Baronstoneybroke v Lloyds : settlement offered

[HD]

AFAIAA The AQ is merely to allow a judge to decide on the next step-

 

If there is a case to answer, If the small claims is the correct track, when the hearing should be or if he should order you to go away and negotiate properly.

 

I personally didn't put anything in that section.

[Robertxc]

The only service I can see is that they have returned my d/d to the receiving bank-a letter, an envelope and a stamp.

Not quite. These things are totally automated. In the middle of the night one bank's computer will fire several million payment requests at another, and the response will come back (in a nanosecond) either 'Accept' or 'Declined'. That is all either bank needs to know to complete, or not, the transaction. The cost for this is way too small to be expressed in pounds and pence. Obviously, they have to pay for postage to tell you about it, but that's about it.

[thecornflake]

Further to the automation thing, I was thinking today about a recent charge I had in connection with Henry vs Natwest, where Natwest won on the service argument, stating that someone makes a decision on whether to pay a payment or not, etc.

 

My mortgage DD went out, except there wasn't enough to pay it. So for 3 days my account was around £350 o/d (I have a £100 arranged overdraft). Of course, straight away an unarranged borrowing fee will get slapped on.

 

Then, as there wasn't enough money to pay it, today my account goes back into credit as the payment was returned. With a failed payment chagre from the bank (Natwest) and a fee onto my mortgage (Oh hang on, that's Natwest as well).

 

So if a human at the bank makes these decisions it must have happened like this -

 

Friday. DD comes up. Person decides to pay it. money goes out of account.

Monday (I doubt they work weekends). They now decide actually we're not going to pay it. Money is returned to the mortgage company.

 

They changed their mind. Thus not exactly providing a good service. Unless the system is automated. Which first destroys the argument Natwest used in court. However an automated system can still be a service(?) I believe a service that I pay for -

 

1) I should be able to cancel as I must have decided to use it in the first place

 

2) Should actually be of benefit to myself.

 

Now I do actually intend to phone Natwest to inform them that I no longer require this particular service. I will be recording the call. I'm sure thay won't be able to stop providing the service but you never know what they might say....

 

I'm not sure how much relevance this has to the Lloyds defence but as this seems to be the currently most active thread on the service argument I felt like posting about it here.

[Spiceskull]

Further to that - if you check Fattie V First Direct you will see that Vamp managed to get a load of notes as part of his DPA request. I won't hunt it down right now, but the gist was:

 

Payment (DD presumably) requested

Bank Monkey looks at request

Bank Monkey declines request

Bank Monkey slaps on charge

Bank Monkey makes notes on account to the effect: 'whilst we know that salary cheque is going in tomorrow, we have decided to decline regardless (for whatever reason)'

 

Now, assuming that this was a non-automated process, it could be classed as a manual service - the question that needs to be asked is 'what is the service exactly...?'

 

Sorry to be vague - the info is in the thread...

[Smila]

HELP!!!!

 

I also have to complete Form N149 before 6th June. Surely you must have to put some thing in section G (other information), I'm sure I read in another thread about someone who included a transcript of the Mcnamara interview, but also sent copies to the solicitor.

 

Please Help! I'm a bit confussed and don't know what to write in this section.

[HD]

Try looking at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=7962 fo BF's pearls of wisdom.

[Ray Harrison]

Push it all the way to the court, they will settle, nuff said. I did, I won (£2915) they blinked after all possibilities were exhausted at the Allocation Questionaire stage. They WILL NOT take the final step, it is all about intimidation, do not be intimidated! They are the Pussies, not you! :D

 

Initial response to my step-son was "on your bike". Will push it further due to your experiences.

RCH

[Dammam]

The thing that always gets (got) to me was when the bank declined a payment the day before payday - a regular weekly payday established over several previous years. Why would anyone providing a service decline a payment knowing full well that the probability was that the funds would be available 24 hours later?

I had always assumed the process to be automated - if there really WAS somebody making that decision, it winds me up even more!

[Lorraine]

Trying to keep up!!! with you lot - good reading though.

 

Received my defence, its the same but with an extra note added :-

 

"It is denied that s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act applies to this claim, since the Bank provides details of all charges which are incorporated into the contract as pleaded in paragraph 2 above."

 

 

Any advice on this - they dont seem to have put it in Baronstoneybroke defence!!!

 

Lorraine

[lee6370]

And who said they didn't visit this site, It only matters if we can't prove the charges are for breach of contract and i for one feel confident that the banks would have a very, very hard time arguing that the charges are not for breach of contract.

[lookinforinfo]

Quote:They changed their mind. Thus not exactly providing a good service. Unquote

 

To be fair to the banks, Cornflake, they are not claiming they provide a good

service, just a service.

[Baronstoneybroke]

Dear All,

Subject to confidentiality, Lloyds have offered a full claim of £10**.00.

 

I will donate a soon as I get the brass.

 

Now I am going to fry that little s**t at Halifax that got up my nose.

 

The BAron

[Guest Mumofthreeboys]

Don't sign the confidentiality bit!!

[closey]

Yes, don't sign, you don't need to, you will still get your money.

[Baronstoneybroke]

There is nothing in the letter or in fact in our other correspondence that is not freely available on this site. As for confidentiality, my wife opened the letter before I did so it is probably common knowledge in half of the western hemisphere by now and will be in Hong Kong by the morning.

 

The Baron

[Guest Mumofthreeboys]

There is nothing in the letter or in fact in our other correspondence that is not freely available on this site. As for confidentiality, my wife opened the letter before I did so it is probably common knowledge in half of the western hemisphere by now and will be in Hong Kong by the morning.

 

The Baron

 

Sorted then, absolutely no point signing a stupid bit of paper and ruining our fun eh????

[Movingon]

You don't have to sign it... they're just chancing their arm. They must think we're stupid LOL.

[Bean]

This is a comprehensive thread that will be of great use to so many.

My sincere thanks to all contributors.

 

Pleased to hear of your settlement offer Baronstoneybroke.

Bean

[Spiceskull]

It is good news - well done.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

[reload]

I've added Baronstoneybroke's defense from Lloyds to the template response thread in this forum - may be of use to people planning their course of action.

 

Thumbs up for sticking it out our lad

[Frugal Fox]

Having this morning hand delivered my court allocation questionnaire to my local country court I am thrilled to read this thread.

 

Well done Baron. Everytime I get despondant over what I am doing I read a thread like this that just peps me up. Of course, I may still be the 'one' they make an example of - but I live in hope!

[Sc00ps]

Excellent post that deserve's a sticky

[Baronstoneybroke]

So Here's the new twist.

 

LTSB They want to settle (with all the usual confidence etc.)

 

Me.OK!

 

LTSB We will pay into XXXX account.

 

Me No, this account is under dispute, its still full of charges and nothing else. To pay into this will cause further litigation, pay into this YYYYY account.

 

LTSB No answer

 

Me Have emailed solicitors with the above info and also to say that I will take a cheque.

 

phoned Solicitors to see what is going on and remind them that I cannot contact the court to stop the case until I have an answer.. They have no answer yet but will chase.

 

The case is due in court on 11 July.

 

Do I prepare for war and start getting my evidence for court? Is the previous agreement now invalid and should I wait for a court judgement or (non) appearance by LTSB?

 

Any other useful tips

[elsinore]

Hello Baron, the offer you received from LTSB on 15th June, did you accept it, unconditionally or otherwise?

 

Elsinore

[Spiceskull]

I'd hang on for a few days, just to see what they pull out of the hat. My guess is that the full amount will find it's way to you, by cheque, with a letter giving all the usual codswallop about "management time" and "irrecoverable costs"

 

Personally I'd wait until Tuesday, and if you haven't heard from them give them another call. Remember - they DO NOT want to go to court...

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.