LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

[orfoster]

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?

Hang fire and watch this space

[orfoster]

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.

All done, it won't let me link judgment to your site so I guess folk will have to hunt for it.

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Thank you xx

[ncf355]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Hang fire and watch this space

LOL

OK mate, will do!

[Johnboy007]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Just goes to show, that this site does do a lot good, for people in desperate need of advice.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this great result for the 'Little Man'.

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

For those that are wondering quite how this judgment managed to circumvent the Supreme Court judgment (as I do find it quite interesting) it's worth taking a look back at the first instance test case hearing where one of the major battles that raged throughout the hearing was the 'excluded term/excluded assessment' argument.

The issue was, if a term was excluded from an assessment of fairness by the exclusion clause 6.2 (b) of UTCCR (the clause that eventually won the banks the case), does that mean that the term cannot be assessed at all or is it only that type of assessment that the term is excluded from?

The OFT argued for the excluded assessment and the banks the excluded term. In Justice Smith's judgment it was the OFT that won out and the excluded assessment approach prevailed.

This was referred to in the Supreme Court judgment as follows - emphasis supplied:

He [Justice Smith] decided in favour of the “excluded assessment” construction and that was not challenged in the Court of Appeal or before this Court. Mr Sumption [counsel for the banks] described it as a distraction. For present purposes, I am inclined to agree. The precise nature of the exercise in assessing the fairness of a reviewable term is no more than marginally relevant to deciding whether or not a term is reviewable in the first place. But in the long run it may become an issue of great practical importance.

And indeed it has 5 years on.

[Guest]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Yes but it must be taken into account that the supreme court decision has not been changed due to this judgment. The term itself is not challenge-able any more now than it was then, what was challenged here was the ability to unilaterally vary that term.

An important decision nevertheless.

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Yes but it must be taken into account that the supreme court decision has not been changed due to this judgment. The term itself is not challenge-able any more now than it was then, what was challenged here was the ability to unilaterally vary that term.

An important decision nevertheless.

I understand what you're saying but all price related terms are potentially challengeable but the SC judgment means that they can't be assessed for fairness on the price/quality ratio ie how much they are in relation to what they're in exchange for. The SC judgment made that point repeatedly, that the same terms that were unsuccessfully challenged could be challenged again using a different assessment.

Question for Orfoster: You got £743 of charges back, what was the total of the charges you were claiming for, disregarding the 3 or so charges that the judge didn't take into account?

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Question for Orfoster: You got £743 of charges back, what was the total of the charges you were claiming for, disregarding the 3 or so charges that the judge didn't take into account?

The three the judge refers to is me basically trying to work out other costs like higher costs in interest, postage costs and something else that I can't remember right now.

The charges were £743 and interest I was claiming was about £400.

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

The three the judge refers to is me basically trying to work out other costs like higher costs in interest, postage costs and something else that I can't remember right now.

The charges were £743 and interest I was claiming was about £400.

So just to be clear did you get back the total amount of the charges that were levied after the price increase?

[Guest]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

I understand what you're saying but all price related terms are potentially challengeable but the SC judgment means that they can't be assessed for fairness on the price/quality ratio ie how much they are in relation to what they're in exchange for. The SC judgment made that point repeatedly, that the same terms that were unsuccessfully challenged could be challenged again using a different assessment.

Question for Orfoster: You got £743 of charges back, what was the total of the charges you were claiming for, disregarding the 3 or so charges that the judge didn't take into account?

Yes and the terms relating to price quality ratio still cannot be challenged, the extra dimension highlighted here in I think section 35 of the judgment ,is that any term(in this case section 15 of the contract) which seeks to amend the term may in itself as her be open to section 5(fairness assessment).

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

So just to be clear did you get back the total amount of the charges that were levied after the price increase?

Yes I did.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Ok, so can I email credit reference agencies asking for the Default to be removed and say I have a Court order. Do I share judgment with them? I ask because I don't assume Lloyds will play ball.

In any event of an appeal, am I within my rights to ask for the data to be suppressed as a result of this order?

[EXC]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Ok, so can I email credit reference agencies asking for the Default to be removed and say I have a Court order. Do I share judgment with them? I ask because I don't assume Lloyds will play ball.

In any event of an appeal, am I within my rights to ask for the data to be suppressed as a result of this order?

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?

[righty]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case

Like most litigation, it could be challenged, but why would they! They've been found wanting by the court. If they don't now comply & remove the default their victim can again take them to court AND seek further damages