Kevboy_telford Vs LLoyds

[calvi36]

But Judge Cooke decided the bank's charges were in fact legitimate fees for servicing an overdrawn account.

As such, the judge said they were legal.

Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank....he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it," he said.

 

I would add that EDITED actually seen the news, the relevant case law, the refusal to admit what actual charges are in front of a parliamentary commitee.

[calvi36]

sparky if they dont disclose to parliment, will they disclose to a court voluntarily. The onus is on the defendandt to prove charges are real and legitimate, not on the claimant. if the actual costs are requested but not provided, then how on earth could this judge find on the defendants part as they had obviously not provided relevant information that their charges are ACTUAL costs incurred.

[calvi36]

Situation 1

 

Account showing £9.87 balance in credit.

£10 D/D comes in.

Bank relies on IT to automatically bounce D/D, and apply £38 penalty. NO MANUAL INTERVENTION

With D/D unpaid, account is now £28-13 overdrawn.

Due to account now overdrawn, at end of month another £38 penalty.

With D/D still unpaid, account is now £66-13 overdrawn. NO MANUAL INTERVENTION

 

This is a clear case of automated unlawful charges, and there is no way the bank can defend £38 charge where Dublin banks charge £3. The bank has clearly suffered no loss beyond minimal IT costs, nor has the bank exposed itself to the risk of increased loss due to potential default eventually.

 

Situation 2

 

Account showing £999 o/d, with o/d limit agreed in writing at £1000.

£10 D/D comes in.

The bank refers this situation to a manager (as they sometimes do for accounts with o/d), who spends time to consider the case, then manually decides to honour the £10 D/D, making this account now £1009 o/d.

The manager levies a £10 facility fee without discussing it with the customer, making the account now £1019 o/d. MANUAL INTERVENTION

 

This is a different situation. The bank could claim

that manager time does cost money

that the bank took a calculated gamble in allowing an o/d to grow and grow (not just due to fees, but also due to D/D cash actually paid out). The £10 facility fee is partly to offset the increased risk. Lloyds also charges upfront Facility Fee of £100 or so, at commencement of o/d -- agreed upfront by both parties. This is not a Penalty Charge, but a commercial deal agreed voluntarily by both parties.

 

I believe this is where the judge wanted the claimant to make a solid case -- why is the £10 bank facility fee not justified?

 

I believe the judge did not say the case was invalid, he said he had not been convinced by the arguments put forward, TO DATE. The judge would not have asked for justification for objecting to the £38 charge for bouncing D/D in situation 1.

 

Reclaiming interest accruing on the lawful overdraft,

in contrast to reclaiming Contractual Interest accruing from unlawful Penalty Charges,

 

further weakened this case.

 

I totally agree with what you have said and i only put in the comments in red to show our pals what is and is not manual intervention. If it is manual then fair enough costs for someones time to actually look at the time will be incurred and I think the institution should have the right to claim for work performed and time spent.

 

The situation regarding auto intervention, ie automated charges is much different and this is the basis of most bank charges claims. the banks STILL refuse to disclose their costs regarding this and this is why they are being challenged. If as stated in the scenario above for 13p you end up with £68 of charges and the bank does not show their actual costs then it's open day at the field shoot.

 

If they disclosed and say their charges were £5.00 then fair enough, most people would accept this as reasonable. What is not accepted is that these charges to cover servicing of accounts are legal, ie you cannot penalise me in charges to service your account. My account is mine and yours is yours, to state that these charges are here to enable free banking is a fallacy. And to state in the recent ruling that these are service rather than penalty charges are obviously incorrect.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE BANKING.

 

The crux of this is that, they have not disclosed their charges, whistleblower has seen definitive evidence of what the actual costs are. So If the banks wish to carry on doing what they are doing which is UNLAWFUL in law, then so be it and let the claims mount.

 

I for one will not walk away from this. The law is clear on this matter a penalty charge against one party amounts to this if it is more than the actual costs incurred by the party claiming or defending then as case law exists then these charges are unlawful if they attempt to pursue charges higher than incurred costs.

[calvi36]

felix dont just watch get active bro

[calvi36]

I really think he has a case for appeal after reading the full judgement. I was one to jump in on another thread and go blah blah, apologies kev.

[calvi36]

Iadmire your post blitz but cag is a group, we do not take actions against anyone, company etc, we support each other. read the whole thread bro.

[calvi36]

I would remind all members that this is a singular action, this is not a group action.Fighting fund is fine.

[calvi36]

Don't worry about it Dom, we don't shoot people for that in here!

[calvi36]

Don't worry about that either, could have been worse you could have added the letter A infront of whole or hole ahem. Just remember two halves don't always make a hole but a cpl of bankers normally = an A in front lol.

 

Back on track now, keep going kev and I hope FOS come down in your favour .