CASE LOST - Lloyds Tsb

[bwdski]

 

And this one from yesterday

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/15137-kerr3853-lloyds-tsb.html

 

- do I need to go on?

 

No you don't...

 

Think it's very un-thoughtfull and insensative of you posting links to cases that have been won/settled in this thread... don't you?

[nicsussex]

Not at all the general tone of the thread was becoming one of doom and gloom and 'what if?' - whilst these are perfectly understandable sentiments it is important to see both sides of the picture

[bwdski]

Not at all the general tone of the thread was becoming one of doom and gloom and 'what if?' - whilst these are perfectly understandable sentiments it is important to see both sides of the picture

 

It is important to see both sides, I'll agree, which is why I'm asking the questions I'm asking.

 

I don't think I ever mentioned that I wanted "proof" of cases won?

...correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

 

I think my main points when I replied to this thread were...

 

• people getting cold feet in view of these bank "wins"
  
• are we as "amateurs" damaging future claims

Think there were more but I'm tired

[nicsussex]

• people getting cold feet in view of these bank "wins"
  
• are we as "amateurs" damaging future claims

 

Point 1) Exactly the reason for my posts on this thread

Point 2) Amateurs?

[GaryH]

Keep it in perspective.

 

This is one judge. For every "loss" there's been at least 500 wins. Not bad odds I reckon, and look - heres another one!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/44753-sarah-ian-lloyds-court.html

 

Obviously I can't say this'll never happen again, but I honestly believe that its unlikely. As I said after the last one, the only way Lloyds will gain any sort of meaningful "victory" from this is if people panic and drop their claims.

[nicsussex]

Keep it in perspective.

 

Exactly my point

[bwdski]

Point 1) Exactly the reason for my posts on this thread

Point 2) Amateurs?

let me get this correct....

 

your response to my 1st point is to post references to other people's successes...

 

That is not discussing people getting cold feet and feeling aprehensive about going to court is it. And neither is it, to be honest, looking at both sides.

 

Your going on past success... what about future success?

 

By amateur I was referring to "ordinary" people - not Solicitors / QC's / Judges....

 

Anyhow, this is not the thread to discuss this further, We've hijacked this poor person's thread enough.

 

If you have anything further to say to me can you kindly do it by PM please.

 

Thank you

[GaryH]

I have read 4 threads where judges ruled in favour of Lloyds, all 4 I stumbled on while browsing around. If I wanted to research winning threads I would have searched for keyword "WON" imbedded in the thread title........

Where? Links please. I've not seen them.

[GaryH]

Anyone who's worried about court please follow the advice on this thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/82148-got-court-date-important.html

 

I accept and completely understand that people will be worried by this but there really is no need to lose faith. I can only say again what I said above - this is only 2 claims (despite yet more blatent scaremongering in a certain post above).

 

We need to get the T&C library uptogether, which is being worked tirelessly on as we speak, but in the near future I honestly believe we'll be in a position whereby Lloyds will simply not allow these cases to run all the way to the court date any more - becouse believe it or not they will be scared of winning!!!

 

If in the future Lloyds won a claim and the claimant had submitted a full and comprehensive evidence with T&C's and all the relevant authorities then there is scope for an appeal - and we all know what that would mean! The thing that the banks are scared of the most - a precedent.

 

Another thing I think is extreamely relevant and speaks volumes is the fact that there is another lot of hearings in Birmingham coming up on the 29th June, with Judge Cooke.

 

Lloyds know very well that if they let it run then the claimant would not get default judgement - the bank is the same, the charges are the same, the issues are the same, the POC's and defence's are the same - all Lloyds have to do is let it run to the hearing surely?

 

Both of the claims involving Lloyds were settled today, 2 weeks in advance of the hearing. Now, why would they do that? I think we all know why. Well some of us do anyway...

 

Remember, each and every one of these claims presents another opportunity for the banks to settle the whole matter for good - even if they were to properly contest a claim and lose they have the resouces to appeal up the court ladder and set a precedent. Remember these are massive financial institutions with limitless resources and limitless access to the best lawyers. Do you REALLY think they'd have let people sue them for collectively hundreds of £millions if they had a sustainable and valid defence? Of course not.

 

This is simply one narked off judge. As someone said previously, the courts are snowed under to breaking point and the issue is polarising opinions. Some judges are sick of the banks abusive tactics and throw the defences out, conversely others are sick of 3 sentance POC's and no-show claimants, and they are throwing the claims out.

 

Thankfully the former is now common, and the latter is extreamely rare.

[nicsussex]

Maybe that what this thread needed - well said Gary

[bwdski]

Anyone who's worried about court please follow the advice on this thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/82148-got-court-date-important.html

 

I accept and completely understand that people will be worried by this but there really is no need to lose faith. I can only say again what I said above - this is only 2 claims (despite yet more blatent scaremongering in a certain post above).

 

We need to get the T&C library uptogether, which is being worked tirelessly on as we speak, but in the near future I honestly believe we'll be in a position whereby Lloyds will simply not allow these cases to run all the way to the court date any more - becouse believe it or not they will be scared of winning!!!

 

If in the future Lloyds won a claim and the claimant had submitted a full and comprehensive evidence with T&C's and all the relevant authorities then there is scope for an appeal - and we all know what that would mean! The thing that the banks are scared of the most - a precedent.

 

Another thing I think is extreamely relevant and speaks volumes is the fact that there is another lot of hearings in Birmingham coming up on the 29th June, with Judge Cooke.

 

Lloyds know very well that if they let it run then the claimant would not get default judgement - the bank is the same, the charges are the same, the issues are the same, the POC's and defence's are the same - all Lloyds have to do is let it run to the hearing surely?

 

Both of the claims involving Lloyds were settled today, 2 weeks in advance of the hearing. Now, why would they do that? I think we all know why. Well some of us do anyway...

 

Remember, each and every one of these claims presents another opportunity for the banks to settle the whole matter for good - even if they were to properly contest a claim and lose they have the resouces to appeal up the court ladder and set a precedent. Remember these are massive financial institutions with limitless resources and limitless access to the best lawyers. Do you REALLY think they'd have let people sue them for collectively hundreds of £millions if they had a sustainable and valid defence? Of course not.

 

This is simply one narked off judge. As someone said previously, the courts are snowed under to breaking point and the issue is polarising opinions. Some judges are sick of the banks abusive tactics and throw the defences out, conversely others are sick of 3 sentance POC's and no-show claimants, and they are throwing the claims out.

 

Thanks for that post Gary... very informative... if only all posts were the same

 

Just one point I wish to raise...

 

It wasn't one Judge, these are two different Judges aren't they?

[GaryH]

I was under the impression that this was also judge Cooke - although to be honest that may have been an assumption on my part. Even if it wasn't him then it was one of his pals - Birmingham and Coventry CC's share judges.

[Mistermind]

Where? Links please. I've not seen them.

 

Kevboy_telford Vs LLoyds

Helping a friend - against LTSB

CASE LOST - Lloyds Tsb

 

The fourth thread was not started by the person who lost in court. He came onto someone else's thread on the subject of lost trials, and made just one posting describing in detail how judgment was awarded in court for Lloyds against him. I do believe interest formed part of the verdict. This would be within the past 10 days, very close to the time notlam broke his story and a large number of postings exploded -- notlam might recall seeing this posting?

 

If anyone were to say that because evidence is not produced, then this thread does not exist. Fair enough until then. I would not bank on it.

[Curlyben]

MM, the second link you posted ISN'T a lose as such, as charges +8% where paid to the claimant, it was the CI part that wasn't.

[Mistermind]

Curlyben,

 

From what I understood from reading notlam's detailed account, before the trial Lloyds paid the charges, so the trial was concerned with interest, not charges.

 

However, to establish the raison d'etre for interest refund, notlam volunteered to open the subject of unlawfulness of charges. After a whole hour the judge explicitly pronounced not only the interest, but also the charges to have been lawful. He said he did not understand why Lloyds had offered to repay the charges. Reading between the lines, at that point had it been in his power he would have dismissed the (already repaid) reclaim of penalty charges.

 

Merely what I read, I am not even the messenger. Notlam has the firsthand info.

[Curlyben]

MM, the charges had been repayed straight into the persons account.

Have a look at posts #53 and #55.

 

Granted it could of been alot worse, but I think that the payment received went some way in swaying this judgement.

[GaryH]

So, how many have lost in court on the charges issue? No "yeah, but...", how many times have judges ruled and found for the defendant?

 

As I said, two.

 

In Notlams case the judge did not hear evidence. She was clearly fed up with the whole thing and it sounds like she tore him off a strip (very unprofessionally IMO), that does not mean she found against the charges claim and to say she would have this, would have that, is just ridiculous speculation.

[notlam]

Reading between the lines, at that point had it been in his power he would have dismissed the (already repaid) reclaim of penalty charges.

 

That was my impression, but on reflection, I now believe had the bank challenged the whole claim, I would then have had the opportunity to argue fully and put questions to the Barrister. But then they knew that didn't they? So they conceded on the issue of the charges but just contested the contractual interest (knowing full well that I was on weak ground).

 

As GaryH has said, it's important to keep things in perspective here:

 

1. These, including my friend's, are very isolated cases.

2. The judge didn't allow me to present my evidence fully, because LTSB were not contesting the penalty charges part. So he (not she, Gary) was just spouting off without being willing to open the argument properly and put questions to the Barrister, as I had been prepared to do.

 

In a way I now regret posting my account of the hearing, because it seems to have put the wind up a lot of people, which wasn't my intention of course.

 

All I wanted to do was report what happened and what was said.

 

We won £3.7k out of £5.7k and I still intend to go back for the rest by making a new claim for the interest that was taken.

 

I am certainly not deterred from making other claims and I am completely confident, knowing what I do now, that I will win.

 

I would strongly urge all others to carry on with their claims, but not to do as I did and try to claim CI on the debt. That wont work. Instead, ask for the interest that has been charged to be re-paid also.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

 

If anyone is still in any doubt about it, please pm me.

[Mistermind]

From reading notlam's accounts the judge was a man, something to which notlam drew attention explicitly.

 

notlam posted that he now has the full judgment which he scanned and made available to one person at least. I have not been given view of latter document, but have no reason to disbelieve notlam's posted firsthand report on what the judge said on the day, especially as notlam repeatedly got the judge's sex correct.

 

If I understood notlam's posting correcly, the judge dismissed Contractual Interest not on grounds of computation but on the grounds that the Charges were ruled lawful, hence there was no question of the Contractual Interest being unlawful.

 

The news is all there in black and white to be read, uncensored. In the interest of balanced reporting, yes there have been numerous past cases of Lloyds settling before court. As for a count of how many cases so far have received explicit Approved Judgment I leave to others. I have always been at pains to draw attention repeatedly on multiple threads to barcote-v-Egg in Oxford Court on 21 NOV 2006 which was won by the claimant with the judge pronouncing after detailed examination of evidence and submissions from both sides.

[notlam]

Not that important but the judge was a "he" and the barrister was a "she".

 

Easy to get mixed up from my report, I would imagine, especially when you're getting bombarded with threads, emails, etc. and trying to help so many people, as well as doing your day job, as Gary is doing.

 

I take my hat of to you, GaryH

[nbizzle]

I second that - Im a little confused though as this is gillians thread whats happening with this case now?

[GaryH]

notlam posted that he now has the full judgment which he scanned and made available to one person at least. I have not been given view of latter document, but have no reason to disbelieve notlam's posted firsthand report on what the judge said on the day, especially as notlam repeatedly got the judge's sex correct.

I have it (thank you Notlam). Its not a full judgement, or a judgement at all in fact. Its simply an order. An order that Lloyds pay the balance of the charges + 8% and that the remainder of the claim aside from that is dismissed - the CI. I'm sure Notlam will send you a copy if you ask him.

If I understood notlam's posting correcly, the judge dismissed Contractual Interest not on grounds of computation but on the grounds that the Charges were ruled lawful, hence there was no question of the Contractual Interest being unlawful.

Wrong. The CI was dismissed becouse the judge ruled out the mutuality basis for claiming it, alongside the fact there is now a precedent against - nothing to do with the charges, they weren't an issue, they weren't ruled on and they certainly weren't ruled lawful.

 

Whilst I appreciate there needs to be a balanced view, and I respect your opinion, I'm afraid I see no benefit in pontificating over half-baked and incongruous conspiricy theories which are simply without foundation, as has been the case with many of your previous posts on this subject.

[GaryH]

Not that important but the judge was a "he" and the barrister was a "she".

Ah, I see - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Easy to get mixed up from my report, I would imagine, especially when you're getting bombarded with threads, emails, etc. and trying to help so many people, as well as doing your day job, as Gary is doing.

 

I take my hat of to you, GaryH

Thanks.

[Mistermind]

Contractual Interest - Precedent - LOST

 

This was the fourth of four threads I stumbled upon purely through browsing, thread started on 12 June 2007. I leave it to others whether this one qualifies as a case lost by the claimant.

 

In the interest of balanced reporting, I understand numerous cases of Contractual Interest have also been won in the past.

[GaryH]

I leave it to others whether this one qualifies as a case lost by the claimant.

Yes, of course its a case lost. But again, its nothing to do with the lawfulness or otherwise of the charges! The CI was the issue on its own, and to be honest it wasn't at all a surprise that it went the way it did.

 

FWIW I have always doubted the validity of contractual interest under the implied term reciprocity principle.

 

I have never doubted, and do not doubt, our case in relation to the charges.