Lloyds response letter

[Amethyst]

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

An idea of their counter to the no T&C's pre nov 07 arguments. Funny how they have written - ''I assume you also wanted to know''


Letter from this thread Templates letters are now live on PCF

[EXC]

Re: Lloyds response letter

This must be a PIL issue mustn't it?

How could the average consumer possibly know implied common law, established banking law & practice and some Court of Appeal judgment from 2000?

It also seems to be a classic example of Crow's 'lack of informed consent' argument.

But as Smiffy said ''A contractual term cannot be in plain intelligible language if it is in no language at all''.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Lloyds Bank v Voller [2000] 2 AER (Comm) 978

The Court looked to an earlier Court of Appeal decision
(Lloyds Bank plc v. Voller 2002) where it was held that,
in the absence of express agreement, a customer who
drew a cheque on his account which caused the account
to go into overdraft had, by implication, requested the
bank to grant an overdraft of that amount on its usual
terms as to interest.
One of the Court of Appeal judges found that "a
customer who seeks and obtains an overdraft facility can
be taken to have agreed those standard terms unless a
different agreement is made or unless the term so
implied is extortionate or contrary to all approved
banking practice".


not general knowledge really is it lol. so Yes I agree with you on PIL. I assume Lloyds tho will use Voller to counter the no T&C's argument tho.


Additionally on that point Bank Charges - WhatDoTheyKnow might be of interest

If there is no written contract, or the written contract is silent on the question of bank charges, leading banking law texts state that the custom and usage of bankers permits a bank to levy charges.

[Smasher]

Re: Lloyds response letter

If I'm reading that right, they are at least admitting that charges up until Nov 2007 were additional services rather than part of the core terms of the account and backing it up with that case from 2000..

Anyone know what that case was?

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter



Lloyds Bank v Voller [2000] 2 AER (Comm) 978

The Court looked to an earlier Court of Appeal decision
(Lloyds Bank plc v. Voller 2002) where it was held that,
in the absence of express agreement, a customer who
drew a cheque on his account which caused the account
to go into overdraft had, by implication, requested the
bank to grant an overdraft of that amount on its usual
terms as to interest.
One of the Court of Appeal judges found that "a
customer who seeks and obtains an overdraft facility can
be taken to have agreed those standard terms unless a
different agreement is made or unless the term so
implied is extortionate or contrary to all approved
banking practice".

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

The 'additional services' bit is the monthly account fee, rather than the transaction charges i think ?

[Smasher]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Lloyds Bank v Voller [2000] 2 AER (Comm) 978

The Court looked to an earlier Court of Appeal decision
(Lloyds Bank plc v. Voller 2002) where it was held that,
in the absence of express agreement, a customer who
drew a cheque on his account which caused the account
to go into overdraft had, by implication, requested the
bank to grant an overdraft of that amount on its usual
terms as to interest.
One of the Court of Appeal judges found that "a
customer who seeks and obtains an overdraft facility can
be taken to have agreed those standard terms unless a
different agreement is made or unless the term so
implied is extortionate or contrary to all approved
banking practice".

Duh lol

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

lol s'ok i edited it in

not sure what letter he sent in to get that response but will find out.

[dildobaggins]

Re: Lloyds response letter

is that from Penalty Charges?
if so, then I think they used the PC templates.

It must be this one.

Letter Before Action (open Account)


[Your Address]


[Your Banks Address]


[Date]

Letter Before Action


Dear Sirs

[Your Account Number/Details]

Due to the extensive media coverage on bank charges I am now aware that you, { Banks name} have been levying charges on my account that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Regulation 5(1)of the said Regulations states the following:

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

It has been accepted that the said contract was not individually negotiated and that there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations. What is more, it is very evident from the recent Supreme Court Judgment on bank charges that you have acted contrary to the requirements of good faith. This is due to the fact that the Judgment indicated that the majority of consumers hit with charges are paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of the entire banking system. Quite simply, there is a massive cross-subsidy from those who pay unfair and unlawful charges to other bank customers. At no point was this information disclosed or was I given the opportunity to opt-out or object.

Should your opinion be that your terms are fair, then I reminded you that the burden of proof is on you, as the supplier, to prove that the terms are fair.

Finally, I draw to your attention the recent decision in Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi (Case C-243/08) were it was held that a nationals’ court on its own motion must determine whether the contract before it contains unfair terms.

I therefore require you to refund me a total of ŁX,XXX.XX, representing the total of unlawful charges deducted from my account during the last 8 years and I hereby give you 14 days to refund the charges back on to my account. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done within 14 days I will commence my claim in the court without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in paying additional costs such as solicitor’s fees and reimbursement of my court fees.

I further request a copy of the original contract that I signed with [Bank Name] and a copy of the terms and conditions that we received at that time along with any subsequent amendments to these terms and conditions until they reflect your current terms and conditions. Also I request a detailed explanation of which clause in the Terms and Conditions that each charge had been applied against.

Yours sincerely


XXXXX

Interesting to see the response from the PC templates. What does mean exactly in terms of the banks argument now then?

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Thank you dildo (errrm maybe i'll shorten you to baggins actually next time lol)

I think its interesting they have referred to the pre 2007 lack of terms without him mentioning it at all in his letter. Does that mean they are concerned about it ?

The implied terms they speak of allow them to impose charges and interest alledgedly. The argument Tom had a while back was that there was no term, implied or otherwise, that the bank could unilaterally impose new terms and conditions. It is an argument that needs embellishing.

Lloyds also possibly could have a point that as there were no 'contracts' pre 2007 theres no contract for the court to look at regarding any imbalance argument ?

Can UTCCR apply to implied terms ?

Also no terms screws up the CCA 140 argument doesnt it ?

Lloyds have to be treated differently to the others, we have to take their charges lists and letters as forming the contract and use those to argue the imbalance.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

building society association respone to PCA -



18. In Lloyds Bank v Voller [2000] 2 AER (Comm) 978, Wall J in the Court of Appeal stated (at paragraph 16) –

“If a current account is opened by a customer with a bank with no express agreement as to what the overdraft facility should be, then, in circumstances where the customer draws a cheque on the account which causes the account to go into overdraft, the customer, by necessary implication, requests the bank to grant the customer an overdraft of the necessary amount, on its usual terms as to interest and other charges.”

19. It has been suggested (New Law Journal: 20 April 2007), following from this Judgement, that a bank could argue, even if the customer had breached the contract by maintaining insufficient funds, that there had been a variation of the existing contract, subject to the bank’s usual terms covering, for example, interest and charges. It could be argued that the bank had waived the breach, that the existing contract had been varied, and that the penalties rule was, therefore, inapplicable.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

I can't find the damn judgment in full - anyone on lexis ?
Lloyds Bank Plc v Voller - [2000] All ER (D) 1465


smiths Judgment in April 08

Paget’s Law of Banking 13th Ed (2007) para 7.1
explains the position thus:
“[The relationship of banker to customer] consists of a general
contract, which is basic to all transactions, together with special
contracts which arise only as they are brought into being in
relation to specific transactions or banking services. The
essential distinction is between obligations which come into
existence upon the creation of the banker-customer relationship
and obligations which are subsequently assumed by specific
agreement; or, from the standpoint of the customer, between
services which a bank is obliged to provide if asked, and
services which many bankers habitually do, but are not bound
to, provide.”
See too Lloyds Bank plc v Voller, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 978.

[dildobaggins]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Thank you dildo (errrm maybe i'll shorten you to baggins actually next time lol)

I think its interesting they have referred to the pre 2007 lack of terms without him mentioning it at all in his letter. Does that mean they are concerned about it ?

The implied terms they speak of allow them to impose charges and interest alledgedly. The argument Tom had a while back was that there was no term, implied or otherwise, that the bank could unilaterally impose new terms and conditions. It is an argument that needs embellishing.

Lloyds also possibly could have a point that as there were no 'contracts' pre 2007 theres no contract for the court to look at regarding any imbalance argument ?

Can UTCCR apply to implied terms ?

Also no terms screws up the CCA 140 argument doesnt it ?

Lloyds have to be treated differently to the others, we have to take their charges lists and letters as forming the contract and use those to argue the imbalance.

I don't believe that the banks can suddenly create new Terms and Conditions "on the fly" when they please. Thats blatantly outrageous!

[thincat]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Hi,
I'm keeping an eye on this thread with interest because I put in a claim for Overdraft Charges refund with Lloyds. They basically rejected the claim but I've got till 17th feb to
reply after which they'll assume I've called "uncle". BTW got a real laugh from MR Baggins's
name(ROFLMAO!!!). Totally cool! With all the crap flying around from these B****tds it's
good to have a laugh from time to time. Thanks.

Thincat.:bounce: