o0oLiamBeeo0o V LTSB Scotland PLC - o0oLiamBeeo0o WINS!!!!!

[Debt Girl]

The interest on charges I've worked out using the spreadsheet adds another £219 to my claim so it may be worth looking into it since you have a large claim.

[reload]

Hmm, are you sure that's the correct amount DG? From reading your thread that sounds about 10% of your total claim :o

 

Fair play if it is though! Perhaps I should start looking at interest figures...!

[Debt Girl]

I was shocked too! - have double checked everything though and will ask someone to look over it just to be sure.

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi reload & debtgirl, I know exactly what you are saying reload about my letter and im pretty sure of the response i will get, but i just thought as its my LBA i would give it all ive got lol, i get what you are saying about interest, ive looked through my statements and ALL o/d interest comes to just under £30, so im not even going to try figure out what i can claim back, cheers for explaining though.

 

Im not sure if you seen Fruitcars post, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12105, hes also in Scotland like myself so im putting alot of thought into my "details of claim" and the wording should i need to file papers with court, ive got two versions made up so far, but ive got another 2 weeks before i would be at that stage.

 

Cheers for your comments,

Good luck!

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi, just thought I would let you know I have printed of my "summary cause" summons, I popped into the sheriff court on friday 23/6/06 and they had a look over my papers (which are not due to be filed until 10 July 2006), the lady was very, very helpful and had no problems with my wording etc, now this may only apply to Scotland but im sure with a little tweaking it could be used south of the border, please see below for my details of claim:

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

Case ref:

 

 

in causa

Liam Bee

v.

Lloyds TSB Scotland PLC

 

 

1) The parties are designed in the instance. This pursuer is a consumer within the meaning of paragraph 3 to schedule 8 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 as amended. The pursuer is domiciled within the Sheriffdom. This court accordingly has jurisdiction. No proceedings are pending elsewhere between the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter of this action. To the knowledge of the pursuer, no agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction of the subject matter of the present cause to another court.

2)The claimant, LIAM BEE, has held a bank account with the defendant since on or before 01 July 2004 the account number being * * * * * * * *. The defendant deducted from the account various amounts of money in penalty charges during the period INSERT DATES. These were in respect of: ‘Charges as notified’ (levied if a cheque or direct debit payment was returned unpaid because the specified overdraft limit had been exceeded).

 

3) The defenders state that charges are necessary to cover their costs. The defenders are called upon to lodge in process a statement indicating how much annual pre-tax profit is generated from applying bank charges to current accounts, identifying the income generated from applying charges to current accounts as against the expenditure incurred in processing unauthorised overdrafts. Their failure to do so will be founded upon. The amount of charges applied does not represent the defender’s actual costs in providing unauthorised lending on the pursuer’s current account under explanation that a substantial proportion of the defenders’ pre-tax profits are believed to be earned from bank charges.

4) The defenders charges represent a contractual penalty or fine and as such are irrecoverable at Scots common law. In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses which flowed from a breach of contract. The defenders charges are not liquidated losses and therefore the pursuer is entitled to be reimbursed in the sum craved.

5) Separatim, the defenders charges represent an unfair penalty charge in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083) (the ‘UTCC’). The pursuer’s contract falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) as the pursuer is a consumer. The defenders charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

 

 

 

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair

1. Terms which have the object of effect of-

(e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

Reference is made to the following three cases from the Office of Fair Trading’s Unfair Contract Terms Bulletin 21 (July to September 2002), issued in May 2003:

OFT case 15 – Kids of Wilmslow Ltd.

Clause 7 of the company provided for the supplier to charge interest on unpaid fees at an excessive rate above the bank base rate. Also unclear as to how the interest would be charged. The OFT amended the clause so interest was charged on unpaid fees at 3% per annum above the bank base rate. Further, an administration fee of £10 per letter sent concerning unpaid fees was deleted.

OFT case 18 – Legal & General Franchising t/a Parker Estate Agents.

A commission clause had the potential to allow the estate agent to charge a penalty fee for late payments. The OFT revised the clause to reflect the company’s practice of charging 8% per annum or the current rate of county court interest on late payments.

OFT case 4 – Dampcure-Woodcure/30Ltd.

Clause ‘W’ had the potential to impose a high financial penalty of payment was not received within seven days of the date of invoice. The OFT revised same to make clear that interest will be charged at 4% above a high street bank rate per annum if payment not received within 7 days of the date of invoice.

Accordingly, the defenders are fairly compensated for unauthorised lending by the imposition of their unauthorised overdraft interest rate. The imposition of further charges is unfair in terms of the UTTC. Reference is made to guidance issued by the OFT on 26 July 2005, which stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the card/account holder for breach of contract'. The court is asked to declare the imposition of the defender’s charges as unfair and irrecoverable in terms of the UTTC.

6) The pursuer being entitled to reimbursement of the defender’s charges, decree as craved should be granted with expenses. The pursuer would also ask this court to consider an additional amount be paid by the defender, the amount being interest at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of service.

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Ok, deadline for prelim has now ran out, posted LBA (as detailed in post #16) this afternoon 26 June 2006, shall wait for response, although I know what it will be.

 

Good luck everyone,

Be consistant,

Have fun!!

 

 

o0oLiamBeeo0o

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Ok, recieved this response today, dated 30 June 2006.

 

Dear Mr L Bee,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 26 June 2006. I am sorry to hear you have not been happy with our response to date.

 

Unfortunatley there is little I am able to add to our letter dated 21 June 2006 as we have outlined the banks position on the points you have raised, although I do respect your opinion about our charges.

 

This letter is the banks final response,which means that if you remain dissatisfied you may refer your complaint to the FOS. If you decide to pursue your complaint through the FOS you must do so within 6 months from the date of this letter. I have enclosed a leaflet, which outlines how to contact them.

 

yours sincerely

danny furlan

assistant manager.

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Ok, I have now decided im going for broke following Lloyds TSB's premature response they really should have treated the matter more seriously and not pi** people off, I will not be awaiting the full 14 days to involve sheriff court, I have also added to my "statement of claim", please see below (added bottom paragraph), any comments welcome:

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

Case ref:

 

 

in causa

 

Liam Bee

v.

Lloyds TSB Scotland PLC

 

 

 

 

1) The parties are designed in the instance. This pursuer is a consumer within the meaning of paragraph 3 to schedule 8 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 as amended. The defendant has a branch in Paisley, Renfrewshire. This court accordingly has jurisdiction. No proceedings are pending elsewhere between the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter of this action. To the knowledge of the pursuer, no agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction of the subject matter of the present cause to another court.

 

2)The claimant, LIAM BEE, has held a bank account with the defendant since on or before 01 July 2004 the account number being * * * * * * * *. The defendant deducted from the account various amounts of money in penalty charges during the period 01 July 2004 to 31 May 2006. These were in respect of: ‘Charges as notified’ (levied if a cheque or direct debit payment was returned unpaid because the specified overdraft limit had been exceeded).

 

3) The defenders state that charges are necessary to cover their costs. The defenders are called upon to lodge in process a statement indicating how much annual pre-tax profit is generated from applying bank charges to current accounts, identifying the income generated from applying charges to current accounts as against the expenditure incurred in processing unauthorised overdrafts. Their failure to do so will be founded upon. The amount of charges applied does not represent the defender’s actual costs in providing unauthorised lending on the pursuer’s current account under explanation that a substantial proportion of the defenders’ pre-tax profits are believed to be earned from bank charges.

 

4) The defenders charges represent a contractual penalty or fine and as such are irrecoverable at Scots common law. In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses which flowed from a breach of contract. The defenders charges are not liquidated losses and therefore the pursuer is entitled to be reimbursed in the sum craved.

 

5) Separatim, the defenders charges represent an unfair penalty charge in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083) (the ‘UTCC’). The pursuer’s contract falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) as the pursuer is a consumer. The defenders charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair

1. Terms which have the object of effect of-

(e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

Reference is made to the following three cases from the Office of Fair Trading’s Unfair Contract Terms Bulletin 21 (July to September 2002), issued in May 2003:

 

OFT case 15 – Kids of Wilmslow Ltd.

Clause 7 of the company provided for the supplier to charge interest on unpaid fees at an excessive rate above the bank base rate. Also unclear as to how the interest would be charged. The OFT amended the clause so interest was charged on unpaid fees at 3% per annum above the bank base rate. Further, an administration fee of £10 per letter sent concerning unpaid fees was deleted.

 

OFT case 18 – Legal & General Franchising t/a Parker Estate Agents.

A commission clause had the potential to allow the estate agent to charge a penalty fee for late payments. The OFT revised the clause to reflect the company’s practice of charging 8% per annum or the current rate of county court interest on late payments.

 

OFT case 4 – Dampcure-Woodcure/30Ltd.

Clause ‘W’ had the potential to impose a high financial penalty of payment was not received within seven days of the date of invoice. The OFT revised same to make clear that interest will be charged at 4% above a high street bank rate per annum if payment not received within 7 days of the date of invoice.

Accordingly, the defenders are fairly compensated for unauthorised lending by the imposition of their unauthorised overdraft interest rate. The imposition of further charges is unfair in terms of the UTTC. Reference is made to guidance issued by the OFT on 26 July 2005, which stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the card/account holder for breach of contract'. The court is asked to declare the imposition of the defender’s charges as unfair and irrecoverable in terms of the UTTC.

 

Furthermore the pursuer would suggest the law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses:

 

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

 

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

 

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

 

6) The pursuer being entitled to reimbursement of the defender’s charges, decree as craved should be granted with expenses. The pursuer would also ask this court to consider an additional amount be paid by the defender, the amount being interest at a rate of 8% per annum.

 

7) The pursuer would ask this court to consider a payment of damages be made in the sum of £XXX.XX, again the pursuer would leave this payment to the discretion of this court. The pursuer has demonstrated to the defendant the reasons he is requesting a refund of all penalty charges in letters dated 12 June 2006 and 26 June 2006 (these letters are attached for you perusal), the pursuer allowed 14 days from the 26 June 2006 for the defendant to reconsider their decision, however they felt after 4 days they would issue their “final response” (all correspondence from defendant is also attached for perusal).The defendant did also breached section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (see Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland, Scottish Executive report, at paragraph 5.245). Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act. It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance or social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account, those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can be clearly identified within an account. On 25 May 2006 the pursuers Jobseekers Allowance was paid into the account and the defendant seen fit to deduct part of these monies to cover unlawful penalty charges which had been applied. The pursuer would claim these damages in respect of undue inconvenience and stress, the pursuer has been amicable and allowed the defendant time to investigate and confirm the legality of their penalty charges and reimburse the pursuer without the intervention of this court, to no avail.

 

 

 

ok there it is, i figure the worst that can happen should this go to court is that the damages will be flung out, however should LLOYDS TSB will to settle out of court I WILL insist they pay charges + interest + expenses + damages before court action is stopped!!!!

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Have also drafted this letter to CEO Susan Rice to advise of my position.

 

Lloyds TSB Scotland PLC

Henry Duncan House, 120 George St, Edinburgh, EH2 4LH

 

Dear Madam,

I wrote to you on 12 June 2006 and again on 26 June 2006 regarding unlawful bank charges levied on my account and my request to have them reimbursed to me and/or for your company to justify, by means of showing me a breakdown of how your charges represent actual loss in my case.

 

You delegated your first reply to Tracy White in your Customer Service Recovery Centre in Birmingham who replied on 19 June 2006. In this template response she stated “you have my assurance that one of your assistant managers will investigate the concerns” and advised these enquiries should be complete within two weeks.

 

I then received a reply dated 21 June 2006 from a Customer Service Officer, Mr Musarat Siddique. Within this template letter it contained veiled threats to withdraw any debit cards or chequebooks I may have, however I do not have any such facilities. It also states any overdraft I have could be withdrawn, I would bring to your attention that I do have this facility, however this overdraft was added to my account due to your unfair and unlawful penalty charges being levied to my account.

 

On my second letter of the 26 June 2006 this reply was delegated to Assistant Manager, Mr Danny Furlan. This letter was to advise there was little he could add to the template letter of 21 June 2006. Mr Danny Furlan did however confirm his letter was the banks final response which I acknowledge. Due to the bank's lack of action, it has left me no choice but to proceed through my local Sheriff Court.

 

I will in the near future raise an action for payment of money with Paisley Sheriff Court against Lloyds TSB Scotland PLC to claim the unlawful charges, interest, damages and court costs.

 

I do not expect a personal response to this letter, this is simply to confirm my receipt of your “final response” unless you are writing to offer a full refund of all penalty charges and stop this matter being resolved by the courts which as you will appreciate will only waste the valuable time of our court service.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Mr Liam Bee.

[Moffy01]

Brilliant work

 

Just about to start a similiar claim (first base) but this has given me a tremendous insight into what lies ahead.

 

Best of luck and heres hoping for you.

[Bean]

Hello o0oliambeeo0o,

 

You really have been doing your homework!

 

I am not familiar with the position in Scotland, but I have the following comments:

 

Your correspondence is eloquent and thorough without being verbose.

 

It is well pitched, has made a concerted effort to engage the bank in meaningful dialogue and has informed where necessary.

 

You have been clear in what you said you would do, and you have been true to your word.

 

This thread will surely be of great use to those conducting affairs under the law of Scotland, and there are a number of aspects that will be of use south of the legal border.

 

I wish you an expedient and just result.

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi Bean, thanks for your words of encouragement, all these small things really help . Hi Moffy, I wish you the best of luck with your claim, if this has helped even a little im glad because foward planning goes a long way, to be honest I Just spent days reading peoples threads and got so much info so was able to set timeline and get letters prepared well in advance, again all the best and believe me you are definetly amoungst friends on this site. I went to file papers with sheriff court of Monday 03 July 2006, however they stotted a flaw in the wording of my "statement of claim", this has now been changed however due to work commitments I have not had a chance to go back to the court.

 

I may go this week, if not it will definetly be actioned on Monday 10 July 2006.

 

For refrence the flaw they spotted was, now im not sure if the same would apply south of the border but im sure it will be:

 

In my first paragraph I state "The pursuer is domiciled within the Sheriffdom. This court accordingly has jurisdiction." This has been changed to . "The defendant has a branch in Paisley, Renfrewshire. This court accordingly has jurisdiction". The reason being if a lawsuit is being brought to court it is held within the defendants region and as I had been sending all correspondace to Edinburgh they could have requested the case be held in Edinburgh or simply had me change the wording, therefore delaying matters. Again I had to change the Defendants name and address from Edinburgh head office to my local branch on summons forms 1 and 1B, apart from that they seemed OK.

[reload]

Just goes to show how the court is on people's side, helping you sort the flaw out just like that

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Yeah you are correct Reload, I was very thankful, Ive just been looking over Manolos post in the Scottish forum which has given me something else to think about.

 

Have you got any idea about the T&C flaw?

Where could i get a copy of Lloyds TSB T&Cs?

 

If it ends up in court I really want to stick it to them!

[stevokenevo]

I am also interested in a copy of the T&C

[reload]

As Robertxc notes here, probably the best way to get hold of a copy of the T&Cs is literally to walk into the branch and ask for a couple of copies - just tell the cashier/jobsworth at the front desk you're looking at opening a new account and are researching various T&Cs, or the like.

 

Looking over Robert's post, I have to agree - I don't think any Judge will look favourably on a Bank asking you to provide a copy of their own T&Cs to them.

[Zeusie67]

The reason being if a lawsuit is being brought to court it is held within the defendants region and as I had been sending all correspondace to Edinburgh they could have requested the case be held in Edinburgh or simply had me change the wording, therefore delaying matters. Again I had to change the Defendants name and address from Edinburgh head office to my local branch on summons forms 1 and 1B, apart from that they seemed OK.

 

I'm domiciled in Scotland and I'm in the early stages of reclaiming fees against Nationwide, but have an internet account with them (therefore I have no branch). i wonder how how this will impact upon any action i raise in a Scottish Sheriff Court as all my correspondence goes to Swindon, England?

 

Anybody have any idea?

 

Liam, thanks for keeping us updated.

[Granny Angus]

LiamB - you are a star!

Am just starting out against LTSB Scotland and reading your posts is truly inspiring.

Will be following with baited breath.

I wish you all success.

Granny

x

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi Granny Angus, I wish you every success with your claim, you are in the right place because the help ive had from people on here has been superb.

 

Hi Zeusie67, I would suggest If it does go as far as court you simply use their nearest branch as the defendant, Im not sure where you stay but Im sure they have a branch in paisley. Thats all I have done, I was sending mail to their Edinburgh head office but on my court papers the defendant is down as their Paisley branch.

 

Hi Reload, regarding the T&C's have they not changed these now? I agree it wouldnt look good for them to ask for a copy, but again they have managed to delay paying Manolo for at least 2 months. I have added the following to my statement of claim after i read Manolos post:

 

Furthermore the pursuer would suggest the law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses:

 

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

 

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

 

With any luck the above and the OFT cases I highlight in my statement of claim should be proof enough they are unlawful/unenforceable penalty charges.

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi, unfortunetly I have not yet filed my papers with the court due to work commitments. It should really have been done on 10 July 2006, hopefully will action on 17 July.

 

As per my post of the 1 July to advise of my position, I have made a slight change to the letter which will be posted over the weekend, any comments would be great:

 

Dear Madam,

I have received a statement dated 13 July 2006, this statement advises you will be debiting another unlawful penalty charge of £30 at the close of business on 1 August 2006 for exceeding my agreed overdraft limit. I would suggest this penalty charge be removed and not debited from my account on the above date. If you are unable and/or unwilling to action this I reserve the right to add it to the £1071.00 which I will be claiming back through the sheriff court.

I wrote to you on 12 June 2006 and again on 26 June 2006 regarding unlawful bank charges which have been levied to my account and requested these unlawful charges be reimbursed to me and/or your company justify, by means of showing me a breakdown of how your charges represent recovering actual loss in my case.

 

Although addressed to you, you delegated your first reply to Tracy White (without official acknowledgement of my letter) in your Customer Service Recovery Centre in Birmingham who replied on 19 June 2006. In this template response she stated “you have my assurance that one of our assistant managers will investigate the concerns” and advised these enquiries should be complete within 14 days.

I then received a reply dated 21 June 2006 from a Customer Service Officer, Mr Musarat Siddique. Within this template letter it contained veiled threats to withdraw any debit cards or chequebooks I may have, however I do not have any such facilities. It also states any overdraft I have could be withdrawn, I would bring to your attention that I do have this facility, however this overdraft was included on my account due to your unfair and unlawful penalty charges being levied which meant if I had deposited any monies to my account they would have been automatically taken by unlawful charges. If, as your letter states you would consider withdrawing my overdraft I would see this as your company taking retaliatory action as I was challenging the legality of your penalty charges, furthermore you, as a company have been more than happy to increase my overdraft to cover these unlawful charges being applied to my account and set up an agreement where, on a monthly basis my overdraft limit is reduced. As I am sure you will be aware the Financial Services Authority (FSA) recently announced that it would not expect financial companies to discriminate against consumers who challenge the legality of charges and has called on Banking Code Standards Board (BCSB) to clarify its position on this matter. The FSA also announced that it expected the banks not to become involved in this retaliatory action and to uphold the standards of the banking code. The BCSB should clarify its position in the near future.

To clarify ANY retaliatory action taken or implied by your company will not be tolerated and shall be reported to the relevant bodies and I shall seek intervention from the court to stop any such actions.

On my second letter of the 26 June 2006 this reply was delegated to Assistant Manager, Mr Danny Furlan. This letter was to advise there was little he could add to the template letter of 21 June 2006 (to add all my correspondence and all correspondence I have received by your company will be available in court). Mr Danny Furlan did however confirm his letter was the banks final response which I acknowledge and see no further scope to settle this matter. Due to the bank's lack of action, you, as a company have left me no choice but to proceed through my local Sheriff Court.

 

I will in the near future raise an action for payment of money with Paisley Sheriff Court against Lloyds TSB Bank PLC to claim the unlawful charges, interest, damages and court costs as you have been given fair and reasonable time to settle this matter.

I do not expect a personal response to this letter, this is simply to confirm my receipt of your “final response” unless you are writing to offer a full refund of all penalty charges and stop this matter being resolved by the courts which as you will appreciate will only waste the valuable time of our court system.

 

Regards,

 

Mr Liam Bee.

[Bean]

HelloOo oOoLiamBeeoOo!

 

Good letter.

 

It summarises the position and if necessary could be used as a summary document in court. Of course, it is not strictly necessary to send such a letter, but I recognise your motives as I also felt that I had to do likewise (received no reply to it, or to my LBA).

 

As you will know the BCSB met yesterday. I am sure you are looking for any news on the results of their meeting - I have not found any yet. If you can include the most recent view of the BCSB that would be ideal but not essential (assuming of course that the news is as we expect).

 

You make no mention of ongoing charges. Are you still being charged, and if so, would you wish to add a comment about them?

 

Good luck,

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi Bean, I dont expect a reply either im just sending as I have been delayed by 1 week in submitting my papers court so I am just sending this incase they have forgot about me really lol.

 

I have been waiting/looking for the position of BCSB, but again havent come across anything yet, has anyone else??

 

When you ask about ongoing charges, like what? I have had no other failed DD'S and they (ltsb) upped my O/D so no excess fees, there may be o/d interest but im not even bothing with that, hope thats what you meant.

 

If all goes to plan I will be at sheriff court on 17 or 18 July to file.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

P.s, I emailed the OFT to enquire about making a complaint regarding the conduct of my bank and their behaviour, would anyone suggest the best time to action this complaint, that the bank are not a fit and proper person to hold a consumer credit licence. Would it be at any time or have they HAVE settled lol.

[mcmorral]

hi im just in the process of claiming my bank charges back i got a letter saying i will hear in 2 weeks while they investigate what shall i expect

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi Mcmorral, wishing you every success with your claim, this also happened to me, they issued a letter to advise 14 days to investigate, however i recieved a letter 2 days later advising no refund, T&C's etc etc (posts 5 and 15).

 

Im not sure if you have already but if you haven't may I suggest you start your own thread, you can then keep a diary for yourself, and keep track of your question and any answers given.

 

Again best of luck, ask and ye shall recieve.

 

Regards,

o0oLiamBeeo0o

[o0oliambeeo0o]

Hi peeps, recieved a bank statement the other day and it notified it will be debited £30 for exceeding my overdraft, ive not yet filed my claim or even posted my letter to confirm action (post #45), ive added this paragraph to this letter, is this sufficent??

 

I have received a statement dated 13 July 2006, this statement advises you will be debiting another unlawful penalty charge of £30 at the close of business on 1 August 2006 for exceeding my agreed overdraft limit. I would suggest this penalty charge be removed and not debited from my account on the above date. If you are unable and/or unwilling to action this I reserve the right to add it to the £1071.00 which I will be claiming back through the sheriff court.

 

Has anyone heard any further info on the decisions being made by the BCSB, due to work commitments ive not been able to review this site, or file anything with court.

 

Thanks in advance.

o0oLiamBeeo0o