RedDeath v LloydsTSB

[TANZARELLI]

know you are away this weekend RD but this is for when you return to earth BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Court bid for bank charge ruling

 

And it's on Friday 13th too!!

 

Lets hope the Fri 13th thing doesn't jinx it.

 

Tanz

[photoman]

The feature is due to be replayed on Radio 4 on Sunday at 21hrs.

 

BTW. Tanz, Lets hope it does jinx things........... for the Bank !!!!

[TANZARELLI]

The feature is due to be replayed on Radio 4 on Sunday at 21hrs.

 

BTW. Tanz, Lets hope it does jinx things........... for the Bank !!!!

 

You can here it here:

 

 

BBC Radio Player - Audio on Demand

 

Yes a jinx for the Banks but not the claimant.

[bill-k]

Yes a jinx for the Banks but not the claimant.

 

LOL - What was that long word again, Tanz ?

 

Trickydickyphonia or summat ?

[photoman]

from Wikipedia:

13 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Unlucky 13

See also: Triskaidekaphobia

The stall numbers at the Santa Anita Park show that 13 is considered an unlucky number in horse racing.

 

 

Thirteen is regarded as an unlucky number in many cultures. Thirteen may be considered a "bad" number simply because it is one more than 12, which is a popularly used number in many cultures (possibly due to it being a highly composite number). When a group of 13 objects or persons is divided into two, three, four or six equal groups, there is always one leftover, "unlucky" object or person.

Unreasoned fear of the number 13 is termed triskaidekaphobia. Due to this fear, some tall buildings have resorted to skipping the "thirteenth floor", either by numbering it "14" (though it's really still the thirteenth floor) or by designating the floor as "12a" or something similar. Similarly, some streets do not contain a house number 13.

Some Christian traditions have it that at the Last Supper, Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, was the 13th to sit at the table, and that for this reason 13 is considered to carry a curse of sorts. However, there is evidence that 13 may have been considered unlucky in the pre-Christian era: the Code of Hammurabi, a collection of laws created ca. 1760 BCE, does not contain a thirteenth law.

According to another interpretation, the number 13 is unlucky because it is the number of full moons in a year. Actually two full moons in a single calendar month (referred to as a Blue Moon) only happens about every 2.5 years, so to say there are 13 full moons in a year is false. On average, there will be 41 months that have two full moons in a century, so a Blue Moon actually occurs about once every two-and-a-half years, and is in no way related to the number 13.[2] Women living in a natural environment tend to have their menses during a full moon.[citation needed] A twenty-eight day menstruation cycle is most typical, so a woman usually has 13 menses in a year. Supposedly, in the past, a woman who menstruated during a full moon might be thought a witch.

Early nursery rhymes stated there were thirteen months in a year because of the natural moon cycle that was used to count the lunar year. In England, a calendar of thirteen months of 28 days each, plus one extra day, known as "a year and a day" was still in use up to Tudor times. The lunar year was the easiest to count for cultures before scientific methods existed to observe the movement of the earth around the sun, so it was associated with worship of the pagan Great Goddess[citation needed] for thousands of years, which may be another reason for 13 becoming a taboo number. Taboo often is misunderstood when only half of the totem and taboo relationship is recognized. Among religions having totem and taboo characteristics, that which is taboo on a regular basis, may become quite sacred on special occasions.

The thirteenth of a month is likewise ominous, particularly when it falls on a Friday (see Friday the 13th), a Tuesday in the Greek and Spanish-speaking world, or a Monday in Russia. Months with a Friday the 13th must always begin on a Sunday.

In the Persian culture, 13 is also considered an unlucky number. On the 13th day of the Persian new year (Norouz), people consider staying at home unlucky, and go outside for a picnic in order to ward off the bad luck.

Most race car drivers consider 13 a very unlucky number, as a car carrying that number has never won the Indianapolis 500 or a NASCAR Nextel Cup race, and most all Formula 1 teams opt out of carrying the number 13 when car numbers are given out to teams on basis of points. Only once in recent years (1991, Ricky Johnson) has an AMA Motocross rider chosen #13 instead of #14. Some NASCAR tracks refuse to have a pit stall #13.

The career of Alex Rodriguez has taken a notable turn for the worse since donning the #13 for the New York Yankees.

In Tarot decks, the #13th card of the Major Arcana is Death (Tarot card). While Death is not typically interpreted literally, it is possible that this furthered the perception of 13 as an unlucky number.

[photoman]

Then again.......... might be a time to start thinking about changing one's religion ???

 

Lucky 13

In Sikhism, the number 13 is considered a special number since 13 is tera in Punjabi, which also means "yours" (as in, "I am yours, O Lord"). The legend goes that when Guru Nanak Dev was taking stock of items as part of his employment with a village merchant, he counted from 1 to 13 (in Punjabi) as one does normally; and thereafter he would just repeat "tera", since all items were God's creation. The merchant confronted Guru Nanak about this, but found everything to be in order after the inventory was checked.

Several successful athletes have worn the number 13. Dan Marino, an American football player known for passing more yards than any other quarterback in NFL history, wore the number 13. Another athlete Wilt Chamberlain wore the number 13 on his jersey throughout his NBA career. Also, FIBA rules require a player to wear the number in international competitions (only numbers from 4 to 15 could be worn, and as there are 12 players, one must wear 13); Chris Mullin, who wore #20 in college and #17 in the NBA, wore #13 for both (1984 and 1992) of his Olympic appearances. Shaquille O'Neal wore #13 in 1996, Tim Duncan wore #13 in 2004. And Mats Sundin wears 13 in NHL.

In Judaism, 13 is considered a lucky number. One explanation for this is that the word אחד echad, Hebrew for 'one' and thus a way of describing the unique God, has the numerological value of 13 according to the Gematria system.

 

:)

[bill-k]

That's one (2) of the most informative posts I've read in a long time, P-M !! Well done !!

 

Sorry for the hi-jack in your absence, Red, but on-topic in a way, as this is another guy like yourself who is willing to push the envelope.

 

Here's a bit of Fri 13th cultcha, now, then:-

 

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks for that PM, can't even say it, but at least I know now what it means. Won't be throwing that one into conversation at a diner party especially after a few beers. lol

[RedDeath]

Cheers bong...very interesting case.

 

Hahaha!!! Feel free to hijack as much as you want. That made me laugh. Numerology sounds interesting. I can date 3 main events in my life down to numbers....20:02 20 02 2002 as well as 4/4/4 and more recently 6/6/6 when I ended up in a car accident. Weird! I am also looking forward to 7/7/7 this year for a few reasons. Anyway...

 

The bottle of tequila got polished off, which meant that no guitar got played, plenty of beer was drunk and surprisingly never woke up with a hint of a hangover.

 

Just to carry on with the good vibes weekend...

 

Once the cheque from Crap One arrived on friday,I decided to buy a car stereo with it, got to the check out, and surprise, "sorry, we have revised our prices...its gone down £20". Does it get any better?

 

Got home and CrapOne had sent the remaining £100 for costs. Nice! And finally......

 

a high profile tester case!

[TANZARELLI]

 

Just to carry on with the good vibes weekend...

 

Once the cheque from Crap One arrived on friday,I decided to buy a car stereo with it, got to the check out, and surprise, "sorry, we have revised our prices...its gone down £20". Does it get any better?

 

Got home and CrapOne had sent the remaining £100 for costs. Nice! And finally......

 

a high profile tester case!

 

The futures bright, as they say.

[RedDeath]

Hey Tanz, I'm liking the new avatar, makes a change from the eye.

Yes, the future is looking quite bright at the moment. No reason to relax just yet though.

 

My first challenge is to bring this into an English court because LTSB's T&Cs say that as I opened the account in Scotland, Scots Law applies, and I obviously disagree with this.

 

I believe that in an english fast track situation I can still reppresent myself, and this would not be possible in Scotland. The way I am understanding Scots Law at the moment is that claims over £1500 are referred to a court of session and you need a solicitor. Bad!!! Also the 5 & 6 year limitations.

 

So, I believe the case should be dealt with by an English Court...here are my drafts.

 

Jurisdiction

 

1. This section is pled without prejudice to all matters not related to jurisdiction in this court.

2. The Claimant is a customer of the Defendant at their xxxxx branch in xxxxxxx, Scotland. The Defendant’s standard terms and conditions for personal customers (hereinafter referred to as the “Terms & Conditions”), prorogues jurisdiction of disputes in these circumstances, where the Claimant’s account is opened with a branch in Scotland, in which case the Scottish courts will have jurisdiction.

3. The claimant contends that this confers advantageous terms to the Defendant, as per regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the UTCCR). Scots Law currently allows a Defendant to claim back the last 5 years of charges as opposed to 6 years in an English court. This places an imbalance in the parties’ rights and as such is contrary to the requirements of the UTCCR.

4. Separtim: the Defendant;

(a). is a company; which

(b). was incorporated or formed under the law of a part of the United Kingdom and has its registered office at: 25 Gresham Street, LondonEC2V 7HN. Is registered in England and Wales (no. 2065), and Lloyds TSB Scotland plc, Henry Duncan House, 120 George Street, EdinburghEH2 4LH which is registered in Scotland (no 95237).

©. has its central management and control exercised in the United Kingdom;

(d). Accordingly the Defendant is domiciled within Scotland as defined by the terms of s42 Civil jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the “CJJA”). As such this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 1 of Schedule 4 to the CJJA,

5. Separtim: it is unclear whether or not a contract ever existed between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this action, without prejudice to this fact, the Claimant contends that if one did exist it was a consumer contract, within the meaning of Rule 7 of Schedule 4 of the CJJA. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 8(l) of Schedule 4 of the CJJA.

6. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 1 and Rule 8(1) both of Schedule 4 to CJJA. Thus, this is a competent action which should be allowed to proceed on the basis of it having a jurisdiction and there being no reason for the court not to exercise its jurisdiction.

 

Is this strong enough?

[Guest bong]

6. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 1 and Rule 8(1) both of Schedule 4 to CJJA and also by the Terms & Conditions.

can't really comment on the rest of it but what did you mean by putting in this reference to the t&cs?

[TANZARELLI]

Yes decided to put my daughter on for a bit.

 

Looks ok to me but I am not an expert at all the legal jargon. I would seek advice from others more in the know.

 

Tanz

[RedDeath]

 

can't really comment on the rest of it but what did you mean by putting in this reference to the t&cs?

 

Thank you Bong, the T&C part should be omitted. I had 2 versions, one for scotland and one for england. I've edited it out now.

 

I am mostly concerned with:

 

3. The claimant contends that this (having to claim in Scotland) confers advantageous terms to the Defendant, as per regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the UTCCR). Scots Law currently allows a Defendant to claim back the last 5 years of charges as opposed to 6 years in an English court. This places an imbalance in the parties’ rights and as such is contrary to the requirements of the UTCCR.

 

And adding this in...

 

4. The Scottish small claims limit is currently limited to £1500 and cases above this limit have to be pursued through a solicitor. The Claimant contends that this is also unfair under the UTCCR as it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer.

 

I believe it should be strong enough for it to be argued in an english court, but is there anything else I could add to it to give it more weight?

 

Tanz,

 

Maybe your last great win against Crap One has mellowed you out a bit... Just as I was getting used to the eye!

 

Keeps it real if we remember why we are doing it!

[Guest bong]

I really don't know RD, I'm not sure what reg 4 of UTCCR means - do you?

 

Terms to which these Regulations apply

4. - (1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer.

 

(2) These Regulations do not apply to contractual terms which reflect-

 

• (a) mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions (including such provisions under the law of any Member State or in Community legislation having effect in the United Kingdom without further enactment);

for some reason I get an uneasy feeling about the court seeing this as an unfair term - but see what others think.

[Guest bong]

Also, your claim is based on the limitation period being irrelevant - so I don't think I would recommend using that as an argument for unfairness.

 

I like the bit you have edited in better - but still have reservations, unfortunately. I think it is because you will be relying on the court agreeing with you that the scottish legal system is unfair to consumers, rather than the t&cs.

[Guest bong]

how about transferring your account to an English branch?

[RedDeath]

how about transferring your account to an English branch?

 

Very unsure about that. I have a total of 3 accounts and I doubt that would work. T&C's state where the account was "opened". I really thought that this would have been classed as unfair terms, but obviously I need to re-assess the situation.

[Guest bong]

wait and see what others think first...conspicuous by their very absence!!

[RedDeath]

Ahhh they will all be in the pub....bunch of wasters,

I am sure I had found something a while ago that allowed me to go for this.

[Guest bong]

do you live in Scotland?

[TANZARELLI]

 

Tanz,

 

Maybe your last great win against Crap One has mellowed you out a bit... Just as I was getting used to the eye!

 

Keeps it real if we remember why we are doing it!

 

Too right it does. I am still keeping an eye on your thread mate.

 

Tanz

[RedDeath]

Yes Bong, I live in Scotland these days.

 

Section 5 seems to make this an unfair term.

 

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

but then again section 4 seems to allow that.

 

4. - (1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer.

 

(2) These Regulations do not apply to contractual terms which reflect-

 

• (a) mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions (including such provisions under the law of any Member State or in Community legislation having effect in the United Kingdom without further enactment);

[Guest bong]

might be worth asking zootscoot's opinion

[RedDeath]

Ta..I'll chase this up.

In the meantime....

 

Unfair UK Bank Charges | legal help from Govan Law Centre, Glasgow, UK

 

Seems that asking for it to be heard in scotland is not putting exclusive jurisdiction in the hands of a scottish court, rather co-jurisdiction.

 

8. - (1) A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which that party is domiciled or in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer is domiciled.