Hi there everyone, Just a quick question about charging orders. I have tried to have a look on some other threads for the answer - but with no success ! I have received an interim charging order from Lloyds for what was my old overdraft. I had a CCJ on it about 2 years ago, but recently missed a few repayments on it. The charging order hearing is for 27th February however I intend to repay the arrears and be fully up-to-date on the CCJ repayments by then. I know of the case of Ellis where the the final charging order cannot be granted if the instalment plan is maintained. But what if there have been missed payments - does that still apply ?? Can a final order be granted if, by the time of the hearing, there are no arrears ?? I am also going to apply for the case to be transferred as the hearing is in Norfolk and I live in London !! Thanks

Skippy -v- Lloyds TSB (Credit Card PPI) WON !! Just got a letter over the weekend from Lloyds TSB Insurance in south Wales basically capitulating on my claim for repayment of PPI on my credit card (2003 - 2006). Simple facts are :- on production of a copy of my Consumer Credit Act agreement which clearly showed that I ticked the box saying "Hey, I don't want any PPI" ... they replied .... "At Lloyds TSB we always strive to offer the highest level of service when dealing with our customers. However, during the course of our investigations into the concerns you raised, we have discovered that the sale of this particular insurance appears not to have met the high standards we would normally expect". What a laugh. They offered me the repayment of premiums, incurred interest and 8% on top. Suffice to say, they got their calculations wrong and I had to write back pointing this out. They have now offered me £6,128.59. I still believe it's a few hundred quid short of what they owe me, but I've accepted it as I am sick of dealing with this and life is too short. I will be making a donation to CAG with the proceeds. My words of advice, especially if dealing with those chumps at Lloyds :- Keep in there, stick at it, they will cough up in the end. Skip

Does anyone here know if there is a link to the actual video from the Whistleblower show (I think it was March 2007) that detailed the CYNthesys computer programme that calculated Yorkshire/Clydesdale bank costs for default fees ?? I can't seem to find a link that works. I know it was on YouTube at some point but the link has been taken down. Thanks Skip

Hmmm. So if an overdraft is a credit agreement under the CCA and the new "unfair relationship" clauses cover any terms of the credit agreement, is there some glimmer of hope for sole traders to go to the FOS (or court) about the unfairness of bank charges ?? Wholly avoiding the pitfalls of penalties and UTCCR ?? Just musing. Any thoughts, Martin ??

Martin, Just a quick question. You say that the FOS will not consider any claims for charges from businesses. But is there a way they can hear cases from some businesses (sole traders and small partnerships) by virtue of the "unfair relationship" clauses of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 ?? As far as I have read, I've seen nothing that stops them hearing such cases as they don't rely on UTCCR or penalties. Any ideas ??

Good luck Martin. If I remember correctly, you are in court in a few days. Fingers crossed. I think there was a case where s15 of the Supply of Goods & Services Act was kicked out (was it Berwick -v- Lloyds TSB ??). Although the DJ made some interesting comments about the situation of bank charges being varied over time - that you arguably could say that these should have been reasonable. With regard to s140A of the Consumer Credit Act ("unfair relationships"), there was a case of Sadeer in the Bromley County Court (November 2008 ). The Defendant counter-claimed because of high interest rate on loan as well as additional charges. He lost the case generally but, again, the DJ made some interesting comments about charges added on. "The Defendant objects to the charges added to the account. But the credit agreement entitles the lender to charge for letters, notices and telephone calls and £12 per item is not unreasonable. ................. I have been given no evidence by the Claimant in relation to the £100 repossession fee or the £100 legal charge. These seem to be fixed rate internal charges with no particualr basis for that rate. I accept that the Claimant had to instruct a recovery agent - but that was a standard process and I see no reason to allow more than the £12 charge for this."

Thanks for that, YB. I still can't get my head around it as I would have assumed that, as the OFT842 cites UTCCR, the banks would have just yielded to the £12 threshold with regard to personal credit cards. I still can't see why the banks would have also applied it to business credit cards ... after all, they have been screaming to the rooftops that UTCCR does not apply to businesses. So why voluntarily reduce the default charge on a business credit card ?? It means that if you have a business bank account and a business credit card with the same bank, a default fee is £12 on the credit card but about £30 on the current account. The banks seem to rely on a "read across" after Smith kicked out the penalties argument by saying that the terms and conditions relating to default fees on business accounts are materially the same as those on personal accounts. Therefore, what Smith said about penalties on personal accounts must apply to business ones as well. However, it seems that the terms and conditions regarding default fees of a business credit card and a business current account are materially the same (well, in my case with Lloyds - almost word for word). How can they then justify that a £12 fee is adequate in one scenario, but charge over £30 in the other ?? Hardly seems fair, eh ?? Maybe I am just been thick or something and just not getting it. Skip

I was wondering if anyone knows the answer to this (probably Martin !! ) Was there any difference in which the OFT investigated the fairness of credit card charges as against the fairness of personal current accounts charges ?? I've always wondered why the credit card companies agreed to charge £12 after 2006 and to make refunds on earlier charges yet the banks have fought tooth and nail against it all the way to the House of Lords in relation to personal current accounts. The reason I ask is that it's interesting that a default fee on a Lloyds TSB business credit card is set at £12, presumably in line with the OFT recommendation. Why would they charge £12 as a reasonable default fee on a business credit card, but say a reasonable default fee on a business current account is about £30. I was under the impression that the OFT investigation into credit card charges invoked the UTCCR. I must be wrong as the banks then applied it to their business credit cards as well (and we have all heard them bleating on for yonks that the UTCCR only applies to personal). The OFT credit card investigation must have relied upon something else - can anyone shed any light on this ?? Skip

At the moment, I think the general advice is to think long and hard about making a business claim. There are hundreds of posts on here as to why this is so - just have a read of them to find out. With regard to sole trading accounts, I think the situation is even more confusing. Some believe that if you can show that your sole trading account was also for personal use, that there may be an argument that you can make a claim under personal consumer regulations. There has been talk of using the "unfair relationships" provisions of the latest Consumer Credit Act. The CCA applies to sole traders and small partnerships as well as individuals. I have been reading up on it today and remain pretty unconvinced that you would get a result from it (although I am open to more positive arguments about it from anyone !!) I also believe that some others here on CAG are thinking up new possible ways for businesses to make a claim. Keep a look out for new information.

The chief executive's details are as follows :- Eric Daniels Group Chief Executive 25 Gresham St London, EC2V 7HN. Fax no : 0207 356 2477

Hiya Please see below a copy of a reply from Lloyds that my business partner and I received. We sent a Letter Before Claim on 1st May (based upon the argument that Smith and the Appeal Judges said that not paying a Relevant Instruction = no service etc etc) It may give you an idea of where Lloyds are coming from in relation to business claims at the moment.

Hi everyone, I was under the impression that the FSA waiver related to the OFT litigation and only applied to personal current accounts. (I know there was an argument that very small business/sole traders may come under that umbrella as well). However, I wrote to the FSA to confirm that the waiver did not apply to business accounts generally and this is the reply I got (see attached pdf letter). Any comments ?? Skip FSA letter 15May2009.pdf

Hiya, Just wondering if anyone knew the short answer to this :- If claiming for variable monthly PPI charges (on a Lloyds credit card), is it just the straight 8% interest calculation or compound interest ?? Thanks Skip

With the argument about penalties blown out of the water, is there any mileage in the argument about Unpaid Items about what Smith (as well as the Court of Appeal judges) said about the banks providing no service when they considered/processed a request for payment but declined it (I am assuming this relates only to bounced cheques and direct debits refused). Could they, arguably, only be entitled to the actual cost they incurred (as against the £30-£35 they often charged) ??

Thanks for that, BF and Photoman. I shall keep you all informed of the how things prevail in the saga of "The Partnership -v- Lloyds TSB". They are apparently sending me through their various business terms and conditions from 2003-2009 soon. I shall scan them and put them up here in case anyone else needs to view them or may find them helpful. Skip