Lloyds victory in Birmingham - in perspective

[Nicky29]

PS. What are these bundles I've been reading about...? :-|

[Odd Fellow]

There's a lot of panic here. Please do get it all in perpective.

 

This is one loss out of thousands and there appear to be a number of reasons for it (discounting conspiracy theories)

 

Court is a serious step. MANY, MANY people have been encouraged by the thousands of cases and thousands of wins and have throw their ball into the Court, so to speak. I think it's extremely easy to get swept away in the euphoria of the success stories and encouragement from people on here who, like me, have very little legal experience. This is not a dig, just a statement of fact. The upshot can easily be that we begin to lose sight of the relatively serious nature of all this and start taking things for granted. As soon as you do this, you're causing problems - it's easy to become complacent for instance and miss vital things that need to be presented should you ever face a judge. This appears to have been a contributing factor in this Birmingham case.

 

The Small Claims Court does not expect us to be legal eagles, but it does expect us to be dilligent and reasonable in our claims and presentation of cases.

 

If we can't manage this, then the chances of losing increase.

 

Put this loss into perspective and take it as a warning that without proper presentation, etc. you might not get the outcome you want.

[notlam]

Has anyone here got a copy of Lloyds TSB T&C's please?

 

Ideally an older version, before they (LTSB) changed them (if that's what they've done) that can be used to show that I am in breach of contract by going into an unauthorised overdraft situation.

 

Although, by definition, "unauthorised" must make me in breach of contract? No?

[fairbank]

I for one would go all the way irrespective of the outcome to highlight the excessive charges that have been applied to customers for many years.

Yes all banks will be thinking that we can delay these claims now that one single judgment (or apparent one) has gone their way.

The press will have a field day with this and depenedent upon their reaction the movement should grow stronger to combat the banks.

Rallying call to everybody - keep the pressue on and claim what is righfully yours.

[Nicky29]

I agree Fairbank, we have to keep putting the pressure on despite this apparent setback - I'm sure that decision will be appealed too.

 

"it's easy to become complacent for instance and miss vital things that need to be presented should you ever face a judge.....Put this loss into perspective and take it as a warning that without proper presentation, etc. you might not get the outcome you want."

 

Odd Fellow, can you or anyone else advise as to what evidence / information needs to be presented in Court? What argument should have been presented that was missed?

[curlychic]

Martin Lewis speaks out !!

See here ...

GMTV - Latest clips from GMTV

 

 

xXxXx

[pugsley]

You can stipulate that you haven't received all the information you are entitled to, including the T&C's. Also ask for all computer logs and emails.

 

Tide

 

 

thanks you are a star:D

[Bicester1]

Having just read the judgment, I have the following observation:

 

1. The judge holds that the customer is not in breach of contract where he or she enters into an unauthorised overdraft situation.

 

This is very important, as being in breach of contract is the foundation for attacking any consequent charges as penalties. If the charge is not in response to a breach of contract, the law on penalty charges cannot be invoked to challenge the charges; that law only applies in a breach of contract situation.

 

Breach of contract is also a necessary precursor to invoking UTCCR para 1(e) of schedule 2 to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

 

Any appeal against this judgment would require to counter this legal ruling by demonstrating that the customer is indeed in breach of contract when they go beyond authorised limits. This requires an examination of the terms and conditions (Ts&Cs) of the contract to see if it says anywhere that the customer is obliged to keep his account within his authorised overdraft level (i.e. placing them under an obligation to maintain their account within agreed levels.).

 

I should add that the comments which seek to portray this judgment as irrelevant due to its being from a court of little standing are misinterpreting its import. It is a judicial decision that the customer is not in breach of contract and any case which goes the distance again will only be won if the pursuer/plaintiff can show that the customer is in breach. This judge has found this not to be the case on the Ts&Cs he has seen, it is therefore important to look more closely at the Ts&Cs of your own account to determine if your contract imposes an obligation to maintain the account within certain levels. Only then will you be able to say that you are in breach and thereby bring the law on penalty charges and UTCCR into play.

 

This should be the focus for the present. Eyes down...

 

Would it not be an implied term of any contract that a customer would keep their account "in good order?"

 

Bicester1

[MoneyKing]

Just watched GMTV clip, one thing that really strikes out, like our friend points out, is that the banks dont have an answer to why they payout. If it is goodwill, then why do they threaten to take you to court and try and defends themselves? Godwill is paid out without any other movement. Goodwill is just that, from the goodness of your heart, so why not just give the money back when asked for it (as long as the amounts and things are correct)?

 

Actually, again, why have they changed their terms and conditions?

 

On the face of it I do have a little sympathy for the banks, because I dont think they introduced the fees to break the law, but it was to make money and nothing else. But just because you didnt mean to do it, it does not make it right! They have broken the law and now like evryone else would have to, they face the consequences.

 

Here is a little example of how they are trying to cover up there mistake:-

 

extract from T&C from Barclays International written in 2003

 

"7. Borrowing from us

7.1 You must keep your account(s) in credit unless

we agree an overdraft with you.

7.2 When we agree an overdraft with you we will

tell you the overdraft limit and the interest rate

and charges which you must pay and we will

confirm these details in writing.

7.3 If you:

• overdraw without agreeing an overdraft

with us; or

• exceed an agreed overdraft limit;

we may ask you to make an immediate

payment into your account and we may charge

our unauthorised interest rate and fees on the

amount of the overdraft or excess until either it

has been repaid or we have agreed an overdraft

or an increased limit."

 

 

The word Must in 7.1, means that if you have gone over then you have breached contract, hence penalty enforced as in para 7.3

..thus penalty charge

 

 

Updated T&C from Barclays reads:-

 

7. Borrowing from us

 

7.1 We expect you to keep your account(s) with us in credit. However, we understand that from time to time you may need to ask us to make our overdraft services available to you. It is entirely within our discretion whether we agree to make those services available to you and we shall be entitled to charge you fees for considering whether we do so, as we explain below.

 

7.2 You should request us to make our overdraft services available to you before your account goes into overdraft. If we agree to such a request, then we will tell you the limit of the overdraft we are making available to you and the fees (if any) which you must pay for this service, as well as the interest rate that applies to the amount of any overdraft that you use from time to time. We will confirm these details with you in writing.

 

7.3 If you do not request us to make overdraft facilities available to you in accordance with condition 7.2, you may still request the use of our overdraft facilities by seeking to make a payment on your account (for example by writing a cheque or by using your debit card or making a standing order or direct debit payment) even though there are insufficient funds standing to the credit of your account to meet such a payment. When you seek to make such a payment, or if such a payment would cause you to exceed the limit of an overdraft agreed with you in accordance with condition 7.2, it shall be entirely within our discretion whether we agree to process your payment. Whether or not we do so, we shall be entitled to charge you our fees for considering whether to process each such payment and interest, as set out in our additional conditions. When this condition applies to a guaranteed cheque, you will be deemed to have applied for overdraft facilities for which the fees set out in our additional conditions will be charged.

 

See how the overdraft is now a service and can be requested by just going overdrawn! Did you all agree to this when you toko out your accounts, I am sure I didnt!

 

Come on people lets get all the old T&Cs that we can get hold off and post on the forum for evryone to have in their collection. They will be very useful for all of us!

 

I know we can ask for them from the bank, but this is not useful for those who have hearings etc coming up, because it is sure that the banks will take forever to send them out. So WE should take the iniative!

[bathgatebuyer]

"The judge doesn't know his ISA from an elbow" - answer of the week from Martin on GMTV!!!

 

Well done Martin Lewis, Miss Banky person did not appear happy at all. Somehow, I really do not warm to her!!! Nearly lobbed a mug at the TV when I saw her trying to defend these charges

[Gez]

J

On the face of it I do have a little sympathy for the banks, because I dont think they introduced the fees to break the law, but it was to make money and nothing else. But just because you didnt mean to do it, it does not make it right! They have broken the law and now like evryone else would have to, they face the consequences.

 

Sympathy is not something I would ever have for these bankers, particularly in light of how they treat their customers (what I'd really like to say here would no doubt need moderating).

I don't believe for a second that they had no idea that they were breaking the law when introducing these charges. They are huge financial institutions & would have had to consult experts before introducing any kind of contractual terms & charges.

My guess is that they discovered the public's growing dependancy on bank accounts & saw a way to make vast profits. A calculated risk that someone may challenge these charges one day at which point they could first be intimidated & at worst, paid off & thats it. Maybe 1 or 2 very enlightened & determined people at the very most.

At the time they could not have foreseen the internet & how it could one day highlight this to millions & provide the ordinary man the means to challenge them.

[ukaviator]

Yes, Angela does have that effect on some people..

[MoneyKing]

I have just had thought about my previous post about banks now charging a service charge rather than a penalty charge.

 

I was wondering if anyone new if legally a service has to be optional; ie evoked, by some means? And further more are you able to legally opt out of certain services you are offered. The reason I ask this is that if you ask any bank to put a limit on how much you can go overdrawn, they will claim that you cant do this. i.e This going overdrawn and charged silly prices service is compulsory. Any legal eagles out there who know the answer to the question in the legal eye, that if a service is offered then the option to opt out must be also present?

 

The reason I ask is that in court if Banks try and hide penalties as service charges, then they are enforcing the service onto you without letting you opt out, after all, the bank offers many genuine services that useful, but on a day to day basis I opt out of a significant proportion of them.

[disgruntled2007]

subscribing!

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

Reading VERY carefully through everything written here re Lloyds 'victory', and the advice given as a result of it, it seems that one's original contract that was signed when opening an a/c is a vital part of any Court 'bundle'.

 

In many cases, including ours, this was over 30 years ago and these documents have long since, rightly or wrongly, been lost or destroyed.

 

Does anyone know if the banks are obliged to keep records of these documents from so long ago?

 

Does anyone know a means of obtaining a copy?

 

:confused:

 

Any help greatly appreciated - Adam.

[monkeylover]

hi just joined because this thread is close to my heart. i am in the process of claiming my "fees" back from the ltsb. found my original ts & c also the rest of the info pack they gave me.

intrestingly with my select account they give free legal helpline on issues such as consumer rights. any thoughts on if it will help me with my claim on these bank charges.

[cub533]

Yeah

 

Ask them to represent you in court, then both parties won't turn up

 

 

LOLOLOL

 

 

cub

[Nicky29]

hi just joined because this thread is close to my heart. i am in the process of claiming my "fees" back from the ltsb. found my original ts & c also the rest of the info pack they gave me.

intrestingly with my select account they give free legal helpline on issues such as consumer rights. any thoughts on if it will help me with my claim on these bank charges.

 

How funny... I'd ask them just for the hell of it - lets see how independent their advice would be... mmmm.

 

Is there any way you can upload your originial t & c onto this site? As you may have read, it seems to be the key to all the arguments.

[cub533]

How funny... I'd ask them just for the hell of it - lets see how independent their advice would be... mmmm.

 

Is there any way you can upload your originial t & c onto this site? As you may have read, it seems to be the key to all the arguments.

 

Hiya

 

Is yours an old copy of the T&C's for the Select account by any chance ... DESPERATE for a copy

 

 

Cub

[monkeylover]

they are pre june 1999 as they are still bragging about how great the merging of tsb and lloyds will be.

if i can find a person with a scanner l will atempt to upload them.

the legal help line was mysteriuosly not available prehaps a new number has been issued that they wont tell us for fear of it being used against them

[cub533]

They are worth their weight in gold... please could you PM me if a scan of them is available. I called in to the TSB today and asked for the originals. but they were not sure how long it would take to recover them...

 

I'm sure I heard a shredder going in the back room

 

Cub

[Big Man]

Hi all,

Please stop panicking ! Do yourselves a favour and read the thread from rbears , Lloyds Victory, A view of the Judgement, it contains a link to download the actual Judgement documents from the hearing, absolutely gripping, read and digest, it tells you how to be successful !

 

Big Man :o

 

PS. I'm looking for LTSB T & Cs for around 2000/1, anyone help ?

[markj113]

they are pre june 1999 as they are still bragging about how great the merging of tsb and lloyds will be.

if i can find a person with a scanner l will atempt to upload them.

the legal help line was mysteriuosly not available prehaps a new number has been issued that they wont tell us for fear of it being used against them

 

could you please either upload a copy to this site or email a copy to markj113@hotmail.com - desperate for a copy for my court bundle, thanks..

[wrexhamwrecker]

can anyone help lloyds have untill tommorow (friday) to enter a defence the 28 days are up can i ask for jugment in the morning or do i have to wait untill saturday?

[377414]

Hi Everyone

I have put my claim in court and the last day for lloyds to pay me is tommorow here's hoping I do not have to go to court I get very worried about his matter and will need lots of help do you advise to get a solicitor for this if it happens, it has taken me from Jan 07 to get this far

her's hoping l377414