Lloyds bank refuse to cancel duplicate payment and hang up on customer

[Intrepid]

When making an online payment using my Lloyds credit card no payment confirmation was received. As a result the payment was made again and this time payment confirmation was received. When I logged into my credit to check the payment I see that the payment has been made twice.

 

I contacted Lloyds card services to cancel the duplicate payment, Lloyds refused to cancel the payment and hung up on me. The phone call was recorded.

 

I have made a written complaint to the ceo's e-mail address charlie.nunn@lloydsbanking.com.

 

I am considering raising a complaint to the FOS if Lloyds refuse to resolve the issue.

[Intrepid]

It is my understanding that we must reach a deadlock position before I can raise the complaint to the FOS. While companies always abuse of the 8 week deadline I will ask them to confirm their final position, if they refuse to provide a deadlock letter I will consider they have made their final decision.

 

If you think it is worthwhile beginning the complaint with the FOS so it is registered then I will of course do so, although in my experience the Ombudsman service will simply close the complaint until the 8 week period has elapsed. They will do so incorrectly even if a final position has been reached before the 8 weeks and they should be considering the complaint.

 

I am very appreciative of your input it has been very thorough, I am also posting up my experiences for the benefit of others.

 

I'm aware that the site team's time is precious and that this is indeed a self help forum, therefore where I feel able to proceed and reduce the burden on this site team I think it is preferable to do so. Where I think it is best to wait for a second opinion I think that is also worth doing.

 

For example in this case I am fairly familiar with the first steps to raise a complaint and apply pressure, in this specific case if I start having to quote consumer law I am not as sure but consider that is likely to revolve around BCOBS or a section 75 claim.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I think the e-mail I have sent is very unambigious to the fact that it is a formal complaint and the 8 week timeline is ticking as of today.

As selective as the Ombudsman can be, in my experience an e-mail complaining of an issue is considered to be the beginning of the dispute for their reference or even before that the phone conversation that was had earlier in the day. The Ombudsman uses the phrase "when did you complain to the business" to define the start date of the dispute when submitting a case.

 

There must be some minor differences between Ombudsman departments as the FOS refers specifically to their "final written answer" whereas the energy Ombudsman is worded towards receiving a "deadlock letter".

 

Unfortunately the process laid out by the various Ombudsman services is not always what happens in reality. I have dealt with companies that simply to refuse to engage and refuse to provide a deadlock letter in an attempt to pretend there was no issue to resolve.  How wrong they turned out to be.. Or alternatively they refuse to declare a position in order to force the full 8 week delay before a case is brought to the Ombudsman where as it is  entirely possible to established at any time that the apellant and the company are in deadlock and certainly before 8 weeks.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

So far a response has been received from the "Group Executive Complaints" team, aka the normal team they use anyway but use a posh name because they think it sounds better.

They seem very keen given that I copied my complaint sent to their CEO to several newspapers that their response be considered confidential as they purposely wrote CONFIDENTIAL in the first line of their reply.
 

Does this have any legal bearing? I predict that it is of course complete rubbish as I doubt customer complaint handling is considered all that privileged in a court of law but thought best to seek a second opinion before posting up all of their correspondence for scrutiny.

 

Well the above can be disregarded, I see a very helpful underlining link provides exactly the explanation I was seeking.

 

 

I believe I have found the correct terms of reference for my complaint here should Lloyds put up any resistance to resolving the dipsute.

 

BCOBS 5.1.11

Firm's liability for unauthorised payments:

• (1)

  Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised.

• (2)

  Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place.

It was made very clear over the phone that the payment was unauthorised and I believe I will be able to evidence this. Should Lloyds entrench their positon I shall send an SAR requesting all manner of detail regarding the card payments they have processed or attempted to process.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I don't propose to send them an SAR immediately as I prefer to be efficient in my dealings and await to see if they will resolve the complaint before I carry out any extra and perhaps un-necessary effort in this regard. My application of pressure will be commensurate to their level of resistance.

 

Thank you for your clarification regarding the use of confidential.

 

Rather amusingly in the so far pointless e-mail tennis they have progressed from "CONFIDENTIAL" to "Classification: Confidential" to "Classification: Confidential"

 

The use of colour is not very intimidating and reminds me of the numerous PCN's that are posted up on this site.

[Intrepid]

Lloyds responded with their final written response by refusing to do anything to resolve the complaint.

 

Lloyds have been sent a SAR.

 

A complaint has been raised with the FOS.

 

A copy of the recorded phone call has been distributed to relevant media outlets.

 

Lloyds Bank are attempting to insist their role in resolving the matter is entirely conditional upon me contacting the merchant who received payment. I do not believe this is the case and can see no reference or agreement to indicate as such.

 

Lloyds Bank also made a false statement in their final written response in order to attempt to insist their customer agents are not liars. Rather than affirm this it merely supports the fact misleading customers is endemic within Lloyds Banking Group and may even be a matter of policy.

 

The Financial Ombudsman has responded indicating it will be a number of weeks before they will be able to allocate the complaint to a case officer.

 

I think in order to deal with this issue more promptly it would simply be more efficient to litigate the matter.

I propose the following LBC:

 

Quote

Dear Lloyds Banking Group,

You were informed on 7th October 2021 of an unauthorised payment taken on 7th October 2021 from credit card account XXXX made payable to XXXX.

It was requested several times that this be corrected and you have refused.

 

I invite you to respond to this letter and if you continue to refuse to take the requested action please carefully explain why this is the case.

If the unauthorised payment is not corrected within 14 days of the date of this letter, a claim will be brought in the county court with no further reference to yourselves.

Sincerely,

 

Intrepid.

 

[Intrepid]

I propose the following particulars:

 

Quote

1. On 7th October 2021 Lloyds Bank PLC processed an unauthorised payment on my account ref: xxxx to xxxx for £84.
 

2. On 7th October 2021 I contacted Lloyds Bank PLC regarding the unauthorised payment and Lloyds refused to return the payment.

 

3.The claimant seeks that the unauthorised payment is returned.

 

[Intrepid]

Thanks for your input DX, I considered this but also felt it left room for Lloyds Bank to try and claim that the payment was authorised if referred to as a duplicate payment.

 

They will argue that there is no way for a duplicate payment to exist without authorisation. The way I have written it makes no admission as to how the two payments came to exist.

 

BCOBS makes no reference to duplicate payments, only unauthorised payments.

 

If you know of any code, law or contract term that deals with duplicate payments that I could use in my claim I would be grateful to be referred to.

[Intrepid]

Here we go again, you really are useless in these threads DX stick to debt collection.

[Intrepid]

Ok thank you for the suggestion but how to go about it?

The complaints process has already been exhausted and Lloyds Bank have already refused to take any action - almost becase it was a duplicate payment i.e. that is eventually going to be their defence, that the payment was authorised.

I'm not clear on the legal basis to bring a claim for what you are suggesting, which is again why I asked and haven't received a response. Still you seem confident that this is the right way to bring the claim. You appear to suggest not referring to BCOBS at all and I partly understand your reasons why, if it fails as a point of claim it supports a point of defence so maybe it is better to let them bring it up and use it if necessary.

My own research - which no one has commented on until this morning is that the legal basis to bring a claim is regarding (un)authorised payments under BCOBS. The reason I proposed the particulars in the way that I did is that the onus of proof to show that a payment is authorised is strictly on Lloyds Bank if I don't admit to it previously.

I am gathering evidence to show their payment systems is the root cause of the issue but then what does this become, a claim for breach of contract? I am happy to seek out and scour through any contract I can find regarding payment terms but no doubt they will have prepared clausues for this case.

If this is definitely the preferred course of action then the particulars can be amended:

 

Quote

1. On 7th October 2021 Lloyds Bank PLC processed an unauthorised payment on my account ref: xxxx to xxxx for £84.

2. The payment was duplicated as a result of repeated payment failures and the inability to complete the payment for a period of several days.
 

2. On 7th October 2021 I contacted Lloyds Bank PLC regarding the unauthorised payment and Lloyds refused to return the payment.

 

3.The claimant seeks that the unauthorised payment is returned.

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@dx100ukI agree it was a result of their poor online payment system, no doubt they will attempt to blame the merchant and refer me to them. I obviously consider they are liable as the payment provider but wonder whether I would need to invoke the The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

@Ethel Street Thank you, they have asked, and of course I considered it and would do so, however it is a pointless task because regrettably it was to Shell Energy with whom there is a protracted dispute and they will keep anything they can get their hands on right now.

 

Asking and being rebutted and providing Lloyds with the rebuttal will likely hinder things in the future as they grasp at any reason they can to do nothing.

Despite refusing entirely within their final written answer, Lloyds made grumblings of making a claim presumably section 75 after 15 days. However I do not trust this process to be successful so am laying the foundation to continue if necessary and without delay.

 

Of course I have the option to simply not make the payment next month, but the point which I am intended on pursuing is that I should not be left out of pocket for their payment system failures or whatever behaviour it induces.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I'm pleased to hear that you have had these issues corrected.

I have stated above why I believe the process might fail or be denied to me and am preparing accordingly.

[Intrepid]

A response received today from Lloyds solicitors.

"We act for Lloyds Bank Plc in relation to your letter before claim dated 14th October 2021.

We note that you have provided 14 days to respond and take action before you issue a claim against the Bank, however, pursuant PD 6(b) of the pre-action action conduct and protocols allowing up to 3 months to respond, we ask that you agree to an extension to respond by 10 November 2021 in order for us to advise and take instructions from our client.

We would be grateful if you would confirm agreement in response.

Yours faithfully

Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP
Channy Lee | Associate | Financial Services Disputes & Investigations | Eversheds Sutherland"

[Intrepid]

Thank you Ethel,

 

I have responded rejecting their suggestion the case is complex.

 

It is not a complex case, it is really very simple.

 

As an act of good faith and in order to be reasonable I have extended the deadline by 1 week only.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Lloyds Bank PLC solicitors Eversheds Sutherland (ES) responded to the LBC.

 

I have issued a claim and responded accordingly.

 

ES indicate they will move to have the claim dismissed as it is being investigated by the FOS.

 

The FOS has not indicated whether the complaint has been accepted therefore I have issued the claim.

 

Quote

We are instructed by Lloyds Bank Plc in relation to your letter of claim dated 14 October 2021 (“LOC”). We write further to our email correspondence on 27 October 2021 agreeing to provide a response to your LOC by 4 November 2021.

Background
On 7 October 2021, two payments of £84.00 were made to Shell Energy Retail Ltd (“the Merchant”) from your credit card account ending in XXXX which you hold with the Bank. Our client’s records show that both payments were authorised in the same way.

You called the Bank on 7 October 2021 explaining that two payments had been made to the Merchant and you asked for the second payment to be cancelled. During the call the agent and her manager explained that the payment could not be cancelled by the Bank and that you would need to contact the Merchant to request a refund. The Bank also confirmed in writing that if the Merchant was unwilling to assist, it could then look to raise a dispute with the Merchant for you after 15 days. The Bank allows the merchant up to 15 calendar days to refund any disputed amounts before giving a refund, to prevent the merchant and the Bank refunding the same amount.

You raised a complaint in relation to this telephone call stating that (1) the first agent “lied” by stating that a manager was not available for an hour and (2) once put through to the manager, he terminated the call.

You have also raised a complaint regarding this matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service (“the FOS”) which they are in the process of investigating. The FOS contacted the Bank on 27 October 2021 in this respect and the Bank is fully cooperating with their investigation. You say in your complaint to the FOS that you would like the Bank to change its policy and provide an apology.

Your claim
In your LOC you allege that an unauthorised payment was processed to the Merchant on 7 October 2021 and asked that the Bank correct the payment.

Our client’s position
You have not explained the basis on which you say the payment was unauthorised and as mentioned above, the Bank's records indicate that both payments were authorised in the same way.

When you give your credit card details to a company and give them permission to take
payments from your credit card account, these payments are authorised. The Bank is not
obliged to refund authorised payments. We refer you to the FCA website which confirms this,
a link to which can be found at www.fca.org.uk/consumers/stopping-payment–account or by
following the link here.

We also refer you to the Bank’s website where further information can be found regarding
how to dispute a payment where you have been charged twice for the same product or
service - www.lloydsbank.com/credit-cards/existing-customer/disputes.html. You will see
from this that the Bank has followed its process correctly.

The Bank responded to your complaint on 13 October 2021 to set out its position. We
reiterate again that you need to contact the Merchant first and seek a refund of the duplicate
payment. If the Merchant is unwilling to assist then the Bank can look to raise a dispute with
them for the disputed payment after 15 days.

If it is the case that you have already contacted the Merchant and they have not refunded
you, please provide details and advise if you would like the Bank to now raise a dispute with
them. Otherwise, if you have not contacted the Merchant and asked them to provide the
refund, we urge you to do so.

Turning now to your complaints, we have listened to the call recording on the 7 October
2021 and can confirm that the first agent did not say that the manager was unavailable for
an hour. She merely expressed concern about you holding on the line for a long time (which,
from the agent’s experience, could be as long as an hour).

In addition, the second agent terminated the telephone call because after explaining
repeatedly that the Bank could not cancel the payment, there was nothing further the agent
could do for you. You made it clear during the call that the Bank must either cancel the
payment (which it would not do) or end the call and you repeatedly invited the Bank to do
so. We do not consider you can now complain that our client proceeded to do just that.

As regards your complaint to the FOS, our client does not propose to amend its process and
is not obliged to do so.

Next Steps
As stated above, you should contact the Merchant and seek a refund of the payment. If the
Merchant is unwilling to provide a refund then please let us know and we will seek our
client’s instructions in relation to raising a dispute.
Given the matters set out above, the Bank does not accept it has any liability to you in
respect of your proposed claim and it has no offer to make. As mentioned above, as your
complaint is in the process of being investigated by the FOS, we trust that you will not issue
court proceedings and will wait for its final decision. If you do issue a claim, we will bring this
letter to the Court’s attention which clearly sets out the Bank’s position and we will ask that
the claim is dismissed.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice on the content of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Rather amusingly when paying to raise the claim against Lloyds Bank PLC using my Lloyds credit card, again the failure of Lloyds payment system resulted in the payment being taken 6 times despite being the payments being reported as invalid.

 

I think it will be quite interesting to present as evidence in court that Lloyds Bank PLC took 6 payments from a claimant raising a claim against them for processing unauthorised payments.

 

I have issued a second letter before claim as it is clear from our previous correspondence what Lloyds stance will be, and that there is little point in wasting time exhausting the complaints process again.

[Intrepid]

"The Bank also confirmed in writing that if the Merchant was unwilling to assist, it could then look to raise a dispute with the Merchant for you after 15 days. The Bank allows the merchant up to 15 calendar days to refund any disputed amounts before giving a refund, to prevent the merchant and the Bank refunding the same amount."

I cannot find any written obligation for me to contact the merchant, but do agree that I should not seek to have the payment refunded from both the merchant and the bank as that would obviously result in an unjustifiable gain for myself.

Lloyds have provided no basis for me having to contact the merchant and I have made it clear that I am making my request through them not the merchant to have the payment returned, either route seems justifable to me. They obviously prefer the route where they don't have to do anything, perhaps in order not to expose themselves to a dispute with a merchant with access to a bigger war chest and legal teams and instead they prefer to opt to crush their customers knowing they are likely to be a litigant in person.

It has been asked previously whether I will need to refer to The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as similarly to people bringing claims against Hermes or Parcel2Go I believe I have the option to pursue either the merchant or the card services provider that made the unauthorised payment.

[Intrepid]

Lloyds failed to make a full data disclosure in response to the SAR they received 13th October 2021.

Rather convenienty they failed to disclose any transactional data covering the period where the dipsuted payment was made as well as when the multiple failed payments took place. Very convenient indeed.

I have informed them of their breach of statutory duty and offered a 14 day extension to provide the missing data.

A complaint has been made to the ICO.

[Intrepid]

Lloyds responded to my query regarding their incomplete disclosure by providing transaction data up to and including 5th October 2021. This is conveniently for them, up until the day before payments where made to Shell Energy.

 

Lloyds have disclosed transaction data beyond this date for example a payment to settle the account on 14th October as well as correspondence that goes beyond the date of the disclosure request.

 

I appreciate that normally claims for distress are made for £100 but in this instance it appears Lloyds are deliberately concealing transaction data between the 6th October and 14th October on my account. The period in which payments were made which are in dispute and currently subject to a legal claim.

I will be bringing a claim against Lloyds in 14 days for their incomplete disclosure, right now I simply have to decide on the amount of quantum before bringing the claim.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder Not withstanding the transaction dispute, I believe there is a substantial claim for distress regarding Lloyds Bank PLCs (Lloyds) incomplete data disclosure.

 

Ordinarily I understand the reasoning to bring a claim for £100 for distress regarding an incomplete disclosure, however given the circumstances below I believe a higher quantum should be sought, perhaps in the region of £250.

 

1. Myself and Lloyds are in dispute over transactions that took place on 7th October 2021.

2. Lloyds were sent a SAR on 13th October for data concerning the account.

3. Lloyds provided an incomplete disclosure of data including transactions only up to 28th September.

4. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete.

5. Lloyds responded saying information was not available as my credit card statement had not been published however they included in their reply data up to the 6th October 2021.

6. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete and that they should hand over data beyond this date.

7. Lloyds responded saying they had no further data to disclose.

 

I think the above timeline of events indicates that this is not simply some oversight but an active concealment of data hence why I propose a claim for £250.

 

A LBC has already been sent and Lloyd's deadline to respond is 5th December 2021.

 

Grateful for any comments/suggestions as always.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Hi BF, thank you for your reply.

 

I do have irrefutable evidence as I am in receipt of copies of my credit card statement which show the transactions that took place on and after 7th October and thus the data they have not disclosed.

 

I move for concealment as for some inexplicable reason they have disclosed data after 7th October 2021 such as a payment to settle the account, as well as correspondence. However I accept your point regarding the high burden of proof and thus will not present it in any proposed particulars of claim which I will post up here for review prior to bringing a claim.

There is an inexplicable gap in their disclosure regarding transactions on the account between 7th October  and 14th October 2021.

 

The reason for the disclosure is I also wanted Lloyds to produce data on transactions that may have been attempted by a customer or requested by a retailer but failed, however no such data has been forthcoming.

I do have additional evidence of failed payments but Lloyds may be able to claim they never received a payment request from the retailer. I do not know enough about the inner workings of card payment services to know if this would be a truthful explanation or not.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Lloyds have failed to respond to my letter of claim concerning their incomplete disclosure and in all likelihood will miss their deadline to respond.

 

I propose the following particulars of claim:

 

Quote

1.On 13th October 2021 a Subject Access Request was submitted to the defendant pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018. The defendant made a partial disclosure of data, which upon review it was incomplete.

 

2. The defendant has breached their statutory duty and continues to do so. The defendant’s breach of their statutory duty and my inability to access my personal data in full has caused me distress.

 

3. The claimant seeks damages for distress £250.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

As predicted Lloyds did not respond to my LBC regarding their incomplete disclosure.

A claim has been brought as per the particulars above in post #34.

[Intrepid]

I accept the point you have made in paragraph 2 and I am aware of the risks I will incur at any hearing. However the opposite side of the same argument is that Lloyds will have to claim they have no liability whatsovever as the card services provider in a scenario where clearly there was a breakdown of payment services between themselves and the merchant.

 

The Court may decide against me for not exhausting all options or it may accept that myself and this particular merchant are in dispute and there was no reasonable prospect to recover the money. Regardless of those options (which is exactly what I consider them to be options - not obligations), I am of the opinion Lloyds Bank is still liable as a card services provider and if I am successful it will have wide reaching implications on their policy of attempting to fob their customers off whenever they induce preventable mistakes and refuse to correct them.

 

To put it another way, if you have a dispute with an energy company you can use the Ombudsman Service, or you can forgo it and proceed to court.

I have forgone my option of a section 75 claim and wish to hold Lloyds liable. I believe I am only afforded the option of a section 75 claim as a result of the Consumer Credit Act - although this could be an error on my part. And that banks prefer their customers to pursue merchants in full knowledge they are equally liable.

After a lengthy discussion with HSBC regarding the same issue they attempted to fob me off with a similar excuse that I am subject the conditions of Master Card or Visa or whichever company it may be. They attempted to do this by simply referring me to a webpage that does not form any contractual agreement or present itself as terms and conditons to be accepted by me.

I totally disagree with the positions of both banks, if I have entered into agreement and hold an account with Lloyds, I believe all my dealings are be conducted with them and whatever agreements they have with another payment service they intertwine with is a matter for them. My credit card agreement is with Lloyds not Master Card.

 

Both myself and Lloyds will be risking something if this proceeds to Court. I have accepted that and there are few causes worth pursuing that do not carry inherant risk.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

With regards to paragraph 1, having re-read what I believe to be the relevant exemptions for data disclosure, being subject to a civil action is not one of them.

In fact I think as it is written the legislature leans in the opposite direction to your suggestion. It indicates that data controllers may only restrict access to a data subject in order to avoid obstructing a legal enquiry. (I find it difficult to imagine such a scenario but it has clearly been considered as a possible one).

If you believe you are aware of such an exemption it would be useful to provide the basis for this in a post that everyone can see.