LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Now be gentle with me as I have no legal knowledge but……does this mean that If you have a debt management plan agreed directly with your creditor then you have not defaulted or no default should be registered against you?

Hey,
Yes, and given Lloyds accepted that the amounts I was paying were not token payments and quoted as saying in letters 'formal arrangement' the Judge couldn't give them enough stick for this point 'how can this be a formal agreement when indeed it wasn't formal and you defaulted the Claimant in any event'.

because I took my complaint to the ICO and they upheld it and said if I was in a formal arrangement no default should be filed.

I did suffer as a result of the default of course, it's odd because the Judge agreed with Durkin in the hearing but seems to have changed his view.

In addition, oddly he awarded 4% interest although 8% S69 was claimed from the date of each charge. The judge awarded interest from the date I discharged my debt to Lloyds on 1 Sept 13 and therefore interest was £24ish rather than a lot more.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Yes it would depend on the continuity of the relationship.

On another point and although I didn't attend the hearing, I understand that counsel for Lloyds cross examined the claimant quite vigorously and seemingly in an effort to portray him as being reckless with his spending and perhaps somehow deserving of the charges he incurred. It was only after Tom re-examined him that it was established that far from being reckless, most of the charges were caused by the previous charge. In other words the overdraft was largely the result of Lloyds being reckless with their charging and this was reflected in the judgment albeit in a more tempered language:

Absolutely right, the Judge really wasn't happy with Lloyds here.

After 1 hour on the stand the Judge asked Lloyds where they were going with their points...then over to Tom who explained it ever so well to the Judge who seemed ever so understanding.

actually, Lloyds interjected and advised the judge that while the charges of £145 per month(!!!) were a little on the high side they couldn't be unfair. The Judge said something on the lines of 'they seem very excessive to me in any event and I'll be making my mind up on that point, thank you'

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Did the judge not mention why he had gone for 4% ?- seems a little random as its not an equivalent percentage to anything eg. not inflationary, or same rate as savings account, or same rate they added to the overdraft. I suppose it will come out in the wash, or Tom will know lol.

Its a little like he felt he had no choice but to agree with the arguments put forward on your side but tried to 'award' as little as possible in 'recompense' - possibly a good move depending on appeals etc.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Nope he didn't mention it at all in the hearing. It's not a huge issue for me at all. Mainly what happens next for everyone else as interest in my view would be from each charge.

[righty]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Hasn't this business about a default not being a default where the arrears have been folded into the debt already been argued & accepted by a higher court? This was in a matter involving a mortgage where the lender/debt buyer was seeking repossession? In fact, did the court not agree that the lender was effectively double billing the % charges

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

In addition, oddly he awarded 4% interest although 8% S69 was claimed from the date of each charge. The judge awarded interest from the date I discharged my debt to Lloyds on 1 Sept 13 and therefore interest was £24ish rather than a lot more.

Barely enough for a new fence panel eh?

Out of interest, prior to Lloyds freezing your account, had they offered any practical assistance to you and the cycle of debt that the charges were causing?

[PAWS]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Hey,Orfoster, what were you doing posting at 1 in the morning; if I were you I would be dancing around the house in a drunken stupour!!!!!God knows you deserve it after all the palavar you had to go through.That goes for the wholelegal team .:rockon:arty:

I am very interested in the whole default thing. When we had our financial crash in 2009 we told all our creditors before we missed the first payment, came to arrangements with them all based on inc/ex forms and backing up documents, never failed to pay the reduced amount and within 3-6 months all had placed defaults on our credit records. MBNA lodged the default 3 days before the date of their letter telling us they would default us if we could not pay the total outstanding! I complained to the FOS who agreed with us but said the default must stay as a warning to potential creditors! They got £100 from MBNA for us as compensation. So the FOS did not necessarily agree with the principle that a default signifies a breakdown in the creditor /debtor relationship but then I never rated them anyway!!In the case of Santander they sold our debt even though we had never missed a payment on our agreed reduced plan. Now if a debt has to be defaulted before it is sold…..I know I am not the only one this happened to.
It just annoys me that all debtors whether they work with the creditor or not get the same black mark on their file. i.e one sentence fits all.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Barely enough for a new fence panel eh?

Out of interest, prior to Lloyds freezing your account, had they offered any practical assistance to you and the cycle of debt that the charges were causing?

Haha exactly!!!

They're assistance was to call me up to 3/4 times a day (no proof) and tell me I needed to pay them, they didn't dispute this which is where the judge says I was in 'regular' contact with them. On each occasion I told them I was in a DMP and that they were harassing me. On a few occasions they then froze the calls for a couple of weeks or once or twice maybe a month.

It was just a bit weird I thought, that the judge awarded less interest.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Hey,Orfoster, what were you doing posting at 1 in the morning; if I were you I would be dancing around the house in a drunken stupour!!!!!God knows you deserve it after all the palavar you had to go through.That goes for the wholelegal team .:rockon:arty:

I am very interested in the whole default thing. When we had our financial crash in 2009 we told all our creditors before we missed the first payment, came to arrangements with them all based on inc/ex forms and backing up documents, never failed to pay the reduced amount and within 3-6 months all had placed defaults on our credit records. MBNA lodged the default 3 days before the date of their letter telling us they would default us if we could not pay the total outstanding! I complained to the FOS who agreed with us but said the default must stay as a warning to potential creditors! They got £100 from MBNA for us as compensation. So the FOS did not necessarily agree with the principle that a default signifies a breakdown in the creditor /debtor relationship but then I never rated them anyway!!In the case of Santander they sold our debt even though we had never missed a payment on our agreed reduced plan. Now if a debt has to be defaulted before it is sold…..I know I am not the only one this happened to.
It just annoys me that all debtors whether they work with the creditor or not get the same black mark on their file. i.e one sentence fits all.

Hey, went out last night with my new in-laws and was still buzzing

The question here is were these payments acceptable to the creditor and if not did they tell you according to the guidance?

The FOS are useless, I'd never ever go to them again but it seems it was helpful ish with you, I would now raise a complaint with the creditors in line with the old guidance that was in place at the time. (I have a copy). You'll then need to complaint to the ICO but you'll have to do what I did and take the ICO through each bit of the guidance and evidence/explain it. I think otherwise the ICO dismiss it as they don't have enough time to link it properly.

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

They're assistance was to call me up to 3/4 times a day (no proof) and tell me I needed to pay them

[MIKE770]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Hey, went out last night with my new in-laws and was still buzzing

The question here is were these payments acceptable to the creditor and if not did they tell you according to the guidance?

The FOS are useless, I'd never ever go to them again but it seems it was helpful ish with you, I would now raise a complaint with the creditors in line with the old guidance that was in place at the time. (I have a copy). You'll then need to complaint to the ICO but you'll have to do what I did and take the ICO through each bit of the guidance and evidence/explain it. I think otherwise the ICO dismiss it as they don't have enough time to link it properly.

Out last night ???

Not the Stonegallows by any chance? Near the Hanging Judge Area, in this case Lloyds Bank??

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Out last night ???

Not the Stonegallows by any chance? Near the Hanging Judge Area, in this case Lloyds Bank??

Haha nope, Nandos in the end last night. Celebrating wedding, honeymoon and now judgment.

Yes against Lloyds.

[MIKE770]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Haha nope, Nandos in the end last night. Celebrating wedding, honeymoon and now judgment.

Yes against Lloyds.

Nice One from Shire Hall!! for once!

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Orfoster can you update your CAG thread, I can't link to the judgment (as LB is censored) or upload it on there - Just don't want them going off on the BCOBs track.

[ncf355]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

I think we all know it's unlikely LTSB will appeal this due to the risks to them (more publicity, chance of binding case law, etc) outweigh just keeping schtum on it - real shame!

However, I do wonder if there would be some ground in using this as a basis to set up a campaign over on 38 degrees (they seem to get some real weight behind such things) to get a petition going to the FCA to take on this case for the public at large?