid for, and it is those who who do not pay in full and the late payers who are paying the cost. And the same sort of thing is happening with bank accounts.

 

I'm really starting to lose patience reading this - the holier than thou attitude should not equate to £50 + interest for 2 pence overdrawn. It's unlawful full stop. All high street banks are considering removing free banking now, and some are now already charging. Does this remove the 'legal right' to draw every last penny from those who are genuinely unable or less well off to afford. Please...

What I say is this:

 

1. Let the banks pay proper interest on all your money they hold (and that includes stopping money disappearing into a black hole for three or four days when it moves round the system).Hurrah - agreed!

1. Do away with free banking and let's all pay according to the use we make of the services on offer, even if it is a flat fee if you make limited use. If it is a fair and just 'service' then it cannot be argued. As I said, it's already happening, with no doubt, more following suit.

Those in business should remember that banks are in business to sell money; it is a commodity like any other. Negotiate with them when you need a loan. A well-run business should be able to cope with bank charges. Keep a keen eye on things. Let your bank know if you have drawn funds in expectation of a receipt that does not materialise or is arriving later than expected. Things do not always go well, despite your hard work. If you start to get into difficulty go to your bank straight away and discuss your problems with them. It is in their interest to make sure you sort yourself out; they do not want to have to write your loan off. If you put your head in the sand the charges will go on mounting up.

I'm really starting to think I've attended a 'how to conduct your bank account seminar - by Mr. A Bank'

 

If you are in dispute as to how or whether a charge should be made, by all means resort to the law. Beyond that, the law does not control the level of bank charges and I think it is futile to look to the law for assistance.

Interesting statement, given that the law imposes a duty and responsibility on fiduciarys - the FSA OFT TS ICO and others are inundated with complaints, the FOS are handling more investigations in the last 14 months than ever before - and not one bank has actually defended the legality of their bank charges (and yes I include the lloyds case).

 

Change can only come from consumer pressure.

Welcome to CAG!

[dave]

If you are in dispute as to how or whether a charge should be made, by all means resort to the law. Beyond that, the law does not control the level of bank charges and I think it is futile to look to the law for assistance.

A penalty, applied for a breach of contract is simply unlawful. It's certainly not futile - case law exists to enforce this argument and has done for over a century.

 

The banks are in breach of simple contract law.

 

Your argument is, unless I am mistaken, that the bank (or whomever) can charge whatever they feel fit, and so long as people will pay it, it's fair game.

 

Sadly (for them), they are not charging for a product or service - it's simply a penalty (which is outlined quite clearly in the T&C's of all accounts) for breaching the contract - which, as stated, is not legally binding nor enforcable by law. Hence the fact that they call it an "unauthorised overdraft" - if it was a service that was outlined beforehand, it would surely be "authorised" (aside from the fact that "unauthorised" overdrafts, are actually authorised by the bank, or they actually couldn't occur at all).

 

To claim that they are NOT issuing a penalty is known as "Cloaking a penalty" and any judge worth his salt would see straight through it.

 

If you start to get into difficulty go to your bank straight away and discuss your problems with them. It is in their interest to make sure you sort yourself out;

Sadly, this was probably true 10-15 years ago. It is no longer. Banks only see the bottom line, and are as short sighted as the next big business.

 

Indeed, if it were true then quite possibly this site would never has been started. It was Abbey's inability to listen to me, when I wasn't paid on time, that resulted in my being pushed against a wall. Luckily, I don't take people trying to f*ck me over too kindly, and usually fight back.

 

For e.g.: I was over my od limit just a few weeks ago - I wasn't aware of it - I don't get statements and the nearest cash-point is 6 miles away - not the banks problem I grant you, however, they phoned and said "why not take a loan to cover it?", I asked the APR - it was 16.9%!!!!!!! The OD is 10% APR. I may not have the best mathmatical head, but you can clearly see that MY best interests were certainly not taken into account. The bottom line was: more money for them.

 

Profit; it's all they care about - they used to be respectable; alas, they have lost any thoughts of respectablilty from the very people they rely on, and the REALLY sad thing about that is they are too arrogant to care, thanks to many laws that more-or-less force us into using them. They know that there is little choice, and have exploited it to the full.

[dave]

Up until the LLoyds Bank case having recourse to the law seems to have been successful simply because the banks were not defending their position, but now that the banks have won (despite not appearing and putting their case and even though only at county court level) I fear they are going to take a tougher stance.

 

 

I disagree, you have only heard about the ones where the bank wins, simply because their media machine is bigger, and works better than ours.

 

;-)

[Perseus]

And, may I say - that you never hear quite why the bank won either.

The recent Lloyds case was no victory, neither was it strictly a loss for the claimant. It just means that he will have to get ALL his paperwork in order for an appeal.

 

As Dave says, the media attention given to such a 'victory' is not again not in balance to the 99% of succesful claimants against them.

 

Aequitas, if you are a lawyer, surely you must recognise the cca, dpa and utccr has merits far beyond that of profit greedy creditors' Terms and Conditions.

[dave]

Lloyds know they were lucky, there has been many a claim settled since that case.

 

If they could win every time (and this case's merits, I won't discuss at the moment), then you would think that they would use the same tactic, no?

[Rooster-UK]

[JonCris]

I do hope whatsaname does work for the banks or firm of solicitors because with that sort of competition we ain't got no worries