Innocent vs LLOYDS TSB CLASSIC CURRENT (CONTRACTUAL INTEREST)

[innocent]

And sure enough.........

 

.......is the sky blue? do I drink beer? will I win all my money back... oh yesssssss!

 

 

DEFENCE ARRIVED TODAY

 

(9 points....seems to be service defence)

 

I will post in its entirity at a slightly later date

 

 

AQ DEADLINE 3rd MAY 2007

 

 

Innocent

[GuidoT]

To save on your typing it is probably similar to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/47207-guido-t-lloyds-tsb.html#post466483

 

I am sure you know about these, but just in case:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

[innocent]

You are SOOOOOOO RIGHT Guido

 

(After some very exhaustive typing mainly CTRL'C' then CTRL 'V' ; cheers again

 

Here is the defence received:

 

 

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.

 

If 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 was signed by STUART SHEPPARD

 

Well no surprises and have a few weeks to investigate and feel in the 'aq'

 

 

innocent

[John72]

Hi Innocent

 

That's exactly the same defence I had and to which I responded with the AQ. I now have a "pre-trial review" on 13 July 2007 (along with many others listed on the same day) but have not been asked to prepare a court bundle or to provide any further information at this stage.

 

Strangely i'm torn between the extremes of, on the one hand, just wanting them to settle quickly and, on the other hand, wanting to wait until July and actually see them in court.

 

John

[innocent]

Ty for your comments John....

 

 

A little time ago I had 3 ongoing cases, the smallest, and first, barclaycard.......

 

ALL OF A SUDDEN WHAMMMMMM CAP 1: oh my god, i can win

 

WEEKS LATER BMOOOMPPPPP: NATWEST: the biggest; they fold that easily?

 

THE 3RD MONTH IN A ROW: PHAMMMM: barclaycard eventually fold

 

 

I SHOULD MAKES BATMAN MOVIES....

 

point is; you will win (so will I); get a few cases going

 

"I loved winning every month"

 

 

Keep us informed John

 

Cheers

 

Innocent

[innocent]

Preparing AQ which Ill post here, of course....

 

 

 

WHO THINKS I SHOULD CLOSE MY LLOYDS BANK ACCOUNTS???

 

so they cant "plant" settlement money in there without prior agreement???

 

I have no overdrafts, 2 accounts, and have been exactly 53pence in credit for a year???

 

Any thoughts???

 

Innocent

[GaryH]

If you are going to hold out for CI - although as you know I would'nt necessarily advocate you doing so - then yes, I think that would be the best way to go about it. They cannot then force a part payment into your account to the portion of the claim which they don't fancy defending. Any cheque they send in respect of a part payment could be cancelled and returned and the claim would be intact. Having said that, the judge might take the view that the payment was offered and that was enough, you should have mitigated your losses and taken it. Also, I don't know whether you've heard, but Lloyds seem to actually be defending the CI claims in court now - so obviously you should be fulloy prepared for this.

 

Apart from anything else, Lloyds in my opinion are the worst bank out of the lot and personally I could'nt wait to get shot of them.

[innocent]

Thanks for that Gary.....

 

I have heard that they are defending in court now for CI! I'm obviously going to try the new strategy for the aq, and see what happens next!? I have not received any offers yet (slightly overdue me thinks!?) and whilst I am prepared to attend court, until I see any offers I dont know my response at that time!??

 

In the mean time; thankyou for your help again (and well done on your status; very well deserved ;-) )

 

Innocent

[John72]

"Also, I don't know whether you've heard, but Lloyds seem to actually be defending the CI claims in court now..."

 

I have seen in one case that a barrister for LTSB indicated an intention to defend the CI, but do we know if it has ever got inside a courtroom?

 

J

[griffin9959]

Hi Innocent

 

Just poppin in to say hello and let you know, I seem to be at a similar stage with a similar claim.

 

Just received Lloyds defense today. At first glance it looks the same as the one they sent you. Do you think its strange that they have made no specific mention of our trying to claim CI?

 

When is your AQ due to be returned? Mine is due by 11/05/07.

 

I'll subscribe to your thread - its sure to be of help.

 

Meanwhile, good luck.

 

~S~

Griffin

[innocent]

"Also, I don't know whether you've heard, but Lloyds seem to actually be defending the CI claims in court now..."

 

I have seen in one case that a barrister for LTSB indicated an intention to defend the CI, but do we know if it has ever got inside a courtroom?

 

J

 

 

I have seen that same case John.... can't find it amongst my many subsciptions

 

I have not seen it go "into" the courtroom yet, personally

 

Gary is the real expert here! I am aware of his concerns about CI in other posts...... my own personal viewpoint is I will "push" this claim as best as I can; be as prepared as best I can....

 

Innocent

[innocent]

Hi Innocent

 

Just poppin in to say hello and let you know, I seem to be at a similar stage with a similar claim.

 

Just received Lloyds defense today. At first glance it looks the same as the one they sent you. Do you think its strange that they have made no specific mention of our trying to claim CI?

 

When is your AQ due to be returned? Mine is due by 11/05/07.

 

I'll subscribe to your thread - its sure to be of help.

 

Meanwhile, good luck.

 

~S~

Griffin

 

 

Hello griffin ;-)

 

From what I can see; Lloyds's defence is always the same now; in any case

 

My aq deadline is the 3rd; so only a week ahead of you.... going to sit down tonight/ tomorrow and complete (and post here)

 

I'm looking forward to browsing your thread, and good luck too

 

Innocent

[innocent]

Ok my proposed AQ (fairly standard now apart from the added bit about stays) and for the record is a N149 Small Claims track aq

 

SETTLEMENT? No

LOCATION OF HEARING? No (already local)

TRACK? Yes, small claims

WINESSES? 0

EXPERTS? No

HEARING? No (all dates ok)

OTHER INFORMATION?

 

The Claimant is aware that the defendant is now routinely requesting a stay in proceedings in claims of this nature, by indicating an intention to negotiate a settlement in section A of their allocation questionnaire.

 

The claimant is strongly opposed to such a stay, upon the basis that the defendant, both during and prior to this litigation, has rebutted or ignored all prior attempts by the claimant to narrow the issues in dispute, or otherwise engage in meaningful dialogue which may have facilitated an amicable settlement to these matters.

 

It is submitted that the request by the defendant is highly likely to be an attempt to further frustrate and delay proceedings, and the pattern of settled cases so far would strongly suggest that the defendant does not intend to settle these matters until a hearing date is imminent.

 

Accordingly, the claimant respectfully requests that any such request by the defendant is turned aside.

 

 

Further, if the court is in agreement, the Claimant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order.

 

The Claimant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

- The actual loss suffered by the Defendant as a result of the contractual breach from which its charges arise. If the Defendant cannot substantiate the cost of each charge as proportionate to its loss incurred, it has charged contractual penalties contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and common law principles established since the early 1900's.

 

- In the event that the Defendant's charges were accepted as being a fee for a contractual service (which is refuted), examination of its true costs is required to determine whether the price is reasonable as required by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

The Claimant believes that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information.

 

Additionally, the Claimant is aware that the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as in small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Bury, Burton on Trent, Northampton, Willesden and Mansfield County Courts.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, the Claimant believes the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, the Claimant respectfully requests that this claim be allocated to the small claims track, and estimates that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

 

 

and of course the draft order is:

 

In the Portsmouth County Court

Claim number XXXXXX

 

Between

Innocent - Claimant

and

 

Lloyds TSB - Defendant

 

 

 

Draft Order for Directions

 

The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made;

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made;

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise;

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

 

 

2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was;

d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable.

e) Any witness statements.

f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

 

 

Hopefully the court allows the draft order, and lloyds have to disclose, which they won't; so I get my money ;-)

 

Innocent

[innocent]

Hi all

 

 

AQ sent today (as shown) by recorded delivery to arrive by the deadline

 

 

 

Innocent

[griffin9959]

Hi Innocent,

 

Noticed you sent in your AQ, hope all goes well!!

 

Having thought about the stance I'm takin over the issue of charges, I've just posted my "Mr Indignant" AQ.. Havein looked around a bit, I decided to utilise BF's "request that LTSB defence is struck out" approach.

 

~S~

Griffin

[Memnoch]

Hey innocent, nice to send off your AQ, I have my prelim hearin on 1st of June so I am looking forward to it.

 

Reading everything I can and trying to get some statements sorted.

[innocent]

Memnoch,

 

Keep us posted....

 

A prelim with CI excellent..... what info are you taking???

 

 

Innocent

[Angi77777]

Hi innocent,

 

Just reading through your thread...I'm at more or less the same stage. My AQ had to be in by 5th May. However after checking with the court Lloyds have not submitted thiers!! I have now been told that my case has gone to the Judge for Judgment, downside is there is a backlog of 2 weeks for this so basically just on hold waiting...again.

 

Angi77777

[innocent]

Angi......good stuff..... does this mean you could win via judgement????

 

 

I haven't contacted the courts yet, but the cheque has now recently cleared! Ill ring them next week...... thanks for the idea

 

 

Innocent

[Angi77777]

Your welcome,

 

..... does this mean you could win via judgement????

 

I'm not sure but i've been reading loads today to try and find out but i cant seem to fond any thread where no AQ has been logged on time or even at all?

 

So just keeping my fingers crossed but will keep everyone informed when i find out.

[innocent]

Replied on your thread......

 

 

You certainly can now win!!!!

 

Innocent

[innocent]

Ok an update........

 

 

Just phoned the courts as the deadline for the AQ passed on the 3rd and have not heard anything......

 

LLOYDS HAVE FAILED TO SUMBIT AN AQ

 

and literally, as I phoned, the case was going to the judge for assessment

 

The lady on the phone admitted that the judge is likely to give "the other side" one more chance to file an aq, WITH A VERY SMALL DEADLINE....

 

....probably......

 

I will receive notitification if this happens!

 

 

 

Seems that [problem] like to delay any way they can; but if we do end up in court, it cannot look good for lloyds; and perhaps the judge is more likely to grant the draft order.,...

 

Don't want to get carried away, but any news is good news at the moment.... been waiting so long.... perhaps Ill be filing judgement soon :-D

 

Anyone had similar experiences?

 

Innocent

[GaryH]

You'll probably find they get another week - after which the defence will be struck out.

[innocent]

Thanks Gary......

 

I was expected 7-14 days

 

 

If (after) their defence is struck out and I apply for judgement; can they still apply and get a stay (without a defence)???

 

Many thanks

 

 

Innocent

[GaryH]

I'm sure it won't come to that - they'll more than likely submit the AQ - but Lloyds haven't actually been contesting default judgements lately from what I can gather.