WON !!!! - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship case - court 28/1 - WON !!!!!

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

No need to apologize. CAG have done a comprehensive job in misleading people over the application of BCOBs, which is in fact very limited in its scope and only applies to deposit taking activities.

Going by their witness statement Lloyds haven't looked at your POC yet.

Bit stupid of me though....I imagine its too late to do anything about it now. It does also relate to Unfair Relationship but on looking at the OFT website I couldn't find many cases at all that support it, only DPA to save me?

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

For backup reference this is the original CAG thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...rt-under-BCOBS


Default on Credit File (which is what the original complaint was about) Edited Lloyds TSB Default.pdf


Orforster had the positive response from the ICO following a complaint which agreed the credit file markers were unfair (http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...0&d=1393017615)


Original LBA

Dear Sirs,
With reference to the above complaint.

I now believe these issues are so serious that I am advising you that if I do not receive a satisfactory response
to my complaint within 14 days I will commence court proceedings without further notice.

It is therefore important that you bring this letter to the attention of the relevant department as soon as possible.

I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Unlawful processing of information
You will be aware that I have entered into a payment arrangement and currently use a debt managementicon Company
to make regular monthly payments on my account.

I have not at any time received information to indicate that this arrangement is not acceptable,
in fact, to date this arrangement is showing as “acceptable” on my DMP’s system.

Despite the above, on obtaining a recent credit report I notice that Lloyds TSB are continually filing
“default markers” with Call Credit each month and have done so repeatedly since December 2010.

My complaints dated 19 April 2013 and 29 April 2013 and 25 May 2013 have not been responded to.

In addition,
I advised the bank on 20 July 2008 that I required it to cease processing my information,
the bank failed to respond to my request despite making reference to it in a letter dated 31 July 2008,
you are required to respond to my request and didn’t.

I made this request because I believed that the bank were likely to process my information in a way
which would cause me damage and distressicon, no response was provided.

I believe that this is an unfair relationship between us in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 2006
as you have continued to exercise your right without investigating my complaints.

I therefore believe that the bank are in direct breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Information Commissioners’ Technical Guidance
You will be aware that in August 2007 the Information Commissioner released Technical Guidance for Organisations
on Filing Defaults with Credit Reference Agencies “ICO Guidance” a link to this guidance can be found at http://goo.gl/91s0o.

This guidance clearly sets out the ICO expectations of Organisations when filing default notices
which is helpful in our current dispute.

My account
1. ICO Guidance states (17) “Lenders should not file a default where there is a genuine and agreed variation in the payment schedule” I have had a payment arrangement in place since April 2009 – at no time has the bank advised me that this arrangement is unacceptable, as such I regard this as a genuine and agreed variation in the payment schedule.

2. ICO Guidance states (17) “In all cases it is important that lenders and debt advisers explain to borrowers how their credit reference files will reflect the changed situation. This is necessary to avoid misunderstandings and disputes about what a customer has agreed to and what will be reported to a credit reference agency as a result of variations in payment schedules”. At no time has Lloyds TSB or its external agents advised me that my arrangement will impact on my Credit File as though no payment was being made.

3. ICO Guidance states (19) “Where a rescheduling of this type breaks down, a default may be filed when the total value of the arrears is equivalent to three monthly payments under the original terms. However, this should not result in the customer being placed in a worse position than someone who has made no effort to pay whatsoever.” Despite the fact that our arrangement has not broken down, Lloyds TSB have put me in a worse position than someone who has made no effort to pay whatsoever.

4. ICO Guidance (22) clarifies the position relating to customers who enter into debt managementicon Plans. I note that despite my effort to pay there is no reflection of this on my Credit Report.
Resolution sought
I believe that the action of Lloyds TSB and its external agents has seriously damaged my financial reputation, I therefore require the following;
1. Full removal of information supplied to Credit Reference Agencies in relation to this account.
2. £1000 in compensation due to the damage caused to my financial reputation.

I must make you aware that the settlement figure above is an offer which will be withdrawn on taking court action, I believe that my losses and compensation level for damages is substantially higher than the offer given above, I will also seek to recover reasonable costs against the bank.

In closing, I would draw your attention to section II (4) of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.

I require that you acknowledge receipt of this letter within 14 days and where possible provide a full response within 28 days.

Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame, then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you.

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

I wrote to them in December to see if they'd consider mediation because in the judges order he suggested we should try. They wanted my amended POC's which includes more detail around DPA and default and they wrote back saying no they wouldn't because the claim was bank charges related.

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Orforster had the positive response from the ICO following a complaint which agreed the credit file markers were unfair (awaiting a copy)

Copy of the outcome at #6 there is also a supplementary email from ICO which clarified the outcome which went in with my bundle.

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Just spotted it and added it to my post thankyou xx

Just to back up EXC's point on the BCOBS issue http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...4th-april-2013

Have you seen any that have gone through court on BCOBS for charges?

Also just because I'm half asleep - are the underliney bits on your POC the bits you added when you amended it ?

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Main issues in POC

CCA s.140b - unfairness

s13 Data Protection Act

s14 of the Data Protection Act



Answer from SCM to the DPA claims

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Just spotted it and added it to my post thankyou xx

Just to back up EXC's point on the BCOBS issue http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...4th-april-2013

Have you seen any that have gone through court on BCOBS for charges?

Also just because I'm half asleep - are the underliney bits on your POC the bits you added when you amended it ?

just reading thread now. Seems on first glance I could have possibly brought BCOBS DPA together on the basis of unfair treatment in relation to when they put the default on.

Yes the underlining is amended sections of POC's. It's Saturday evening, it's allowed

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

The BCOB is only mentioned here;

1. The defendant is a firm regulated by the FCA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 (as amended), the claim is brought pursuant to Financial Services Act 2012 s138D and as such the defendant is subject to the Banking Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1) and also s.140a Unfair Relationships Consumer Credit Act 2006 amendments.

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

just reading thread now. Seems on first glance I could have possibly brought BCOBS DPA together on the basis of unfair treatment in relation to when they put the default on.

Yes the underlining is amended sections of POC's. It's Saturday evening, it's allowed

Okay so your original POC didn't have anything about the credit file issue despite that being your initial complaint and primary focus of your LBA ?

(just checking)

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Sorry am not at home but think it's also referenced (possibly better) in my witness statement in that I allege they didn't respond to complaints is breach of BCOBS and that possibly (could be dreaming) that I said DPA error is BCOBS issue.

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

Okay so your original POC didn't have anything about the credit file issue despite that being your initial complaint and primary focus of your LBA ?

(just checking)

It did reference it but was advised to leave it out and keep it simple. Not to elaborate on things in the POC but to leave that to witness statement. I think it was mentioned in POCs but I wasn't happy that I'd put enough in.

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

I think maybe 5.1.4 would have been a better bet than 5.1.1

BCOBS 5.1.4

Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

That leads better onto s140a

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

I think maybe 5.1.4 would have been a better bet than 5.1.1

BCOBS 5.1.4

Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

That leads better onto s140a

Too late to do anything now?

[Amethyst]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

mmmmm, chat with Tom if you get chance after the hearing on Monday - this is kinda his favourite subject xx

[orfoster]

Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

mmmmm, chat with Tom if you get chance after the hearing on Monday - this is kinda his favourite subject xx

Will do - of course wasn't gonna try and steal his time anyway
Never know what might happen on Monday they may offer a settlement...I'd be prepared to settle (this claim) for a small settlement if they removed adverse data worth a try.