First victory to Lloyds

[Louiselouise]

Fellow members - don't give up - this is exactly what Lloyds want you to do. They want you to be rattled and unsure and to accept their paltry part payments. They might have won a small battle - but they will NEVER win the war!! I'm 100% sure with all the expert help and advice that is around - Kev will win on appeal and then Lloyds small victory will be overturned and the floodgates will open in ernest Against Them!!

Lloyds and their smarmy SC&M - SHAME on you all!!

[GaryH]

Once again....

 

This is ONLY one single small claims judgement. One single district judges interperetation. There is no precedent.

 

Natwest won a claim back in 2005 using exactly the same legal argument, in simular circumstances to this. Have they defended one since? No, they haven't. Have they paid every claim since? Yes, they have.

 

The most significant thing in all of this is the publicity it brings as the issue is in the mainstream media now whereas in 2005 it wasn't.

 

The only way Lloyds will take a lasting victory from this is if everyone panics and abandon's their claims. Don't let them win - carry on as normal.

[crashdown]

Just wondering if we can expect some official type statement from CAG mods this evening? I think it will help a lot of the worried people arriving on hearing this news.

 

Thats what I hope. On the verge of taking mine to court, not with Lloyds, but I'm sure this will affect all our cases?

[GaryH]

Fellow members - don't give up - this is exactly what Lloyds want you to do. They want you to be rattled and unsure and to accept their paltry part payments. They might have won a small battle - but they will NEVER win the war!! I'm 100% sure with all the expert help and advice that is around - Kev will win on appeal and then Lloyds small victory will be overturned and the floodgates will open in ernest Against Them!!

Lloyds and their smarmy SC&M - SHAME on you all!!

Hear, hear!!!

[GuidoT]

Although disappointing, this needs to be put in perspective.

 

This has already been said a few times above, it is a county court judgement that does not set a precedent. Decisions in a county court are not binding, not even on other county courts.

 

No doubt there will be an appeal.

 

If we could not get the banks to deliberately defend a claim in a county court where the decisions are not binding on other courts, then the prospect of getting them to defend with the possibility of setting a precedent in a higher court are very slim indeed, given the far reaching implications of that.

 

It is a numbers game for the bank, it is only about risk which is just an euphemism for money.

 

Not all judges agree or get it right, that is to a certain extent why we have a court hierarchical system. Indeed, even judges on the same matters do not always agree (where more than one sits).

 

For my part it will make no difference to my claims, I will carry on.

 

The judgement is here and should be read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf

[invictus]

From a cursory reading of the Judgement it would seem that Kev has not represented his (the) argument very well (no offense Kev). Particaularly point 23. The Judeg asked do you consider you have breached the contract when.....[two examples are given].... Kev says "no". I think you should have said "YES! definitely I breached an implied term in the contract, ie. that I will run the account with a credit balance or within an agreed overdraft."

 

Just my 2p worth and initial reaction. Definately worth an appeal but you need to get help, maybe Bob the Bankbuster might agree to help or even attend with you.

[Destinyofsouls]

From a cursory reading of the Judgement it would seem that Kev has not represented his (the) argument very well (no offense Kev). Particaularly point 23. The Judeg asked do you consider you have breached the contract when.....[two examples are given].... Kev says "no". I think you should have said "YES! definitely I breached an implied term in the contract, ie. that I will run the account with a credit balance or within an agreed overdraft."

 

Just my 2p worth and initial reaction. Definately worth an appeal but you need to get help, maybe Bob the Bankbuster might agree to help or even attend with you.

 

Is it a breach of contract then -or not?

[Micheyboo]

Most unfortunate for the second claimant - the moral of the story is if you are going to a hearing and alleging that charges are penalties MAKE SURE you have the terms and conditions with you and make sure that they require you not to go overdrawn or exceed your overdraft limit. I hope he gets these documents and appeals, although the appeal might not be allowed on the basis that he should have had this documentation in the first place.

 

 

Aren't most of people's charges based on the fact that they've had insufficient funds in their account hence the charges have been applied in the first place. I think all of us on here know we are not disputing that there shouldn't be a penalty but that they should be reflective of the true costs and the banks are not being transparent as to what those costs are and are charging us extortionate penalties.

 

I know with my claim most of the charges were based on being overdrawn and insufficient funds.

[m4rtin]

as i understood it yes you have broken the contract. if you havent broken the terms and conditions how can it possibly be a penalty? by your own admission you havent done anything wrong. therefore you are saying yes i have broken the agreement and the charges brought against me are a penalty for that and also they are excessive

[Destinyofsouls]

Does anyone think that, maybe, as the courts are getting fed up of this, this judge has done this deliberatley so Kev will have to appeal, set a precedent and lighten the workload for the courts?

 

If so, what would happen if they just paid up before the hearing like before? Back to square one?

[WhatMoney?]

I submitted my court bundle last week, in which I acknowledged that Lloyds had repayed the fees on my current a/c. The rest is Visa charges. I have a letter from Lloyds confirming that the payment is in respect of the current a/c so what I will be claiming in court is visa charges and interest (although there will also be interest on the bank charges due to their late payment). However, I'll break these down in case the judge refuses the interest relating to the current a/c charges. Am I making sense so far?

 

I notice that Judge Cooke mentions that he is ruling on a current a/c, but that the situation (may?) be different with credit cards since there are express terms and condition regarding credit limits and on-time payment. I've now got the T&C's from the Lloyds site, and the charges information, which refers to them as "default charges". I would like to include this information in my court bundle as an additional submission, but the deadline is tomorrow! Any ideas whether I can still submit it? I can take the copy to the court myself, but obviously the copy to [problem] won't get there til Thursday.

 

Any thoughts gratefully received!

Thanks, WM x

[diverse99]

Hi

 

Not sure if anybody seen the news story on BBC NEWS 24 Website, when LLOYDS TSB won its case against unlawful charges brought by a member of the public.

 

What does this mean for us who are putting in claims?

 

Can a moderator help

 

News Link

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

[terry1]

this has me worried as i spent just under £350 on 3 applications to court.

i have done every thing by the book. i have recieved threating letters from the solisters acting for the banks.

wish we knew the whole story

[Guest ChloeJane]

Hi Diverse,

 

Please read this post here.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/90366-have-banks-just-case.html

 

CJ

[nicsussex]

wish we knew the whole story

 

We do know the whole story - what is it that you are missing?

[nicsussex]

Do U Have To Be So Bloody Snotty I Didnt See That Thread As I Wouldnt Of Posted.

 

Sorry if you feel I was being snotty - in future i shall not reply to your posts

[Katpaps]

I am officially extremely scared!!

 

xx

[Philomena100]

:eek::eek: im am stunned!

[terry1]

well why did he loose then?

[mariejader]

Do U Have To Be So Bloody Snotty I Didnt See That Thread As I Wouldnt Of Posted.

 

 

 

does anyone know anything about this

 

You asked the question, I think your response is totally out of order

[lateralus]

just be glad you got your money phil

[Guest ChloeJane]

Hi,

 

I am sure everybody in this forum is suddenly unsure - it is worth reading this just for a little comfort.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/90366-have-banks-just-case.html

 

Please hang in there.

 

CJ

[Guest ChloeJane]

Hi All,

 

Everyone in this forum will now be very unsure.

 

It might be worth reading this.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/90366-have-banks-just-case.html

 

CJ

[LEECHTHEBREACH]

Pagan (post 73) you have hit the nail on the head. Kev should have said yes to the question "whether he thought he would be in breach of his contract.........." not no!!!!! urhh.

Plus in the terms and conditions which he should have had, it clearly says "you must not go over your overdraft limit"

There will be much discussion over this case but surely the above was the fatefull error.

My poc is 11 pages long and covers all aspects were this case fell down.

I am about to put on the site a case that i have just won,when the charges were £100,yes £100 only in 1995-6, I settled for £2500!!!!

Leech

[PhantomReclaimer]

I've just found this on the Telegraph website. It's very difficult to comment from only a brief newspaper report; we don't know how well the guys case was put to the Court or any of the precise details. The reports only mention "overdraft fees". Was his claim only for overdraft fees or was there more that the judge did allow? We don't know.

 

What is correct is that this does not in any way set any sort of precident. No Court, including the other County Courts, are bound by this and the guy has been given leave to appeal.

 

A litigant in person loosing in front of a district judge (stipendiary mag, as was) is vastly different to someone with skilled representation loosing in the higher Courts.

 

It will be very interesting to see how this pans out. A thought that has always been at the back of my mind was that the banks greatest nightmare may not actually be to loose in the County Court but to win! Loosing means that they just have to pay out - a win may mean an appeal (as in this case) the outcome of which would indeed set a precident. That could end up being extremely expensive as if it got all the way (House of Lords) it would be like installing a damn great vaccuum hose to every bank vault in the Country.

 

I could be wrong but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if we saw the bank taking pity on this guy and paying up "as a gesture of goodwill", "not wanting to upset a valued customer", etc, to make sure this case never got to an appeal. They would also have the added benefit of being able to use the case to intimidate anyone else trying to reclaim.

 

P.