• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

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

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

    Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
    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
    Principles are denoted with a 'G' (for Guidance) rather than an 'R' (for Rule) and in any case FSA principles are not actionable in a court of law by virtue of sec 150 (2) of FSMA I'm afraid.

    It was a feature of one of the main grounds in the BBA v FSA Judicial Review:

    7.The Claimant challenges the lawfulness of that Statement. The Policy Statement is said to be unlawful because it treats the Principles as giving rise to obligations owed by firms to customers, leading to compensation being payable for their breach, when those Principles are not actionable in law. The FSA says that the fact that breach of the Principles does not of itself give rise to a cause of action in court has no impact on their relevance as obligations, breach of which can lead to compensation [eg by FOS]

    71.I do not find the Claimant's submissions persuasive, preferring instead those of the FSA and FOS. The statutory provision being construed is s150. S150(1) deals with contraventions of rules by making them actionable as breaches of statutory duty. "Actionable" means giving rise to a cause of action in a court of law. S150(2) removes that actionability. S150(2) does nothing else. "Actionable" in s150(1) simply does not mean "capable of giving rise to obligations or compensation". So s150 does not apply to the Principles. It does not alter their function in any other way. It leaves intact any other function or effect which a non-actionable rule might have. The clear words of the section are wholly inapt to prevent rules which are not actionable giving rise to obligations as between firms and customers.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

      Ahh yes, it's been a while since I've read the BCOBS.

      The BCOBS in this claim appear to be being used as a back up to a s140b cca claim for unfairness as he asks the court to 'make it fair'.
      #staysafestayhome

      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

        Thanks EXC,
        I guess I can rely on my other arguments though.
        Its just that this glaring error will make me look a bit stupid, although it seems SCM haven't even picked up on it.
        They said at the start they'd be applying for a strike out, I wonder why they didn't?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

          Originally posted by orfoster View Post
          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.
          You were originally only really interested in getting your credit file sorted out though weren't you.

          Did they, after the ICO, amend the date of entry on your credit file to 2008 rather than 2010 ? If so it should be dropping off pretty soon?
          #staysafestayhome

          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

          Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

            Yeah that's really all I am interested in.
            They put it back to Sept 2009 which is still a year longer than what I think it should be.
            I guess I could call SCM and offer a settlement on that basis?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

              Hello all,

              Please see the ICO Email they sent me following me asking them based on a scenario when Lloyds should have defaulted me.

              Cheers
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                Fingers crossed but we may be getting this claim adjourned on the basis that the judge didn't feel an hour and a half would be enough time.
                Don't want to count my chickens yet though (where does that saying come from?!)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                  Have just remembered, when the judge ordered that I could make an amended statement of case in this claim he ordered that the Defendant pay my costs....obviously they've not paid me anything. So can I simply write to them asking for £45 for the application?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                    Hello everyone,

                    I sent SCM an offer of settlement 2 days ago, today I received the attached response back. "the bank would very much like to settle".

                    They're arguing of this "requirement".

                    I wrote to them advising them that their client failed to adhere to a s10 DPA notice to cease processing info.

                    Would the bank be breaking any rules if they removed all info on CRA?

                    Cheers
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                      Morning everybody, happy bank holiday weekend....

                      I've been thinking about SCuMs letter attached above and have decided to respond to it with this....

                      I could go into details and quote sections etc but I feel that's what the claims for.

                      What do people think of my draft reply?

                      Thank you for your letter dated 30 April 2014 in response to my offer for settlement.

                      I am pleased your client is very much interested to settle the claim, it is unfortunate that your client previously refused to enter into mediation when previously requested which could have resolved matters.

                      Your recent letter raises a number of issues which I will respectfully respond to these in turn.

                      DPA s10 Notice
                      As previously provided, a legal notice was served on your client in August 2013 which required that during ongoing proceedings that your client ceased processing my information with credit reference agencies, your client complied with this request between September 2013 and February 2014 and suppressed the full account from credit reference agency records, however, without reason in late February 2014 this information reappeared on my credit file, therefore your client failed to comply with my legal notice under s10 of the Data Protection Act.

                      Default accuracy
                      To be clear, I am in possession of all correspondence between your client and the ICO, the ICO have not at any point advised that your client registered the “default” correctly. In your clients response dated 11 September 2013 it is clear your client failed to understand the position of the ICO by stating “there is no further action to take.....has correctly registered a default when appropriate”. The ICO disagreed, the default was registered incorrectly and is the subject to this claim. I rely on a number of case law in support of my arguments, further that by registering the default when your client did it caused me to suffer detriment.

                      My claim is further supported by the fact your client has an obligation to treat me fairly and failed to do so during a time of financial hardship, during which time your client added substantially excessive charges to my account which caused a spiral of debt.

                      Further you will note the requirements your client is placed under in accordance with the Steering Committee on Reciprocity and duly is required to comply with the Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, there are a number of aspects of these requirements that your client has failed to adhere to.

                      However, in contrast, despite these breaches, your client accepted my payments made by my Debt Management Company and at no point advised me that these payments were unacceptable. I therefore believe I have acted responsibly and your client has breached a number of requirements.

                      Unless your client is prepared to enter into mediation in this matter with a view to settling I am not prepared to go into further details, which is all outlined in my witness statement and will be the subject to full hearing.

                      However, I repeat my offer of settlement that if your client agrees to fully remove all adverse information in this matter and bare their own costs I will agree to withdraw the claim.

                      I believe that the above terms are favourable and therefore I look forward to a response within 14 days.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                        It seems ok to me but I'm no expert.

                        Anyone?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                          URGENT

                          Hello everyone,
                          My re-scheduled hearing is on 23rd June, in order to have a good chance I need to get hold of current account Terms & Conditions between January 2006 to present for Lloyds TSB. Also need before that point?

                          I'd be really grateful if anyone could post any up that could help?

                          Cheers

                          O

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                            The Waybackmachine looks promising for that period.....

                            http://web.archive.org/web/200604090...t_accounts.asp
                            "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

                            I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

                            If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                            If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                              Originally posted by Celestine View Post
                              The Waybackmachine looks promising for that period.....

                              http://web.archive.org/web/200604090...t_accounts.asp
                              Thanks
                              I'm on the case.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: VIP - Orfoster v Lloyds Bank Charges in Hardship BCOBS case - court 28/1

                                Good Luck in Court today Orfoster!

                                2 hearings at Taunton CC today. One on bank charges, the other on credit card charges. Tom Brennan is representing Orfoster in both :tinysmile_grin_t:
                                "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

                                I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

                                If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                                If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X