Allowed Or Not

[webbscatering]

Letter From Lloyds to Me.

 

Letter Dated: 15/3/2007

Letter Received:16/3/2007

 

Dear Mr Webb,

Default Notice

served under section 87 (1) of Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Important You should read this carefully.

 

Loan agreement number ******** between lloyds TSB Bank plc and Webbs Catering T/A The Bell Ho- BUSLN whose address is ********** Bristol, Avon.

 

The Repayment clause of the agreement above states that you will repay the loan together with interest by instalments set out in the agreement and on the dates specified in the agreement. You are in breach of that clause because because your payments are in arrears to the extentof £1335.50. You are required to pay the arrears to us before 2nd April 2007.

 

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH.

 

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU OR SURETY.

 

If you fail to pay the sum in arrears by the date shown above we will need full repayment of the outstanding balance plus accrued interest.

 

*Outstanding balance (including any accrued interest) £2881.41

*Less rebate (where applicable) £00.00

*Balance to be paid £2881.41

 

*These sums are calculated on the basis you pay the balance on the date shown above.

 

This letter constitutes a demand for repayment of the above on the date shown if the arrears are not paid. If you fail to pay the arrears we will enforce any security held covering the loan agreement. We may instruct solicitors or other outside agency to obtain recovery.

 

It is the Banks usual practice to register the full name and address of defaulting customers, together with details of the outstanding debt, with the following Credit Agencies.

 

**********

I phoned the bank soon as i received the letter and was told by the assistant I am two payments behind which works out to £534 this is the last two months payments and not old debts. the arrears figure from the bank works out to 5 payments in arears. But they have transfered the £2881.41 from my account to pay off the full amount of the loan today, without my permission and before the action date of 2nd April. The assistant took the brunt of my fury and could not explain why the business manager has done this. Is this allowed, surely take the money for the arrears not pay off the loan.

[webbscatering]

Just to add, the loan should have been paid off by 1st October 2007. Also the business manger has Not reponded to my message thats 2 hours since i phoned.

[gizmo111]

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH

 

Theyv 'e breached their own agreement

Would you have paid this off anyway (just read your big win - congrats)

I'll see what others think.

 

If you have any other debts with Lloyds then I suggest you move your money asap while this is ongoing.

[gizmo111]

Make a compliant to the Financial Ombudsman details here

[webbscatering]

I was thinking along those lines but need a bit more input on how to tackle the issue of getting my money back.

[webbscatering]

Actually Lloyds still owe me a further £1500+ in bank charges which are going through the natural procedures. And I have no other financial ties apart from the loan.

[LEECHTHEBREACH]

This should do the trick

Dear Sirs, thank you for your letter dated .

I understand you are asking for arrears of £1335.50 payable by 2nd April 2007. After speaking to one of your representatives today, she informs me that my arrears are in fact 2 months which equates to £534. This I shall endeavor to bring up to date by 2nd April.

I have now been informed that you have called in the whole loan before this date and have illegally removed monies from my bank account. This as your are aware is in total breach of the banking code and is a very serios action taken on your part. I firmly suggest that you replace the monies in my account otherwise I shall immediately take court action to retrieve same.

Interalia your insistence on the collection of this money may amount to an attempt to obtain property by deception,which is a violation of section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. It is additionally illegal for you,under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to handle,tranfer, or arrange assets derived from criminal conduct. By doing so, you may be in violation of sections 327 (Concealing etc),328 (Arrangments) and 329 (Acquisition,Use and Possession) of criminal property.If you do not immediately refund me these monies to me i will file a formal complaint against you with my local police.A copy of this

letter, along with the necessary documentation to support my claim,is also being forwarded to my member of parliament.

Leech

[webbscatering]

Wow...What a letter, you seriously know your stuff, I will hand deliver this to the bank on Monday.

[gizmo111]

I wouldn't - the bank still ahve the right of offset - i hope to have some more info for you later.

[webbscatering]

OK, "Offset", that will be interesting, dare say I've heard about that before.

[FRED DIBNA]

Can Some One Tell Me What Are The Actual Charges That A Bank Take Off You Please

[FRED DIBNA]

If You Have An Overdraft Agreement And They Lower The Overdraft Limit With Out Letting Me Now Can They Keep Charging Me £25 A Month Till I Get Back Down To My Limit

[webbscatering]

Can Some One Tell Me What Are The Actual Charges That A Bank Take Off You Please

 

Are you talking about the lawfull charges or the unlawfull charges?

[webbscatering]

I wouldn't - the bank still ahve the right of offset - i hope to have some more info for you later.

 

Im looking through the net at Rights of Offset, seem to be more an American Rights, there is not alot if you look on Uk sites. When i find something will post straightaway

[webbscatering]

I found this on an american site

Civil Resource Manual 204 Offset

 

Not much use really! but it gives more of insight to the Offset ruling

[webbscatering]

I Found This, but again what the bank done still does not fall into this advice:-

 

If you have debts with your bank, they can take money from you, whether you can afford it or not.

It is not an ideal situation to have debts with your bank. Consider the following scenario.

• You are having trouble making loan and other credit repayments and;
  
• One or more of these debt is with your current banks (or one of its partners/subsidiaries)
  
• Your wages are paid into the same bank,

In this situation, your bank will take whatever money is due to them regardless of your other credit commitments. This is called the "Right to Offset" This effectively means they can take monies from your current account (without your permission) to bring the loan or credit card repayments up to date. This is perfectly lawful and does happen.

 

 

http://www.advice-4-debt.co.uk/basic-bank-accounts.htm

[gizmo111]

webbs as this wasa business loan - was there was it in he agreemenbt that it was repayable on demand?

[webbscatering]

No dont think so, otherwise this would be in the letter as their get out clause or they would of phoned that instant to tell me.

[webbscatering]

anyway i missed payments before and they never done this before, this has happened since i got my money back

[webbscatering]

This is called the "Right to Offset" This effectively means they can take monies from your current account (without your permission) to bring the loan or credit card repayments up to date. This is perfectly lawful and does happen.

 

http://www.advice-4-debt.co.uk/basic-bank-accounts.htm

 

There is depth in this, I believe they should have brought the account upto date, not clear the loan without prior consent

[bgqs]

In the UK, I believe this practice is called "set-off"

 

Set-Off

A demand made by the defendant against the plaintiff that is based on some transaction or occurrence other than the one that gave the plaintiff grounds to sue.

The set-off is available to defendants in civil lawsuits. Generally, civil actions are brought by plaintiffs seeking an award of damages for injuries caused by the defendant. In customary practice the plaintiff files the suit and the defendant answers it. The defendant may assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff based on an event or transaction other than the event or transaction that forms the basis of the plaintiff's suit. A set-off is a counterclaim with the particular goal of defeating or diminishing the amount the defendant will have to pay if the plaintiff's suit succeeds.

The set-off has two distinctive features. It must be based on an entirely different claim from that of the plaintiff, and it must be a valid legal claim that the defendant could bring as a separate suit. For example, a stereo store sues a customer for $700 due in outstanding payments on a CD player. However, the customer's car was damaged in the store's parking lot when the store's delivery van backed into it, and the repairs cost $500. As the defendant, the customer has the right to assert a counterclaim for damages to the car; if the customer is successful, the set-off reduces the amount owed to the plaintiff store so that the defendant owes the plaintiff only $200.

The remedy of recoupment is similar in effect to a set-off but differs from it in several respects. Whereas a set-off is based on a different claim, recoupment is a common-law remedy based specifically on the contract between the plaintiff and defendant that gave rise to the suit. It allows defendants to claim damages against the plaintiff under two conditions: where the plaintiff has not complied with some contractual obligation or where the plaintiff has violated some duty that the law imposed in the making or performance of the contract. Recoupment usually occurs in cases where the plaintiff has performed only a portion of the contract and sues for compensation for the partial performance. For example, the defendant in the stereo store's action might demand recoupment for the store's failure to service the stereo under its warranty.

Like all counterclaims, set-off and recoupment seek to achieve justice by balancing the plaintiff's and the defendant's rights. They are designed to prevent a plaintiff from recovering complete damages from a defendant who has suffered injury or damages caused by the plaintiff. They can also save time and money. By combining the entire controversy within one action, recoupment and set-off prevent the courts from being inundated with multiple lawsuits.

 

 

As a Quantity Surveyor, I often apply the right to set-off when dealing with multiple construction claims from one contractor

[webbscatering]

Hi Bggs, sorry but have i missed something with your reply, Does this apply to british banking systems?

[bgqs]

Set-off means the same as Offset. I was just advising that I believe that the correct term is Set-off...rather than Offset....I use the practice of Set-off almost everyday in my day to day job....however, with regard to British Banking Systems....there is a chance that I may be wrong....just my 0.02p worth

[webbscatering]

Ok, but my arguement with the bank is they should have covered the arrears not the whole amount, with regard to their letter. May it be Set-off or Offset, either means the same, why commit murphy's law and under what banking rule does this allow them a free hand to take money, as freely as they do.

[Advoc8]

Set-off is a technique used by defendants in a claim.

 

bgqs's large post (from an American site by the looks of it but the principle's the same in England) in a nutshell means if I claim £500 from you, and you claim £400 from me (for a different reason) and say you want to set-off and we both win our cases all I do is pay £100 to you. Without set-off I pay you £500 and you pay me £400.

 

This obviously causes problems if one of us doesn't cough up, which is what set-off avoids.

 

The bankers right of set-off is something different and it does apply to British banks.