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

[Intrepid]

Put very simply I believe I have the right to demand that either party return the money and am under no obligation to pursue solely the merchant.

I presume the problem this creates for Lloyds - and is the reason they prefer to fight their customers as litigants in person - is that they will have to counter claim for the payment against Shell Energy. Obviously this creates a much bigger problem for them when too well funded legal departments have to battle it out.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I have tried again today to make payment to my Shell Energy account using my Lloyds credit card to find that the card has been declined.

 

Shell Energy have recently updated their website so the issues may be a result of these on-going changes.

 

Whatever the cause it is a matter for them, I have copied both Lloyds and Shell together in e-mail to let me know when they have resolved their payment issues.

My card works unencumbered with all other merchants.

 

Lloyds solicitors Southerlands have responded to my claim for not returning my payment with a defence, an application to strike out the claim and evidence of the applicable fee for the hearing to strike out the claim.

 

Attached below is a redacted copy of each document listed above. I wanted to limit the number of documents uploaded but due to the size limit it was necessary to split the application to strike out into two parts and post them below.

 

Things I understand from this forum are that this is essentially a way of getting me to reveal my case early at the hearing for strike out.

I also understand the first step by big firms is usually to attempt to intimidate LiP with costs, this is a consideration but first it must be seen whether the claim is struck out and if not to which track it will be allocated.

 

I will begin preparing a witness statement for the strike out hearing and post it up for review.

A few things I note immediately are:

1) They have produced within their defence application to strike out, evidence that they have failed to make a full data disclosure to me.
2) They seem to be unaware that the burden of proof is strictly on them to prove payments are authorised as per BCOBs, not the other way around.

3) While it is likely they have paid the applicable hearing fee to the court to strike out the application, what they appear to have sent me is an internal receipt. I will of course await confirmation from the Court that they have indeed paid the applicable hearing fee.

 

Lloyds application to strike out part 1.

 

 

Lloyds application to strike out part 2.

 

Docs1.pdf

 

The ICO have responded today indicating they have written to Lloyds regarding my complaint about their incomplete disclosure.

A copy of their correspondence is attached as a PDF.

Docs2.pdf

 

Lloyds' defence is largely based around the fact I have not requested repayment from the merchant.

Here is information taken directly from which.co.uk regarding section 75 claims.

"Your rights under Section 75

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

This means it is just as responsible as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied, allowing you to also put your claim to the credit card company.

You don't have to reach a stalemate with the retailer or trader before you can contact your credit card provider - you can make a claim to both the retailer and credit card provider simultaneously, although you can't recover your losses from both.

This right is particularly useful if the retailer or trader has gone bust, or it doesn't respond to your letters or phone calls.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act also applies to foreign transactions as well as goods bought online, by telephone or mail order for delivery to the UK from overseas."

I think I will base my witness statement around the fact that Shell Energy failed to provide me with a reliable way to make payments as a result of their repeated system errors. I think this will essentially be a breach of contract between us or a failure of service for which I consider my credit card company, Lloyds Bank, jointly liable.

[Intrepid]

The last part regarding Section 75 can be dis-regarded, as stated by @dx100uk in post #21 the dispute revolves around grounds for a chargeback.

 

I have read through the conditions for a chargeback when paying using a MasterCard here.

 

The closest I can come to describing the situation I encountered is either under the grounds of:

1) Credit not processed.
or
2) Purchase transaction did not complete.

 

It is likely these terms relate to the fact that a payment must be returned if is not processed or completed. However I have no choice but to argue that the two payments were induced as a result of several credits not being processed, or the fact that multiple transactions did not complete and that was the root cause of the two payments and thus one of the payments qualifies for a chargeback.

 

It is likely I will require a degree of latitude from the Court for not making this clearer earlier, however this can hopefully be cleared up in my witness statement prior to any strike out or judgement hearing.

It may be possible to argue that what I was asking Lloyds to carry out amounted to a chargeback and that Lloyds staff should have been aware of this and therefore were incorrect in insisting that I should contact the merchant.

If I am successful I will consider asking the Court to make a discretionary award for the inconvenience I have been caused as a result of Lloyds misconstruing the dispute as a Section 75 claim. This can be evidenced by the phone call where their customer agents I spoke to took little notice of the circumstances surrounding the payments.

[Intrepid]

The card is a Mastercard credit card and the transactions appear on a credit card statement.

Things are a little too far along now to intiate the process from the beginning but I am of the opinion Lloyds should have accepted my complaint as such.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Lloyds would not have charged the payment back I think that is a rather naive assumption, they would have agreed with whatever made up position Shell Energy come up with.

 

Lloyds have witheld data from me concerning the payments. It is impossible for me to assess liability properly without the detailed information I requsetd so I believe I am justified in pursuing either company. I have decided to pursue Lloyds.

Payment failures are a matter between Shell Energy and Lloyds Bank. They can fight it out between them if they so wish for the grand sum of £84. However I think you're probably right, it won't cause them any problems because they won't bother. Both companies will however bother to fight their customers with gusto.

I am not convinced Chargeback is the corret route here, liability is for whomever is responsible for the multiple payment failures. However like the parking threads I will make my case in priority order and if I can make a case albeit weaker than my other cause for action then I will include it and the judge can either agree, disagree or ignore that part of my claim accordingly.

[Intrepid]

If Lloyds are monitoring this thread or their request for a hearing to dismiss is granted then they will get a free bite of the claim raised against them - most likely as they intended.

In any case I have prepared my first crack at the witness statement (attached below) I will likely have to submit for any hearing to dismiss.

 

Questions, comments, critiques gratefully received.

Lloyds - Hearing to Dismiss - Witness Statement - Redacted.pdf

Edited December 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I asked, they refused as expected it was a waste of time.

I decided it would have been unreasonable not to do so given how Lloyds have defended the claim, albeit I don't consider it an obligation given the circumstances.

 

The point being I do not wish to arm Lloyds with Shell Energy's excuses.

Payment failures potentially due to a systems error are a matter for Shell and Lloyds to resolve.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Do you have something of value to add to the proposed witness statement?

[Intrepid]

I answered your question and then you asked it again, I'm not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you asked it again?

If this is leading somewhere useful which can improve the WS then I am grateful for that.

[Intrepid]

Attached below is a second draft of my WS should the case proceed to a hearing to strike out the claim.

Lloyds - Hearing to Dismiss - Witness Statement - Redacted v2.0.pdf

[Intrepid]

The claim brought against Lloyds for the payment has been discontinued.

 

Lloyds and Shell Energy have clearly been in contact and allegedly a cheque is on the way for the amount of the duplicate payment.

Whether it actually materialises is another matter, but by agreeing to send the cheque Shell Energy must be accepting liability for the payment issue and this is clearly the end of matter with reference to Lloyds.

Lloyds did however provide an incomplete disclosure to the SAR they received.

Lloyds solicitors Sutherland have filed an AOS and indicate they will be defending the claim.

It is my impression from their correspondence that Sutherland conduct themselves with a high level of professionalism. It will be interesting to read their defence regarding the incomplete disclosure and I expect that @BankFodder will be interested as well.

 

The ICO are investigating the matter and their comments could well help substantiate the claim.
 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I think what you were getting at - quite rightly - was whether Shell Energy did explicitly refuse. After carefully reviewing their correspondence they simply employed their usual tactic which is to attempt to make any effort on their part conditional - which I interpreted as a refusal.

They were only willing to review the refund on the grounds I provide them with up to date meter readings. I pointed out the account balance was irrelevant to how they had obtained the payments and did not acquiesce to their request.

8 days later I received an automated e-mail stating the refund was on its way. There was clearly some back and forth between Shell Energy and Lloyds going on.

I will never know whether Lloyds or Shell Energy would have agreed to refund the payment without the added pressure of a claim, if there is a next time perhaps I'll try it without and see what happens.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder The following may be of interest regarding the claim brought against Lloyds Bank PLC as a result of their incomplete disclosure.

 

After filing an AOS, Lloyds solicitors failed to file a defence by the required deadline. Default judgement has been requested.

I imagine following the communication outlined below from the ICO that Lloyds or rather their solicitors saw no worthwhile way to defend the case and could not credibly sign a witness statement claiming a complete disclosure was made by their client.

On 10th January I received the attached document from the ICO in which they conclude Lloyds Bank PLC are unlikely to have complied with their data protection obligations.

 

There are two points worth highlighting in the ICO's letter.

1. It is somewhat inexplicable that when I point out that transactions are missing from their disclosure Lloyds are adamant they have disclosed all the data they are in receipt of. Yet as soon as the ICO raise exactly the same query they suddenly agree that they have not disclosed the missing transactions.

2.The ICO have the mistaken understanding that I have received the missing data from Lloyds incomplete disclosure while in fact no such data has been received. Whether or not the ICO has been misled by Lloyds as to the subsequent disclosure of the missing data, is for the time being a matter of speculation.

I intend to write to the ICO correcting the material error of fact in point 2, but will hold fire should you wish to point out anything substantial or comment before I do.

 

I expect that where this might lead if I do not receive the missing data is that I will bring a further claim.

ICO (10 Jan 2022) - Redacted.pdf

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Remarkably Lloyds solicitors have just filed their defence as well as what appears to be a standard letter threatening costs. I will post it up shortly.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Lloyds Defence attached.

Lloyds - SAR - Defence - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

Lloyds letter attached.

 

Given that I have made a request for default judgement I don't think it is worth replyig until the court makes its decision. If the Court awards the default judgement in my favour then Lloyds will face whether they wish to pay for a set aside or simply pay the judgement.

As @BankFodder has alluded in other threads this may not be entirely about the money for Lloyds and perhaps they are loathe to have a judgement against them for their breach of statutory duty.

Lloyds - Letter 11.01.22 - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

After a first read of Lloyds defence this seems to be following a very similar path to Shell Energy where they believe that offering me the data that I am already in receipt of such as a credit card statement or utility bill is sufficient disclosure of data. The ICO did not agree in the case of Shell Energy and I expect that they will not agree with Lloyds Bank PLC however it may require a judgement to substantiate this position.

As far as I can tell the defence they have produced is simply an admission that they did not provide a complete disclosure of data. Whether it is for technical reasons is not really my problem and is a matter for the Court to decide whether this is a satisfactory explanation for their breach of statutory duty.

If I present my case carefully enough the judge should reach the same conclusion that Lloyds failure to disclose everything but two transactions which were in dispute is highly irregular.

[Intrepid]

It appears the Court may have accepted the late filing of their defence. MCOL indicates the following history of the claim.

You submitted a claim on 06/12/2021 at 12:12:28
Your claim was issued on 07/12/2021
Lloyds Bank PLC filed an acknowledgment of service on 20/12/2021
You submitted a judgment against Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022 at 02:36:33
A bar was put in place for Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022
Lloyds Bank PLC filed a defence on 11/01/2022
DQ sent to Lloyds Bank PLC on 11/01/2022

[Intrepid]

Where their defence is likely to fall apart entirely is that while Lloyds claim they were unable to disclose the payments due to a technical error.

1. The customer service agent refers to the payments in our recorded phone call before the disclosure was made, indicating they did in fact have access to the transaction information.

2. Their case notes regarding my complaint refer to the payments prior to their incomplete disclosure.

 

So the so called "technical error" only prevented them from disclosing the payment information it did not prevent them from accessing it or rerferring to it, nor did it prevent the transactions from appearing on my credit card statement the day they were made. All highly irregular and certainly very distressing when a customer is attempting to ascertain why payments are being made in error.

 

I would be very interested and grateful to receive @BankFodder 's comments on the matter when they have had time to digest the information.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder DQ received, to mediate or not to mediate?

 

So far I have taken the approach with claims of this nature that the breach occurred and thus there is nothing to mediate.

However perhaps it would be better to take the same approach as the Hermes claims and use mediation as an opportunity to offer the Defendant a chance to settle without also incurring the cost of losing at a hearing.

[Intrepid]

Thank you for the responses.

 

Upon consideration I decided not to agree to mediation and agree with the premise that it should only be relevant with regards to costs.

With regards to costs:

Eversheds Sutherland missed their deadline to file a defence.

The Court has indicated on the DQ that the claim is suitable for allocation to the Small Claims Track - which should limit costs.

I have not made a claim for costs myself.
 

Ultimately I think it is in the interest of justice that a judge hear the evidence against Lloyds Bank PLC and make a ruling rather than simply have the issue skirted under the table at mediation.
 

[Intrepid]

The ICO have contacted Lloyds instructing them to disclose the missing data. Lloyds will have to make a decision as to whether they want to double down on their position that providing a credit card statement was a sufficient disclosure. If Lloyds refuse I imagine the ICO can escalate the matter shoud they choose to do so. If Lloyds cough up they have done all but admit the data was ommited or more likely witheld.

[Intrepid]

Defendant's DQ received from their solicitors claiming they never received a DQ. The court's records indicate otherwise and is likely the result of some sort of missed communication.

 

No request was made as to the hearing venue so I expect that as per other cases it will be allocated to my nearest court as requested but will in fact be a remote hearing.

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder

Lloyds Bank have sent me a letter (attached below) regarding their incomplete disclosure indicating they have made a payment of £125 to my account

 

I do not accept this payment as settlement for the on-going claim against them and need to respond accordingly.

 

I propose the following.

 

Quote

Dear xxx

Your payment is rejected please provide me with details on how to return the payment to you.

Despite making no reference to the on-going claim ref XXXX against Lloyds Bank PLC ("Lloyds Bank"), you will be aware that the evidence regarding your breach of the Data Protection Act as well as your admission means my claim is likely to be successful.

 

Your failure to provide me the data you admit Lloyds Bank failed to disclose is on-going and no assertion has been forthcoming as to when I can expect to receive the missing data.

Have you provided the Information Commissioners Office with the reasons as to your failure to meet your data protection obligations as requested by them on 10th January 2022?

Your letter will be submitted to the court as evidence in support of my claim.

Yours,

Intrepid

 

Lloyds - SAR Letter 15.02.22 - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

Version 2

 

Quote

Reference: Claim XXXX
 

Dear Mr Dyke

Your payment is not accepted, please provide me with details on how to return the payment to you.

Despite making no reference to the on-going claim against Lloyds Bank PLC ("Lloyds Bank"), you will be aware that the evidence regarding your breach of the Data Protection Act as well as your admission means my claim is likely to be successful.
 

Your failure to provide me with the data you admit Lloyds Bank failed to disclose is on-going and no assertion has been forthcoming as to when I can expect to receive the missing data.

Please advise me whether you have provided the Information Commissioner’s Office with the reasons as to your failure to meet your data protection obligations as requested by them on 10th January 2022 and if so provide me with a copy of your submission to the ICO.
 

The FOS has been requested to investigate your level of service regarding the handling of my complaint as well as the telephone conversation with your customer service team on 7th October 2021.
 

I am willing to accept the payment only as payment for the poor level of service you provided when I contacted the customer service team on 7th October 2021. In particular referring to when your employee “Carol” was willing to make misleading statements to their customer over the phone and the false statements made in your response to my complaint dated 13th October 2021.
 

Please let me know if you wish for the payment to be accepted as such.
 

As much as you would likely prefer to conflate the two issues to your benefit they are very much separate and for the avoidance of doubt any payment for settlement of your breach of the Data Protection Act is not accepted.

Your letter will be submitted to the court as evidence in support of my claim.

Yours,

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Intrepid