Bean's Timeline (Joint Acct)

[reload]

Hi Sam,

 

You are best off creating your own thread to keep track of your questions and progress, rather than using other people's.

 

To answer your questions though - you really should read the FAQ Forum, in particular the Step-by-step process, Rules of Engagement, and the Frequently Asked Questions themselves.

 

Once you've done so, you'd probably be best to familiarise yourself with the Bank Templates Library - it contains all the letters you should concievable need

[Spiceskull]

As reload says - take a day or two to familiarise yourself with all that is needed. Good luck.

 

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

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

[c_allen]

i'm wondering if theres been any more developments ?

 

i'll be following this thread with great interest as i'm thinking of going for damages due to the knock on affect of these unlawfully levied penaltys

[embleton01]

Hi Bean, any updates as I notice the deadline for response was yesterday !!

[sidvicious]

hope everything is going your way BEAN ive been following your thread with interest all the best

[Bean]

I had phoned the court on Thursday 6 July 2006 (before the deadline of 10 July 2006) to be told they (Lloyds TSB Bank plc) have not replied.

 

I phoned the court on 10 July 2006 (deadline day) to be told 'I am just going through paperwork now, please phone back on Wednesday'.

 

I phoned the court this morning, 12 July 2006, to be told they (Lloyds TSB Bank plc) have not replied. The court clerk said "you may now request a judgement if you wish".

 

As I was in town for a couple of meetings anyway, I stopped by the court. I took my 'Request for Judgment' to the counter only for a court clerk to say "the Defendant has responded...sorry:| ...we have a pile of paperwork this big!"

 

You know... I could really... do... without... that kind of mistake (twice).

 

I was then handed a "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed".

"The Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 3 July 2006."

"The Defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all of the claim."

 

So Lloyds TSB Bank plc represented by "Sechiari Clark & Mitchell (Tsb), PO Box 499, Upper Ground Floor, 1-5 Queens Road Quadrant, Brighton, BN1 3XJ" have till 24 July 2006 to file their defence.

 

Step-by-step to restitution.

[Spiceskull]

Patience pays, patience pays.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back

Spiceskull v HSBC

Thank you Consumer Action Group

Read my blog

View a heated discussion about bank charges on the Times Educational Supplement bulletin boards

 

[Bean]

Thanks Spiceskull, I am sure it does.

 

I mention my experience here to show others that events do not always run smoothly. It's frustrating but that is how it is.

 

The court service is staffed by highly knowledgeable, courteous, hard working people who handle some of our most difficult problems. They are under significant pressure and like us all, they make mistakes. This does nothing to diminish my very high regard for their service.

[Bean]

As an aside to my thread, I have two bundles of questions:

 

1. The OFT said it would take legal action over charges exceeding £12 per item. I know probably not one of us here accepts £12 as reasonable but within the frame of this question, let's assume we do: The banks charge interest on any £12 charge (for a credit card or overdrawn account). Specifically who and what gives them the right to charge interest on these £12 charges? Are the banks just writing their own cheque again? A £12 charge plus interest = more than £12, so surely this is against the OFT's intent.

 

2. How will the banks account for these settlements in their records? Will they be able to write them off or swallow them within the vast accounting figures involved or will they stand out somewhere specific like a sore kahuna? Presumably with all the furore, the shareholders will be scrutinising and expecting a figure for discussion?

 

Any views or information?

[Spiceskull]

A £12 charge plus interest = more than £12, so surely this is against the OFT's intent.

Probably no mileage in this argument, insofar as the bank charges are applied at a specific point in time. From then it is deemed "owing" and the banks can charge interest on it...

 

As for the level of the bank charges...well, that is another argument for another day...

Presumably with all the furore, the shareholders will be scrutinising and expecting a figure for discussion?

Funnily enough this was discussed back in March. The idea was to get someone to disrupt a shareholders meeting, but from a different angle. In a nutshell the idea was to ask the chairman to explain "why is the bank giving money to all these claimants who have the temerity to ask for it - as a shareholder we expect our investments to be managed with more vigour and determination...and weak-kneed and lily-livered capitulation to these contract breakers will not be tolerated. What is the bank going to do about it..."

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back

Spiceskull v HSBC

Thank you Consumer Action Group

Read my blog

View a heated discussion about bank charges on the Times Educational Supplement bulletin boards

 

[Bean]

Defence was due by 24 July 2006.

 

I phoned the local County Court yesterday for an update and was told that Lloyds TSB / Sechiari Clark & Mitchell (Tsb) have submitted a defence and Allocation Questionnaires have been sent out.

 

Will post defence details when I receive them.

[Bean]

I have received from the local County Court a "Notice that a Defence Has Been Filed". The Defence from Sechiari Clark & Mitchell was served 18 July 2006 and reads:

 

"DEFENCE

1. The Defendant Lloyds TSB Bank plc ("the Bank") is a Bank is a Bank whose registered office is 25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN.. It is admitted that the Claimant has been a customer of the Bank at all material times.

 

2. By opening an account with the Bank, the customer enters into a commercial arrangement with the Bank for the provision of banking services. The Bank is entitled, as part of that arrangement, to charge for those services. At account opening a customer is provided with details of the Bank's charges, currently in a Leaflet a guide to our banking charges. By using the account, the customer acknowledges that the charges are incorporated into the contract. For personal customers, a number of services are provided for free, notwithstanding that they are an expense to the Bank. Such services presently include, but are not limited to, providing;

 

· cheques

· bank statements

· the facility to make payments by direct debit and standing order

· debit cards

· ATMs (cash machines).

 

3. By maintaining the account in credit, or within any limit agreed with the Bank, the customer may avoid most if not all charges. If the customer fails to ensure that there are sufficient cleared funds in the account to cover payments, whether by cheque, debit card, standing order or direct debit, the customer makes a request for a payment to be made from the Bank's own funds. If the Bank makes payment, or returns the payment, it provides a service as specified in the leaflet and makes a charge in accordance with the terms of the contract. On page 1 of the leaflet, the Bank explains that "there are normally no charges for everyday banking at Lloyds TSB when your account is in credit.

 

When you use an agreed overdraft, there is no monthly fee and we only charge interest on the amount you are overdrawn each day. Where you go overdrawn without an agreement or where you use special services, such as copy statements, we will make a charge. This guide explains how these charges work, and when they will apply.

I f you want to use a service that we haven't listed, we'll tell you the cost of that service before you give us the go-ahead".

4. There is no breach of contract; the charge cannot therefore be a penalty, consequently there is no requirement that the charge be a pre-estimate of the Bank's loss.

5. The customer is given advance warning of charges being imposed; statements show the charges, if any, the customer has incurred during the course of a month, and which will appear as debits on the following month's statement. Customers are warned by letter when they go overdrawn or over their agreed limit without arrangement with the Bank. If the customer fails to remedy the position, and payments such as standing orders and direct debits are refused then again the customer is warned by letter.

6. The charges are fair and reasonable, and it is denied that they are unlawful.

 

7. The customer is notified of the charges in plain intelligible language at the conclusion of the contract, and on each monthly statement. The charge are terms which relate to the price payable by the customer for a service provided by the Bank, and pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness.

 

8. In the premises:

8.1 the charges are for banking services, and are not damages nor a penalty;

8.2 the Bank is entitled by contract to impose the charges, which are fair and reasonable;

8.3 it is denied that the charges are unlawful or contravene any statute or regulation.

9. The Claimant's claim is denied in its entirety. It is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum from the Bank."

It is the same defence as for 'neildexter'.

I received with the Defence an Allocation Questionnaire N150 (rather than the "straightforward" N149) as the claim sum exceeds £5000 and there is a need for me to explain and quantify what consequential losses I have suffered so that the court may decide whether or not they are to be included in this claim. AQ is due for return on or before 11 August 2006.

[GaryH]

Thats the same as mine word for word.

[Bean]

Thats the same as mine word for word.

 

Good, I wish you every success with your claim GaryH.

[Bean]

Essentially, except for point 8 in which they deny that s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act applies, their defence is the same as Martineau Johnson's defence of Sophie-Jane's claim, see:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/5452-lloyds-tsb-what-possibility.html

 

A comparison deleting all parts that are duplicated shows:

 

First, Lloyds TSB / Sechiari Clark & Mitchell (Tsb) Defence to my claim (same as for "neildexter", and "GaryH"):

3. or returns the payment, it provides a service as specified in the leaflet and makes a

5. and which will appear

Second, Lloyds TSB / Martineau Johnson Defence to Sophie-Jane’s claim:

3. or

5. and which appear

8. 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

 

I am now preparing the Allocation Questionnaire, Form N150.

[closey]

Well Bean, I know you are fully prepared...thankfully you are moving into the final stages.

[Bean]

Thanks closey - and good to see you are still very active.

 

I can take nothing for granted. Sophie-Jane is about 6 weeks ahead of me and is still in discussions with MJ.

 

Completing the N150 Allocation Questionnaire seems OK, I am also gathering consequential losses information to accompany it.

[Bean]

On Saturday 5 August 2006, I received an offer for part of my claim from Lloyds TSB solicitors Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell, dated Thursday 3rd August 2006.

 

I will NOT be accepting the offer as it fails in several respects to meet my claim, not least of which is consequential losses, and attempts to impose unreasonable conditions.

 

Their letter is reproduced here complete with their grammatical / spelling / typographical errors:

 

"Strictly Private & Confidential

 

Bean

Bean's Address

Without Prejudice

Confidential and Privileged

Dear Sir & Madam,

In the ****** County Court (Transferred from Northampton County Court on 25 July 2006)

Bean-v-Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Claim Number: ********

We refer to the above matter and as you will be aware, we act for Lloyds TSB Bank plc. This letter is marked ' without prejudice ' and is ' privileged and confidential ' which means that it will not be produced in Court, and is confidential between yourself, ourselves and the Bank.

 

That said, as you will also be aware, the Bank will be defending these proceedings on the following grounds:-

 

1. The fees that you seek was properly incorporated into your Contract with the Bank; and

 

2. By making payments (whether by cheque, debit card or any other means) from your account where you have insufficient funds to cover them, you are making a request to the Bank for an increased overdraft, which the Bank may meet or decline. If it meets your request, you must pay the necessary charges. The issue of penalties only arises as a matter of law, where there has been a breach of contract, and there is no breach of contract here.

 

As such, it is the Bank's opinion that there is no merit in your claim.

 

However, regrettably, the costs of resolving a dispute can easily exceed the amount in issue regardless of who "wins" at the end of the day. This is as true for you as it is for the Bank.

 

After taking instructions from the Bank in respect of your offer to accept the sum of £6,199.56 (Six Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine Pounds and Fifty Six Pence) plus the Allocation Questionnaire fee of £100.00 = £6299.56 in full and final settlement of your claim.

 

Please note that the amount claimed has been reduced by the sum of £254.41, which reflects the overdraft interest, which is charged at the contractual rate and are not ‘bank charges’.

 

The Bank is willing to pay the above said sum to you on the following basis:-

1. The amount of the claim, namely £6299.56, will be credited to your Select Account;
   
2. You must maintain your Select account within your current limit and in accordance with the Terms and Conditions that governs the said account in question;
   
3. Payment of £6299.56 will be in full and final settlement of this claim and any future claims you have or may have against Lloyds TSB Bank plc arising out of, or in any way connected to, this claim, and any further charges on your account.
   
4. The terms of this agreement are to be confidential between the parties and are not to be disclosed by the Claimant or the Defendant or their Solicitors or any persons.

Please let us know whether you are prepared to settle the matter on these terms. If so, and you agree to comply with the conditions set out, the Bank will arrange to credit the amount of your claim to your account.

 

If you are willing to settle, you must both sign a copy of this letter as confirmation that you are bound by its terms, including the requirement of confidentiality, and return it to us as soon as possible.

 

In any event, kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this letter.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sechiari, Clark + Mitchell

Sechiari Clark & Mitchell

 

I, Bean, confirm that the above terms are agreed and will remain strictly confidential.

Full name……………………………………………………………………………………

Signed………………………………………………………………………………………..

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………………..…

 

I, Bean’s wife, confirm that the above terms are agreed and will remain strictly confidential.

Full name……………………………………………………………………………………

Signed………………………………………………………………………………………..

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………………..…"

 

Any comments would be welcome, as 40,000+ heads are better than one. I know how I am going to respond, but you may have some better thoughts / comments / wording. I will post my response when ready.

 

 

[kotum45]

CONGRATULATIONS... I admire you for not accepting the offer and the conditions that come with it.

Congratulations and well done.

[Bean]

Thanks kotum45, I know you know what you are talking about and I very much appreciate your support.

 

There is a long way to go yet, but this is a starting point. Will keep you posted.

[Zedwoo]

Great news Bean. Hold your nerve, make sure you get every penny the gits took from you and your wife.

 

I will continue to watch this thread with interest.

[GaryH]

Well done Bean! The tone of their letters are appalling and riddled with half-truths (not to mention conditions!), I don't blame you for not accepting that. I don't think I will be either if mine is the same. Keep at em!

[Bean]

Thanks Zedwoo - you have a way with words mate:D . Keep rolling.

 

GaryH - I guess that an offer is imminent for your claim. Good luck and thanks for your support.

[paulson1985]

Good luck bean,

 

I have recieved a court date from my local court 26 th Sept still no word at all from SCM

[freebird]

well good luck matey..I'm watching your thread too as I've just handed claim in today...and now I'm on pins..looks like the defence letters are all similar eh!

good luck mate

Freebird x