First victory to Lloyds

[Standup4yourrights]

Just heard on the news that lloyds TSB have won a claim today in Birmingham County Court. Anyone have knowledge of this? My case is loomimg against the Abbey!!!!

[GaryH]

That is actually very much an over-simplistic view.

 

Also, your POC are more or less irrelevant when you reach court.

[Pacm0n]

:o I've just sent a SAR off to Lloyds for my dad?

 

Hes told me about this news as I've been at work. He don't want me to carry on, I've told him we've got to otherwise the banks will win full stop!!

 

Would be nice to hear from Bankfodder or to see what he thinks to it all?

 

I'm carrying on for my dad no matter what even if he don't want me to. IF it goes to court can i argue his case for him?

[herewegoagain]

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

 

makes interesting reading no list of charges filled !

[nicsussex]

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

 

makes interesting reading no list of charges filled !

 

Take that you haven't read the whole thing then

[GERMANY2006]

Nothing to worry about.

 

Firstly every case is different.

 

Secondly the judgement accont effect any other case.

 

Thirdly it is more than likely the claimant did not add Section 13 & section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 regarding the charge for service. Banks all deny the charges are penalties so you also have to show that they are not a reasonable charge.

 

Fourthly evey case is different so just copying template letters could leave you unstuck. You have to do your homework until you know everything on the subject and adapt your case accordingly.

 

There is also the possibility that Lloyds paid someone to make a claim that would fail. If I was working for a bank and I wanted to put people off then that would be one of the first things I would do. It isn't illegal as long as the person filing doesn't make a claim that they were bribed.

 

Lloyds are the most devious. Keep fighting.

[paulpb123]

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

 

makes interesting reading no list of charges filled !

 

If you read it properly you will notice that Kevin was described as a model litigant. It was the first claimant who seems to have been unprepared (to say the least).

[Guest ChloeJane]

Am pleased that was picked up!

 

No list of charges!

 

The reason this site has sucessful claimers is because they follow the process. Many people, get their statements and see the amount due back and race ahead with missing bits wanting the money to be returned.

 

I can relate to that, however every step that Bankfodder and others have put here as links and steps is not one to be avoided. 1 step missing and your right, you can lose.

 

So if the lesson learnt from todays loss is to be diligent, if unsure ask more questions, then it is a lesson well learnt and a lesson for the many that are about to embark on their journey.

 

Spreadsheets are important - your figures and calculations are important - your first letter - your letter before action - and every other stage throughout the process has a reason.

 

It is not a get rich quick scheme. You have to be diligent and patient and remember that you are asking a court of law to see it your way and are challenging the big guys! Confidence and knowledge - that is the key and preparation before court. Reading their defence to know what they rely on.

 

Sadly this man was ill prepared - a lesson to the many - that his loss is your win to remind you that while a process and steps - ones you need to personally fully understand.

 

Don't doubt everyone, though I am sure you are - take the lesson and keep on with your claim!!!!!!!!!!

 

Too many have won - does that not say it all?

 

CJ x

[Castlebest]

Very interesting indeed, it seems you need to prove a breach of contract, kevin berwick couldn’t do that because of the flexible nature of his current account (the terms and conditions allow the account to go overdrawn and charges to be made if that happens) so without a breach of contract there is no penalty and in the Judges eyes the charges become fees.

This actually to some extent strengthens card and loan claims because the charges made for non payment of the monthly repayment would be seen to be a penalty for breach of contract.

Interesting to note the other sub standard claim was settled in full by the banks solicitors despite the preliminary judgement having been made.

So how do we prove breach of contract on a current account?.... Will be interesting to see everyone else’s take on this.

pete

[thetenter]

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

 

makes interesting reading no list of charges filled !

Page 4 section 11

[KittyB]

Am pleased that was picked up!

 

No list of charges!

 

The reason this site has sucessful claimers is because they follow the process. Many people, get their statements and see the amount due back and race ahead with missing bits wanting the money to be returned.

 

I can relate to that, however every step that Bankfodder and others have put here as links and steps is not one to be avoided. 1 step missing and your right, you can lose.

 

So if the lesson learnt from todays loss is to be diligent, if unsure ask more questions, then it is a lesson well learnt and a lesson for the many that are about to embark on their journey.

 

Spreadsheets are important - your figures and calculations are important - your first letter - your letter before action - and every other stage throughout the process has a reason.

 

It is not a get rich quick scheme. You have to be diligent and patient and remember that you are asking a court of law to see it your way and are challenging the big guys! Confidence and knowledge - that is the key and preparation before court. Reading their defence to know what they rely on.

 

Sadly this man was ill prepared - a lesson to the many - that his loss is your win to remind you that while a process and steps - ones you need to personally fully understand.

 

Don't doubt everyone, though I am sure you are - take the lesson and keep on with your claim!!!!!!!!!!

 

Too many have won - does that not say it all?

 

CJ x

 

I'm sorry but you can't possibly have read the judgement in relation to this case thoroughly.

It contains 2 cases, the second was in relation to this case. You are referring to the 1st.

[paulpb123]

Am pleased that was picked up!

 

No list of charges!

 

 

It was the first claimant who messed up, not Kevin. You need to read it again.

[nicsussex]

Not surprisingly there is a very active thread on this in the Lloyds forum

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/90246-first-victory-lloyds.html

[Guest ChloeJane]

Yes I did read it and in full.

 

You will note that the case I am refering to is the first in that clearly there was no particulars of claim that were clear nor based on any information as per what is on this site.

 

Furthermore in the AQ - no Draft order nothing.

 

That was the point I was making and of the 1st case not the second.

 

Mr H was ill prepared - but I also believe that Mr B - did not argue his point well.

 

The 2nd case was not the same - of which I am not referring to and hope this gives better clarity.

 

CJ

[diverse99]

Yes sorry I didnt see the thread on the LLOYDS Forum. THank you

[kao]

Whoa!!

 

hold on a minute everyone - surely the point is being missed here?!

 

Ok it seems that Kev lost the case as the court ruled the bank was legally entitled to levy charges, correct?

Well if you pay a bill with insufficient funds then the bank does have a right to charge for the 'service' of paying it with some of their funds, correct?

 

What is being questioned by all of us is DISPROPORTIONATE CHARGES, not a right to or not to charge.

 

For example, when I went overdrawn by £1.55 with my bank for less than 48 hours, I was charged £28.

I'm not saying it didn't cost them the couple of pennies that they were entitled to charge - but they certainly weren't allowed to take £28 - what interest rate would that be?!?:o

 

Wipe your brows and go have a beer (or cup of tea) with your feet up. Nothing's changed since yesterday

[Odd Fellow]

edit....

There is also the possibility that Lloyds paid someone to make a claim that would fail. If I was working for a bank and I wanted to put people off then that would be one of the first things I would do. It isn't illegal as long as the person filing doesn't make a claim that they were bribed.

 

Lloyds are the most devious. Keep fighting.

 

 

An interesting concept and certainly not one that I would put past these operations.....

[nicsussex]

The first claimant clearly had no link to ( or did not listen to) this site. Kevin has had plenty of support - admittedly only very late in the day and therein lies the difference.

[pestrick]

I work in a claims background. What worries me I think most about this non binding small claims decision is that the judge has seemingly left no stone unturned (giving other -who I add are literally not proper judges- carte blanche to just agree with the facts that this judge has given, i.e there is no breach of contract and that the onus is always on the claimant to prove that such charges are unreasonable)

 

It astounds me to note that such investigations into the 'real' costs are said to be disproportionate to the case, and an exercise which will be extremely in depth - surely the claimant is therefore prejudiced, if the onus is on him (as it always is) then he needs to seek specific disclosure from the bank as to the costs incurred by the banks in making these charges. This should have been part of a directions hearing, or part of the allocation questionnaire should it not? but then again we are talking small claims court.

 

If Mr berwick appeals then the bank will pay him not to appeal and that will be 'rep ipsa locquitor' insofar as future claims go. The facts will speak for themselves in that they did not defend an appeal.

 

My worry for all of us (me uncannily issuing today, just as this news broke out) is that any appeal will mean a stay in proceedings for us all and the bank could easily not have a trial window for a COA date for a long time, perhaps 6 months. They could then pay just before and we will all be in limbo till that time. If they do defend then that would be opening the largest banking can of worms they could ever do.

 

I think we have to all be strong by appealing if we lose, but again, the layman will not be able to fund such an appeal, and they then also run the risk of having to pay the defendants solictiors costs, but if it is stayed by Berwick's appeal then none of us will have to worry about our own appeal costs as it will simply be awaiting that outcome - one, I'm pretty confident wont ever happen.

 

The future as I see it is partial settlements offered based on litigation risk by the defendants but there are certainly some interesting days ahead for us all.

 

Turning to the particulars of claim, I await with eagerness these to be posted. If berwick was a model litigant, and the bank was unrepresented, we have to find out if the DJ has an interest in Lloyds or connection. I am also annoyed that judgement was not made in default and further annoyed that a written defence by the bank was accepted in this case. Clearly it will be disproportionate for ALL banks to have legal representation in a small claims process as their costs are not recoverable and for most of us, that very disproportion will mean they will know it is not worth defending and the claim will be 'bought off', without prejudice.

 

Rulings such as this whilst are not binding, can be quoted and if we cannot quote other success stories in our own defence then that is clearly not good news (forgive me if there are other small claims decision which I am not aware of where a judge as ruled the costs as unreasonable and ruled in favour of the claimant). The defence of breach of contract as per the templates needs to be amended somewhat to counter the DJ's reasons for dismissing this claim and if we could put together a new template and defence to do just that quoting other citiations and regulations then great. I do worry though that OFT inquiry seemingly has been stated as being irrelevant, I mean of course it's relevant.

 

As per you other bravehearts, I will "have my day in Court" and working in a litigation dept feel I should take along some very apt representation even if it small claims Court.

 

pestrick

[fedupconsumer]

I will be getting written confirmation later this week in regards to the final judgment

Dependant on costs etc I hope to appeal

 

Thanks goes to everybody that has help me so far

 

Cheers

 

Kevboy_Telford

I am prepared to offer some finaincial help if you appeal.....I would hope others would be prepared to do the same. Do we have any Lawyers who would take the case on for a small or no fee?

[Odd Fellow]

For the moment, I am seeing this as a blip - nothing more.

 

Facts are:

 

1) Thousands of cases uncontested in court - If the banks thought they could win, they've have been in court EVERY TIME. They all push us to the time limits and cave in - they don't have to cave in - they choose to on "economic" grounds. This is ballcocks and much of thier expenses have already been incurred in the fight up to the point of caving in.

 

2) It's quite possibly a mistake as touted in the followup BBC news story BBC NEWS | Business | Was the bank victory an accident?

 

3) If this goes to appeal, there's a VERY good chance that the bank won't let it get that far - it's well aware that a loss at that stage could be catastrophic.

 

This is probably as much of a wakeup call to the banks as it is to us. We are suddenly aware that things might not go our way after thousands of cases where they have. It's a reminder that every case is different and that we can win or lose. It's also a "coffee smelling moment" for the banks as this minor victory (which is quite possibly an accident caused by overwork) could quickly turn out to be anything but a victory.

 

There's also the possibility that it's a "staged loss" in order to put the frighteners on us.

 

DO NOT GIVE UP THE FIGHT

[redstef]

The BBC new story! BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

[paulpb123]

Yes I did read it and in full.

 

You will note that the case I am refering to is the first in that clearly there was no particulars of claim that were clear nor based on any information as per what is on this site.

 

Furthermore in the AQ - no Draft order nothing.

 

That was the point I was making and of the 1st case not the second. Mr B.

 

The 2nd case was not the same - of which I am not referring to and hope this gives better clarity.

 

CJ

 

But the issue we are discussing is Kevin's claim being dismissed (the 2nd case). Of course the 1st claimant would have theirs dismissed as it was not prepared properly. Your post gave the impression that you were refering to the case we are discussing on this thread. The post you replied to seems to have been refering to Kevin's case. And also, your references to 'today's loss' and Kevin being 'ill-prepared' suggests that you were indeed alluding to case number 2. You are, of course, right about being dilligent.

[empowered]

Hmm - 421 guests viewing this site- not much less than users! Wonder what the fuss could be about?

[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

 

Sorry to be a pain; I realise there are more important issues being discussed here, but any ideas as to submitting further information to be attached to my court bundle would be REALLY appreciated! (Please!!)

 

x