Refund offered before legal action

[SurlyBonds]

Received a letter today from Lloyds TSB, following my request to have my charges returned.

[sometimes paraphrased.. where you can read between the lines]

"when you become a customer you agree to the bank's terms and conditions...blah, blah, we give free banking if you behave yourself [and we don't make any money...pity poor us] (sob, sob), but encourage you to discuss any difficulties [even though we won't give a rat's ar*e ...and still charge you anyway]...blah, blah..."

...for one whole side of A4 trying to make out how right we are, "and you shouldn't go overdrawn, you naughty boy [even though it's happened only twice - by less than £20 in four years]...."

 

carries on to page two...blah, blah..."it was all your fault...broke the T&Cs of the banks contract..."

 

"Page 2 - My Conclusion / Resolution

The above said, I do recognise that your account conduct is usually satisfactory and this does appear to be a genuine oversight on your part. With this in mind I am prepared to refund the £57 incharges you have incurred. I should point out that this is purely as a gesture of goodwill, since you are a valued customer, and not becuase of the points you have raised in your letter. I must also advise that any future charges will stand unless there has been a bank error."

 

Gesture of goodwill....my ar*e...if they were that confident, they would have stuck to their guns and their precious Terms and Conditions contract.

 

In the meantime, I have sent the following letter this morning:

 

_____________________________________

Dear Ms xxxxxxxxxx

 

Re: Penalty and unfair charges – request for refund for a/c no. xxxxxxxx

 

I refer to your letter of 12th June 2006.

 

In response to your letter, I have indicated my comments relating to the specified paragraph or sentence below:

 

Section: Background/Circumstances

Paragraph 2

Lloyds TSB does not offer totally free banking, as we all know that all the banks make money on interest from lending reserves made up of customer deposits. On authorised overdrafts, you again charge interest. On credit balances, the interest rates offered on current accounts bear absolutely no relation to the realistic lending rate, so Lloyds TSB is clearly pocketing the difference – this is hardly “free” to the customer.

 

Paragraph 3

The fourth sentence doesn’t make sense, as you claim that the bank “[prevents] a customer from exceeding their limit”. Whilst the first action of returning an unpaid Direct Debit, etc., might stop the overdraft increasing, the secondary action of applying an unfair and exorbitant penalty often creates the same effect anyway, namely putting the customer over their limit, to which you can then try and apply “exceeding overdraft limit” fees, and interest, thereon, in addition to the fee for the return.

I still maintain that the bank’s argument that the process charge for sending an automated letter is ‘justified’ as being totally nonsensical and insults the intelligence of the majority.

 

Paragraph 4

I was actually levied with an excess overdraft fee, even though it was the first time – you state that this doesn’t normally happen, yet the bank has simply tried to see what it could get away with. The argument about maximising the charges to three occurrences in one month is neither here nor there. Three penalties of £25-30 each(!) for automated letters is not a justifiable, or fair, charge.

 

Paragraph 5

There is no “additional work” involved in a computer system sending an automated letter (that the manager doesn’t even personally sign!) other than a Pitney Bowes mailing system churning out an automated template and field-inserted letter in an envelope worth tuppence, and a franking mark worth, at most, 32p (at today’s first class rates).

 

Section: Background/Circumstances

 

 

The £25.00 unauthorised overdraft fee on 01/03/05 was a total cock-up by the bank anyway, so I object to the rather pontificating tone that you will refund this “as a gesture of goodwill”. At no time in the previous 3 months had my account ever exceeded my £xxx authorised overdraft limit (you can check the records yourself, if you like), so the penalty was therefore not only unfair, but contradicted your own Terms and Conditions.

 

Anyway, I look forward to having the initial £57.00 refunded, but also want the following items refunded, as a full audit of my account has thrown up some other weird, or totally unfair, charges.

1. 
   
2. On 01/10/2004, I was charged the monthly account fee of £15.00. However, during the whole of the preceding month (September), the account never went below £xxxx (the threshold at which the monthly Premier fee is waived), ending the month on 30th September 2004 at a closing balance of £x. The starting balance for September was £y, and the lowest amount that the account reached was £z on 27th September. Therefore, this £15.00 is also to be refunded – again a contravention of your own terms, let alone what a Court would make of it.
   
3. On 01/06/2005, there was a charge of £64.00 for two returned direct debits – actually the same Direct Debit returned twice. This is an unacceptable and exorbitant fee and was, I note, deducted before I even received notification of these proposed charges. Under Section 11.3 of The Banking Code, you are obliged to give customers 14 days notice of any intended charges, before they are applied. This was not done in this case, let alone the excessive and downright robbery of the charges involved. This £64.00 is likewise to be refunded as a fair compromise for Lloyds TSB breaching the Banking Code.

In total, the additional refunds that I insist are returned amount to £112.32. I note that you have declined to offer interest on any of the refunds; however, I expect this to be applied to all the returned amounts forthwith. Considering that some of the charges apply to obvious bank errors, I will also expect the bank to offer a small token of recompense to cover off my actual losses, e.g., telephone calls, and letter writing time to point out these irregularities.

 

Finally, as to your statement that “any future charges will stand”, I’m afraid that they will not be doing anything of the sort, but will be considered by me for further negotiation, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:

1. I have been notified as per the Banking Code, and that they are not applied until the prescribed 14 day period has elapsed.
   
2. Any proposed charges are fair and reasonable (as described by the UTCC Regulations) and represent only the “actual and liquidated” losses to the bank. As such, I would like the bank to let me know exactly how much it thinks an automated letter costs to produce, and then we can start from there to ensure that a true liquidated figure can be agreed.
   
3. No penalty charge is to be automatically applied, in terrorem, or applied in any context that might be interpreted by the Court as the bank trying to make a disproportionate amount of money from any slight breach of a contract. I would respectfully suggest that your legal department read up on the following, to determine what this means in the context of English Case Law:
   


1. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79,
   
2. Lordsvale Finance PLC vs. Bank of Zambia (1996) QB 752, and more recently,
   
3. Murray vs. Leisureplay (2005) EWCA Civ 963

Next, I turn to your penultimate comments about the Financial Services Ombudsman who may be able to offer “independent arbitration”.

 

The common consensus of opinion, within the more ‘knowledgeable’ members of the great British public, is that the FSA is about as independent as knife is to fork. The Board of the FSA is stuffed full of banking and insurance cronies who are listed on the Stock Exchange’s register as holding significant levels of shares in many of the UK banks. In particular, James Crosby, a former MD of Halifax, and now the CEO of HBOS plc.

 

So, I would respectfully suggest that the template, from which your letter was based, is modified for dealing with someone other than the great unwashed, who actually know what the FSA is about, and our collective view that it is about as effective as the proverbial Cadbury’s fireguard.

 

Additionally, the FSA cannot award compensation, nor is it obliged to take into account Law, whereas a County Court must adhere to the relevant legislation in reaching a decision. A County Court is also bound by the precedents of the High Court i.e., those listed earlier in this letter. You may be interested to know that the FSA has not upheld one single complaint about unfair bank charges in the last six months – what a surprise when so much of their greed-laden shareholdings stand to suffer. Whereas, of the hundreds of claims made at Northampton County Court (from ordinary people in the street taking on the greedy banks), not one single claim has been successfully defended by any of the banks. The banks know they haven’t got a leg to stand on, and won’t dare fight any of these cases, based on the strength of the relevant case laws.

 

So, I’m afraid the common perception of the FSA is simply one more bureaucratic quango of spineless fat-cats with their greedy snouts in the trough, who have too many vested interests to dare affect their own wealth. To conclude on that point, I think I'd rather trust a judge to make a legally-researched and informed decision, than someone with a twisted purpose of vested interest.

 

Anyway, thank you for the offer of a refund, although it is accepted solely as a rightful and ethical reimbursement of previously unlawful penalty charges, not as a gesture of goodwill. I look forward to seeing the £57.00 in my account forthwith, and it will be received without any conditions, or promises, or implied acceptance of full and final settlement, etc. I expect to see the additional refund (of £112.32), plus interest, plus compensation, deposited likewise. I reserve the right to take legal action for recovery of this second amount, should the bank fail to, likewise, offer a refund as requested.

 

Thank you again for your letter, and thus avoiding the extremely bad publicity that would befall Lloyds TSB following such legal action.

 

Yours sincerely,

etc.

________________________________________________

[PeteCC]

I wish I'd said that!

[closey]

That is one of the best letters I have read!

[dave]

Any proposed charges are fair and reasonable (as described by the UTCC Regulations) and represent only the “actual and liquidated” losses to the bank. As such, I would like the bank to let me know exactly how much it thinks an automated letter costs to produce, and then we can start from there to ensure that a true liquidated figure can be agreed.

 

It might be best to say that you expect the breakdown requested to be calculated by a qualified banking economist rather than guessed at by an in-house solicitor or clerk rather than what they 'think' it should cost. They clearly think it should cost the earth, or at least your entire monthly pay cheque!!

 

 

[kfdh1962]

Brilliant! ate him up and spat him out!

[reload]

I can't wait to read the response to that

[ffocus]

Me neither - Keep us posted

[GARY68]

Fanstastic..that Is The Best Letter I Have Read,you Must Be The One That Right All The Template Letters Then?

Good Luck,i Wouldnt Like To Cross You

[closey]

Any update on what happened in response to this letter?

[vckyjam]

as Closey said any news? That was such a FAB letter! Made me laugh, still laughing now. good on you

 

Vicky

[SurlyBonds]

as Closey said any news? That was such a FAB letter! Made me laugh, still laughing now. good on you

 

Vicky

 

They simply replied with a one line letter saying that they could not add anything further.

 

I've started a claim and have through the Allocation Stage which arrived this morning.

 

What they've really screwed on though, is that they voluntarily refunded all the actaul unfair charges that I first added up (and have the letter to prove it) yet won't pay these back which includes return of a normal monthly fee (by which they've breached their own written terms - the fee is only paid if the balance falls below a certain amount). A there's an unexplained debit that had no description and they still haven't answered what it's for.

 

Very strange behaviour indeed.

[adamseymour]

Can You Claim For My Charges?!!:dlol

[SurlyBonds]

as Closey said any news? That was such a FAB letter! Made me laugh, still laughing now. good on you

 

Vicky

 

LTSB filed a defence, but later their solicitors offered a conditional settlement - usual bull about keeping it quiet, etc., and LTSB can charge me in future.... yeah...right!

 

I wrote back telling them to, basically, stuff it and threatened them with the Law Society for trying to impose a 'silence' condition. Heard nothing further.

 

The case was then 'stayed' last November until Jan 31st this year. The Court then ordered a hearing for today for a block hearing of this and many other cases.

 

Unsurprisingly, their solicitors (Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell) faxed me at 3pm yesterday - an hour before the Courts close - notifying me that LTSB had paid the claim amount into my account and would I please inform the Court that I would now drop the case.

 

I did write to the Court as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: In the Poole County Court: *************** v Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Case Number *********

I have today received a faxed letter from the Defendant’s solicitor stating that they will not be attending the hearing scheduled for tomorrow, together with a copy letter that they intend to send to the Court explaining the same.

Whilst they state no admittance of the claim, they have offered to repay the claim (plus interest to the date of the claim) into my account.

I have now checked via the online system and can confirm that they have deposited £****** under an item of “BANK CHARGES REFUND”. This is a most interesting choice of term, considering that all along their own defence has been that the deductions were not “charges” but were, as they contend, “service fees”.

As such, I am prepared to cease the action against the Defendant on this specific case to which no attached conditions have been agreed by me, and retaining the right to raise future claims should the need arise.

However, I will express my concern to this Honourable Court in that the Defendant is clearly adopting a strategy of defending all these types of claims, only to drop their defence at the last moment; usually on the day before a hearing. This strategy has also been adopted by most of the other banks involved in these cases of bank charges. I believe that such tactics are a blatant abuse of the legal system and is a complete waste of the Courts time. To that end, I would respectfully ask that the judge should seek an explanation from the Defendant and issue clear directions in any future cases where the Court’s time is likely to be wasted in a similar manner.

I would be grateful if you would place this letter before the judge involved so that they may close the case accordingly, and take issue with the Defendant as they see fit.

In the meantime, may I express my thanks to the Court staff for their assistance and patience with a Defendant that clearly had no intention of defending a totally indefensible claim.

Yours faithfully,

I personally think that it's about time that HMCS came down like a ton of bricks on these time wasters - it is a disgusting waste of time.

[kfdh1962]

Hi SB,

Well done and congratulations.

 

Your letter to the court was also spot on. re the choice of wording on the payment, "refund of bank charges". i had the same description against my refund, yet as you say they continually insist these charges are for additional services not bank penalty charges!!

It is about time the HMSC came down on them, they have paid out on hundreds of cases now and clealry never have any intention of defending. They simply continue to overburden a publicly funded service simply to delay the inevitable and also put off as many people of possible

I am currently in round 2, going after the charges that occured during my original claim which SC&M would not consider in my settlement. They are still playing the same gane and making me take out a court action against them. !!!