LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Wednesday 17th I believe

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

When is their (and our) deadline ?

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Lloyds bank refuse to comment until they decide whether to appeal.

I guess they don't have much to say really...

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

You can listen again http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcdt8

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

pmsl I'm not arguing either way ..

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Oh sorry I thought you said you were morally damaged :doh:

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

I have moral damage

I know

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

I have moral damage

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Decent blog post about the case and the ICO side, explains a bit of the Vidal Hall case too http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/

Nice if it was upheld, but personally I cannot see it, it goes against the intent of the way the DPA is drafted in that area IMO, the subsequent upper house tribunal was also skeptical, but we will see.

The idea of issuing awards for "moral damage" is very sketchy in law and difficult if not impossible to prove. Thar is why they have libel law.

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Decent blog post about the case and the ICO side, explains a bit of the Vidal Hall case too http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/

Another interesting point is that, in assessing the remedy for the contravention, the judge followed the (compelling) dicta of Tugendhat J in Vidal -Hall & Ors v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) and awarded compensation for what was non-pecuniary damage of £1000, in recognition of the trouble to which the claimant had been put in pursuing the matter and bringing the claim. The claimant was also successful in an application under section 14(1) DPA for erasure/destruction of the default on his credit reference files.

Vidal-Hall has not yet come to trial. If, when it does, Tugendhat J’s “preliminary view” that “damage in s.13 does include non-pecuniary damage” is upheld, it could lead to a rush of similar claims being made.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Celest I would suggest sending a copy of the order to the CRA's so they can be in no doubt that they must remove the default with or without the defendant's approval & if they don't they themselves could be sued by the OP for defamation. They can't now use the 'good faith' argument Also even though not a party to the action just knowing that the order exists places a duty on them to comply

Sorry I didn't spot these posts above until just now.

Celestine, do you want me to send it to the CRA's or would you like to do it? I'm happy to send it and see what they do with it.

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Yes I did.

I suppose that it makes sense that if a term unfairly varies an other term both terms are unfair, and according to the legislation their effect on the contract should then be rescinded.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

I assume that the order specifically requires Lloyds to remove the default rather than the CRAs. Can you post the text of the order?

I would imagine that the order is effective as it is and isn't subject to the possibility of it being challenged at some point in the future.

Anyone?

It says;

87. Plainly I am satisfied that the data are inaccurate and, I do, therefore Order that the Data Controller shall erase it and destroy it, my intention being that the default which, I understand, still remains on the Claimants credit file should be expunged therefrom

[righty]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Celest I would suggest sending a copy of the order to the CRA's so they can be in no doubt that they must remove the default with or without the defendant's approval & if they don't they themselves could be sued by the OP for defamation. They can't now use the 'good faith' argument Also even though not a party to the action just knowing that the order exists places a duty on them to comply

[righty]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Also even if the court has not expressly said they must remove the default the fact that the court has found it to be unwarranted means the bank has no option but to remove it AND remember the CRA's MUST contact every company who have done a search since it was applied notifying them of its removal and that it was wrongly applied in the 1st place