Browse Sections
Interactive
Popular Sections
Competition
Win Cirque Du Soleil tickets
We have five pairs of tickets to give away to see the stunning Cirque Du Soleil production Quidam at the MEN Arena on March 26 (matinee performance).Click here for details
ClearNews
| 
Submit Comments
WINNER: Mr Mullen at the bank.
Bank pays out £2,000 in fee row
Seb Ramsey16/ 3/2006
A BANK which was facing the bailiffs after a customer won a court ruling over their bank charges has paid him almost '2,000.
As revealed in the Manchester Evening News yesterday, 29-year-old accountant Brian Mullen won a county court judgment against Lloyds TSB.
They had failed to defend his claim that fees incurred for bounced cheques, direct debits and standing orders were unlawful.
When the bank failed to pay the bill, Mr Mullen was granted a warrant of execution, giving bailiffs the power to seize the bank's assets.
But now it has emerged that Lloyds TSB have agreed to settle the bill of nearly '2,000 with accountant Brian Mullen.
Bank officials claim the - mostly '30 - levies were legal, but say Mr Mullen's claim slipped through so it has paid up.
Mr Mullen said this was all he wanted and he praised the M.E.N.
He said: "I'm relieved because although I knew I was in a strong position I couldn't get hold of anyone to tell me what was happening.
"I'd encourage other people to do the same because, although the bank says it could have defended my claim, in terms of contract law there's no defence for these penalty charges.
'Fantastic'
"It's fantastic the M.E.N. has been involved and given this so much publicity. I'm going to pay this overdraft off now and close the account."
The bank's move could trigger a flood of claims from other customers wanting to challenge the judgment.
A spokesman for Lloyds TSB said : "In the normal course of action we would, and do, deal with any queries as and when they arise.
"Unfortunately, Mr Mullen's claim wasn't picked up as it should have been and as a result he obtained a default judgment against us. The default judgemnt isn't a court judgment on the merits of the case, it simply means we did not file a defence in time.
"We do have a right to challenge the default judgment but are not going to do so. Instead, we have paid Mr Mullen the monies he believes are owed to him.
"We believe our charges are transparent and fair and to say these charges are unlawful is inaccurate.
"We make it clear to our current account customers that if they exceed their overdraft limit, requiring the bank to provide a new limit on their account, the bank will charge for this service as it involves an administrative process which has costs associated with it.
"Similarly, when we return an item, we are preventing a customer from exceeding their overdraft, and again, as we explain clearly to our customers, this process incurs a charge."
Most recent 2 of 8 user comments
16/03/2006 at 16:13
Sign up to the weekly
news
update
Do stores make it too easy to get credit?
16/03/2006 at 16:43
Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.