Bean's Timeline (Joint Acct)

[Bean]

Hey Bean, Have You Heard Anything Re Claim Yet?

 

I Wish You The Best Of Luck!!

 

Donna

 

Wow, what an avatar Donna!!

 

I replied around the same time you posted, no reply yet from LTSB / SCM solicitors.

[Bean]

i'M THREE MONTHS IN ARREARS WITH MY MORTGAGE DUE TO THESE CHARGES AND I DIDN'T THINK OF CLAIMING CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES AT THA MONEY CLAIM STAGE IS IT TOO LATE??

 

Slow down.

 

Consequential losses are untested ground so you MUST be very careful.

 

Perhaps the nearest to them so far is the "janeyb" thread. Claims of "Empire Strikes Back" and "tedblue" also relate though I they are both business claims and are currently running their course.

 

If you wish to think about recovering cosequential losses, you MUST seek specific advice about them.

 

If you then choose to recover them, I guess it would be along the lines of putting in a separate specific claim - but DO NOT take my advice on this point.

 

Remember that there are at least two ways of achieving settlement:

a) Settling the County Court claim alone - e.g. reload settled his first claim for 4 years charges but is going back for round 2 for the remaining 2 years charges.

b) Settling the claim and any future claim in any way related to it (e.g. damages - defamation, compensation).

 

I think there will be more on this site later on the subject of such "further" claims.

 

It seems reasonable that if the total of penalty charges exceeds your arrears, you might argue that they have part or full bearing on your arrears position.

[Robertxc]

Consequential losses area bit tricky. You need to demonstrate an actual loss, that is, "I had it before, and now I don't". This is essentially the same arguement that we all use against the banks with regard to their 'loss' when it comes to bounced cheques etc. You can be 100% certain that you'll have to be able to clearly show that any loss you suffered was as a direct result of their unlawful charges. Also, be warned, they may not actually have to prove that their charges are lawful, just that your loss was not a result of them.

 

I'm not sure to what extent an inability to gain cheaper credit can be called a loss. I can't see any reason why not, but I think you'd have to paint a very specific picture for the judge, showing for example, how you had a specific mortgage rate; which went up; you tried to go for a specific cheaper alternative; and you were declined, for the specific reason that you had a poor credit history, which was a direct result of the bank's unlawful charges. I think you would need to join the dots in a pretty unambiguous way. I think the key to success here is to keep it very simple: A caused B, therefore C. I think you'll need to avoid statements such as "I could have got cheaper credit", and instead be very specific, such as "I tried to get mortagage X from Barclays, which had a rate of Y%. This would have resulted in a saving of £Z per month, therefore my loss to date can be quantified as £XXX". If it were me, I would have a specific example for every single consequential loss, showing the actual product I was trying to get, and the actual cost to me in failing to obtain it.

 

Looking at it from the point of view of the defender (the bank), if your consequential losses are put in abstract terms, it would be reasonably easy to refute, but if you're highly specific, and can demonstrate that without their unlawful actions you would definitely have met the lending criteria for cheaper credit, then then I think it becomes much more difficult for them.

[Bean]

...You can be 100% certain that you'll have to be able to clearly show that any loss you suffered was as a direct result of their unlawful charges...

 

This is fully as I expect.

 

...I think you'd have to paint a very specific picture for the judge, showing for example, how you had a specific mortgage rate; which went up; you tried to go for a specific cheaper alternative; and you were declined, for the specific reason that you had a poor credit history, which was a direct result of the bank's unlawful charges...

 

That's exactly one of my losses.

 

...instead be very specific, such as "I tried to get mortagage X from..., which had a rate of Y%. This would have resulted in a saving of £Z per month, therefore my loss to date can be quantified as £XXX"...

 

Yes, I have quantified it in these terms, with supporting documentation to be disclosed, as confirmed by my financial adviser.

 

...If it were me, I would have a specific example for every single consequential loss, showing the actual product I was trying to get, and the actual cost to me in failing to obtain it...

 

I agree completely. I would not approach a County Court claim without this and in my claim I have done, or am in the process of doing (in the document bundle for disclosure) exactly as you summarise. I have statements, policy numbers, revised quotations, letters from lenders,... to support my position.

[Mindzai]

Sounds like you have things under control bean, good luck, I'll be watching with interest.

[Bean]

To progress, I sent the following by fax to SCM yesterday:

 

"19 September 2006

 

Dear Sirs,

Re: In the * County Court

Bean – v – Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Claim Number ********

Our letter reference: ******

Your reference: **/***/****/****

 

As Claimant, I am conscious that we need to make every reasonable effort to resolve this claim before it is finally brought before the Court.

 

 

In an effort to foster dialogue, I have made five telephone calls to your office since last Thursday, 14 September 2006, requesting to speak to you but have not yet done so. The first telephone call was on Thursday 14 September 2006 when I was told that you were not in the office so I left a message to say that I am amenable to settlement if we can discuss terms, and requesting you call me on your return. The second was on Friday morning when you were in a meeting. The third was Friday mid-afternoon when I was told that you had left for the day. The fourth was yesterday morning, Monday 18 September 2006 when I was again told you were in meetings. The fifth was yesterday afternoon when I was told the same again when I spoke to Mr. J. He suggested also attempting to make contact by fax or letter. Hence this letter being sent to you by fax. I request your reply by return phone call, e-mail message, or letter.

 

On 11 August 2006 I faxed to you a copy of my letter reference LTSB**, dated 10 August 2006. I explained my reasoning and outlined what would be required to resolve matters.

 

On or around 21 August 2006 I telephoned you to make my introduction and to ask if there was anything you required of me to assist the process of discussion and resolution. I did not specifically ask about the progress of my claim, but as an aside, you told me that my letter reference LTSB**, dated 10 August 2006, had been passed to your client for review.

 

I have to date received no written communication from you in response to my letter of 10 August 2006. Your colleague, Mr. J, saw nothing unusual in this period of more than five weeks without reply, yet this differs greatly from my usual experience of business correspondence, where a prompt reply or at least a courteous update is the norm.

 

Document request for disclosure and inspection

I hereby respectfully request the following documents be provided by you on or before Friday 22 September 2006 for disclosure and inspection:

1. A copy of the original Terms and Conditions on which the Account is based.
   
2. A detailed and itemised breakdown of each type of charge, showing costs, such as automatic Information Technology, stationery, printing, postage and profit.
   
3. Copies of Value Added Tax receipts showing the net, VAT and gross sums for these charges, if the charges are, as you state, for a service and are not a penalty. If a summary does not exist for my charges, then an illustration and example of how VAT is accounted for upon this ‘service’ in wider terms.
   
4. Any printed examples of where the term ‘service’ is used in relation to these charges in bank literature, if the charges are, as you state, for a service and are not a penalty. These printed examples should incorporate or at least clearly state the date of publication and use, and the extent to which they were circulated.
   
5. A copy of your completed Allocation Questionnaire with any attachments.
   
6. Any voice recordings, or a statement that none exists. No voice recordings were provided in response to my Data Protection Act Subject Access Request.
   
7. The details of your Defence.

If these documents are not provided, I shall seek the Court order an Unless Order to strike out your Defence. I will not consider it sufficient that you simply disclose these documents (i.e. admit that they do, or have existed). I will also seek to inspect these documents and to rely on them in my argument.

 

Moving forward

I recognise that I can formally add my consequential losses to this claim, or that I can formally remove them and claim them separately at a later date. I have taken legal advice and can appoint a solicitor and barrister as necessary.

 

I can choose whether or not to publicise my experience through the media. As you will already be well aware, I am one of 70,000 members of the Consumer Action Group.

 

I am open to communicating by telephone if that will assist the process, but such calls must not be recorded. The conclusions of such calls could be documented in writing.

 

I appreciate that a court hearing is a last resort and I sincerely wish to reach a settlement, however, I must currently continue with my claim because you have not addressed the issues it presents.

 

Thank you for your attention,

Faithfully

Bean"

[Mindzai]

Superb bean, that is an excellent and extremely useful letter. I've bookmarked it for when my claim gets to this stage if it's OK with you for me to use it?

 

This is a thoroughly enjoyable thread!

[elsinore]

.....and me, please!!

 

Elsinore

[Bean]

I submitted my document bundle to the court on Friday 22 September 2006 and sent the Defendant their copy by Special Delivery.

 

The document bundle is an A4 folder of 603 indexed and numbered pages, including 234 pages of bank statements.

 

I sought specific legal advice on how to handle my claim and following those discussions faxed this letter to Sechiari Clark & Mitchell yesterday:

 

"For the attention of Mr. T

Sechiari Clark & Mitchell – Solicitors

Department SO

PO Box 499

Upper Ground Floor, 1-5 Queens Road Quadrant

BRIGHTON

BN1 3XJ

 

26 September 2006

 

Dear Sirs,

Re: In the ** County Court

Bean – v – Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Claim Number ********

Our letter reference: ******

Your reference: **/***/****/****

 

Further to my faxed letter of 19 September 2006, our letter reference ******, I note that you have still not responded to my correspondence requesting dialogue, and that you have not provided me with a copy of documents for disclosure and inspection.

 

The Notice of Allocation to the Fast Track from the ** County Court, issued 25 August 2006 states:

"Disclosure by 4:00pm 22 September 2006…Inspection by 4:00pm 29 September 2006".

 

A copy of the Notice of Allocation to the Fast Track is attached for reference.

 

Repeat of my request for disclosure and inspection documents

As requested in my faxed letter of 19 September 2006, I again respectfully request the following documents be provided by you on or before Friday 29 September 2006 for disclosure and inspection:

 

1. A copy of the original Terms and Conditions on which the Account is based.
   
2. A detailed and itemised breakdown of each type of charge, showing costs, such as automatic Information Technology, stationery, printing, postage and profit.
   
3. Copies of Value Added Tax receipts showing the net, VAT and gross sums for these charges, if the charges are, as you state, for a service and are not a penalty. If a summary does not exist for my charges, then an illustration and example of how VAT is accounted for upon this ‘service’ in wider terms.
   
4. Any printed examples of where the term ‘service’ is used in relation to these charges in bank literature, if the charges are, as you state, for a service and are not a penalty. These printed examples should incorporate or at least clearly state the date of publication and use, and the extent to which they were circulated.
   
5. A copy of your completed Allocation Questionnaire with any attachments.
   
6. Any voice recordings, or a statement that none exists. No voice recordings were provided in response to my Data Protection Act Subject Access Request.
   
7. The details of your Defence, for example proof head-on that ‘the charges are fair and reasonable and it is denied that they are unlawful’ and ‘the charges are for banking services, and are not damages nor a penalty’.Additionally, as requested in the ‘Consequential Losses’ document attached to the Allocation Questionnaire submitted 11 August 2006, (see Document Bundle page 52):
   
8. An accurate figure for extra Lloyds TSB loan interest incurred through late payments (see Consequential Loss 3) as so far we have only been able to estimate this figure at £***.**.

If these documents are not provided by Friday 29 September 2006, I shall seek the Court order an Unless Order to strike out your Defence, and enter Judgment in my favour.

 

I will not consider it sufficient that you simply disclose these documents (i.e. admit that they do, or have existed). I will also seek to inspect these documents and to rely on them in my argument, and again I refer to the court order dated 25 August 2006 which establishes 29 September 2006 as the date by which this is to take place. In due course my argument will respond fully to your Defence, when I have received the requested documents from you to supplement the documents I already have in place.

 

Moving forward

I have provided you with a copy of my ‘Document Bundle’ under separate cover. The document bundle includes details of my consequential losses. Some of the figures differ from those previously notified, for example updated life assurance and critical illness policy quotes. The two pages attached to this letter and titled ‘Updated Summary of Consequential Losses – 22 September 2006’ show a statement of the current position.

 

As I see it, there are two alternatives for resolving this claim before a court hearing:

1. That your client makes an offer of …to repay the penalty charges, associated overdraft interest and 8% interest, whilst accepting that I will either formally add my consequential losses to this claim or issue a new claim for damages to recognise my consequential losses.
   
2. That your client makes an offer in full and final settlement to repay the penalty charges and overdraft interest and 8% interest, plus for consequential losses, plus a sum to compensate me for my trouble, plus a ‘credit record remedy statement’ of agreed wording. If you do not respond as requested by Friday 29 September 2006, I will amend my claim by formally adding the sum of for consequential losses.

I am not prepared to agree to a confidential settlement over penalty charges and associated interest, but I am prepared to agree an open settlement.

 

I recognise that publicity over a settlement for consequential losses would not be desirable for your client. Nonetheless I have not received any communication from you to date attempting to discuss or meet these costs, and the longer this goes on the more likely it is that I shall publicise your intransigence…

 

It is unfortunate that my efforts to achieve early settlement have been frustrated. If you do not respond to this faxed letter by Friday 29 September 2006, I will have no alternative than to incur legal costs in pursuing this matter which I shall of course seek to recover from your client at the appropriate time.

 

I look forward to receiving your response.

 

Thank you for your attention,

Faithfully

Bean

 

Enc.

Copy of Court Document "Notice of Allocation to the Fast Track", dated 25 August 2006

Copy of an "Updated Summary of Consequential Losses – 22 September 2006"…"

[Bean]

Superb bean, that is an excellent and extremely useful letter. I've bookmarked it for when my claim gets to this stage if it's OK with you for me to use it?

 

This is a thoroughly enjoyable thread!

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Yes, you Mindzai, elsinore, and others, may use the letter as you wish, but always with the proviso that it must be in accordance with advice from this site and specific legal advice that you receive. Remember that this letter is tailored to my claim and may not be appropriate for others. It should not be used without very careful thought, preparation, Moderator advice, and relevant legal advice.

[closey]

Another well drafted letter Bean, and as always I follow your case with interest.

[GaryH]

Excellant! Looks like crunch time is approaching fast for our friends at SCM and Lloyds on this one. Can't wait till Friday to see if they disclose all that lot, but I can't see it myself.

 

Nice one Bean!

[Bean]

Assume nothing. Never take anything for granted.

 

This is a huge corporate body with near limitless legal resources.

 

One of the mistakes people are making on this site is underestimating the banks.

 

We shall just have to wait and see what happens.

[GaryH]

Assume nothing. Never take anything for granted.

 

This is a huge corporate body with near limitless legal resources.

 

Very true.

 

But, aside from conspiricy theory's, the bottom line is that the law is on our side here. I really do believe (IMHO) that if there were a 'solution' to all this for the banks, that they would have found it long before now.

 

One of the mistakes people are making on this site is underestimating the banks.

 

Again, very true. Its quite worrying to see on a daily basis people who have filed court claims, and then are genuinely shocked and scared witless when a defence lands on their doorstep.

[Bean]

I agree, the law is on our side. However, it's interpretation varies from place to place at present, and test cases will be required to establish clear ground.

 

Also, these are still the earliest days of this whole issue and strategies for handling claims will emerge as matters progress.

 

There is some flux here and it is important to recognise it.

 

As I have said before, assume that the banks are reading everything you post, and assume that your claim will result in a court hearing.

[sidvicious]

All The Best To You Bean Another Fine Prose From Yourself.

[GaryH]

Any news yet Bean?

[Bean]

Any news yet Bean?

 

Nothing to report yet GaryH, I will get back to you when I have useful news.

[slh542000]

Hey!

 

Anymore news on this claim Bean? Being reading it with interest and was curious to see how it panned out as I'm claiming against lloyds for a large sum too!!

 

Cheers

 

Steve.

[Bean]

Hi slh542000,

 

Still ongoing.

 

My Disclosure filed 22 September 2006.

 

My Trial Bundle filed 29 September 2006.

 

My Witness Statement filed 3 November 2006.

 

Nothing at all from the Defendant.

 

I have sent Lloyds TSB's solicitors Sechiari Clark & Mitchell (SCM) a Consent Order to remove from my claim any reference to consequential losses and credit record remedy, which would then make it a simple money claim for about £6500. They have not responded yet.

 

I have written to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) re consequential losses and credit record remedy.

 

I need more information from SCM, then from the FOS, if we are to resolve this.

[slh542000]

Hi Bean,

 

So you're removing the consequential loss from the claim? is this so you can get some money faster, then chase the consequential loss later?

 

Just curious!!

[Bean]

Yes.

 

Currently in discussion with the Financial Ombudsman Service about this.

[Bean]

Lloyds TSB paid £6377.16 into my account over three weeks ago.

 

No conditions, no correspondence from them in relation to it, I signed nothing.

 

There was just a phone call from Mr. T at Sechiari Clark & Mitchell to say that the sum was being paid in and that a letter would be on it's way but despite my asking several times for their letter and the Ombudsman also asking them for it, they have sent me no letter - it's a sum equivalent to charges plus 8% interest, but no contractual interest.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service has said it will consider my consequential losses and remedy to my credit record even though it has not ruled on the charges / interest. There is no guarantee of anything, but at least I will receive a fair hearing from the FOS.

[elsinore]

Well done, Bean.

It reads as if LTSB were attempting to satisfy you with that payout in the hope that you would drop any further action. If so, it shows they are in a weak position, which bodes well for the rest of your claim.

 

Happy Christmas

 

Elsinore

[Bean]

This topic was closed on 08 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group