Lloyds response letter

[ed.]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Exc is right, PIL no language.

Allowing the Bank to waive the breach is the CCA, it's under the CCA's authority they can grant a service but the service is the remedy for the breach and whilst pens may not apply in those circumstances (because the breach has been remedied) they cannot charge a compensation either (penalty) because their very action remedied the breach.

All the customer is liable for is the interest.

Re Tom, we are back to previous chats about ''good faith'' allowing changes in interest rates etc but the bulk of the contract cannot be altered without the term OR the consumers permission.

However no contract, no imbalance.....the very failure of a contract is the imbalance in that case Ame because otherwise how can the consumer give the appropriate consideration to what he's agreeing to. No contract gives them unfairly the ability to do and say anything they damn well choose without the customer being able to complain.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

okay - so the emphasis on the Lloyds POC needs to be different to the others.

I can't find the voller judgment to confirm that the judge stated interest And charges, or just interest, as I assume that is quite important.

I take your point the bank can pretty much do what they like if there is no contract or only an implied one. scary really.

Buds been working on the lloyds POC from my bare bones on megansdens thread - when he gets the draft posted up will you take a look over it as well pls. It won't be ready to go until after the 4th but we need to get as much done on it before then as possible, and it need submitting by the 10th. I just having trouble putting all the ideas and knowledge into a legal document which can be argued in court by the layman.

[ed.]

Re: Lloyds response letter

As commented elsewhere the more I read that snippet from Voller the more I think even back then the CCA wasn't referenced which boggles me, as it's the primary legislation bank accounts and overdrafts run under in reality.

Questions are out for Voller as well Ame, will let you know when it's found lol

Yup, just give me a shout and I'll close the world off for an hour and go through it, in some cases now it might be worth making the POC's a little more 'argumentative' than we have done previously just so the main arguments are there on paper. Tap into that bit of leeway we are supposed to get as LIP's. lol

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

I'm inclined to agree there, I saw a letter today someone had written that wasn't spot on legally but it had the passion and the unfairness of the situation really shone through, was an effort to stop myself correcting him but I honestly think he has more chance with the not quite correct but well argued umm arguments than with a cold perfectly formed POC.

[ed.]

Re: Lloyds response letter

I think it's going to have to be a nice mix now. Legally spot on for the basis BUT slightly more subjective so the thrust of passion, annoyance etc comes through - without it being over the top and sounding as a rant with no legal substance behind it.

If the secret is now the unfairness elements then a sense of frustration can only help that come across, if it's too cold and removed (professional) it'll look too much like a template again.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Some important bits from Judgments with regards this letter

If the contract between Lloyds TSB and its customers is assumed to incorporate a right for the Bank to levy charges as set out in the leaflets, then I would accept the submission that Relevant Charges were not imposed upon breach of the Lloyds TSB 2007 card conditions: the position would be like that discussed in paras 308 to 312 of the April judgment in relation to condition 12.1 of Barclays’ Card conditions. However, because at the relevant time the contracts between Lloyds TSB and its customers were not incorporated in written form, I am not at present persuaded that I should make a declaration in general terms on the assumption that the contracts between the Bank and its current account customers provided that the Bank was entitled to levy all the charges set out in the Bank’s leaflets. Moreover, before making a declaration in these circumstances I should wish to hear submissions about the decision of Mr Justice Morgan in The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Limited, [2008] EWHC 1662 (Ch), which was decided after the hearing before me. I shall therefore invite further submissions from the OFT and Lloyds TSB.
RBSG

11. I have been assisted by further written submissions from Mr. Bankim Thanki QC on behalf of Lloyds TSB and from Mr. Jonathan Crow QC representing the OFT. They persuade me that, given the nature of this litigation and the purpose to provide guidance that might assist the disposal of claims made by individual customers against the Banks, I should make a declaration in terms that make it clear that it does not prejudice the position of any individual customer who wishes to raise an additional question as to the terms incorporated into his contract with Lloyds TSB. As Mr. Thanki recognised, the determination of a question of this kind would require what he called “a fact-sensitive and customer-specific enquiry”. This in itself is not a reason to refuse a declaration: see the judgment in the Foxtons Limited case (loc cit) at para 64. Indeed, the customers of other Banks who generally had written terms with their current account customers might properly raise a question of incorporation of terms in relation to the particular circumstances of their case. In the end it is a question of degree: Lloyds TSB customers might have more scope to raise a question of this kind. But I have concluded that I should nevertheless give Lloyds TSB declaratory relief.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/Bank-charge-judgment.pdf
Para 96, 240 and Para 445 [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm) -

96 Apart from Lloyds TSB, the evidence is that the Banks had comparable provisions in their previous terms, and it seems likely that they introduced the present terms into their contracts with existing customers by exercising that contractual power. However, the evidence about that is not entirely satisfactory, my decision does not depend upon this question and I make no finding about it. As far as Lloyds TSB is concerned, there is (perhaps understandably in view of the issues raised in the pleadings) no evidence before me whether it had any contractual power to introduce changes to its contracts with its existing customers.

240. In December 1995 Lloyds Bank plc merged with the TSB Group plc under a Scheme
of Arrangement, and Lloyds TSB plc was established. Before November 2007
Lloyds TSB had not had full written terms, although it had leaflets about its interest
rates and charges and some express terms in documents specific to the particular
account or product that the customer chose. Lloyds TSB’s current Personal Banking
Terms and Conditions, published in a booklet called “Your banking relationship with
us”, came into effect on 2 November 2007. The booklet states that it contains general
conditions that apply to personal bank accounts and some related services, and that,
while most of the conditions already applied to accounts, the Bank had updated and
clarified some conditions and changed others. The agreement between Lloyds TSB
and the customer is stated to be made up of the general conditions in the booklet and
“additional conditions”, which state the interest rates and charges and include other
terms that apply to a specific service or account and which will be given to the
customer separately. Lloyds TSB says that it does provide the additional conditions
to customers, for example by letter or in leaflets and the bank charges guide.


255. I conclude that Lloyds TSB’s terms are in plain intelligible language. (based on November 2007 terms)

[dildobaggins]

Re: Lloyds response letter

so whats the course of action then with Lloyds?
i know someone who put in a claim with Lloyds to get over £6000 back and they are waiting for templates on what to use.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

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:

did you get the same letter as above?
or something different?

I'm waiting for any HSBC responses.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

It really depends what the court order is, what the bank have said and his personal situation.

We need to know peoples individual position before we can advise.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lloyds response letter

Legal Beagles
lloyds bank v Voller case
Thanks to TC


Yeyyy

12. There is no documentation relating to the terms on which the personal account was opened. The reason for this, as
explained by Mr Brian Johnson (a manager in its debt management group) in his oral evidence to the judge was that Mr
Voller was not a customer who had come in off the street in order to open an account. He was well known to the bank
through March Group plc and he had given the bank a guarantee in relation to March Group plc's account with the bank.

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.