In this section

Miscellaneous summary

Banker of the week/year

Banker of the week

This page is used to highlight a particularly notable villainous act by a bank or building society and which deserves to be publicised. Each week, we will try and bring you a new example of villainy. Please email me with anything that you particularly think would merit inclusion on this page.

Then, at the end of 2007, we will put all the examples to the public to vote on who are the biggest bankers of the year.

For a full listing of bankers of the week, see previous winners.

Eighth villain of 2007: Lloyds TSB

This time it was a barrister acting for Lloyds TSB who really took the biscuit. In early October, several applications for lifting of stays were being heard at Truro County Court. One of the cases involved a man from North Devon who had filed a claim against Lloyds TSB. Lloyds failed to file a defence even when they received a notice from the court telling them to do so or judgment might be entered against them. They failed to meet the deadline for filing the defence. The claimant applied to Barnstaple Court for judgment in early August. Judgment should have been entered straight away, but, for reasons that are not clear, the court did not do so and then the general stay on all cases was applied including on this claim. The claimant applied to have the stay lifted. The claimant turned up at Truro County Court. He waited in the cafe prior to the hearing.

A young barrister turned up, introduced himself to the claimant, and then admitted to the claimant that he had not actually got any papers for this case, and asked the claimant if he could let him have a look at his papers! Needless to say, the claimant told him in fairly brief sentences that he would not be helping him!

It is amazing how for 3 years, the banks have all avoided ever going near a court for a full hearing of a case but when it comes to a hearing about whether or not a stay should be lifted, the bank will go to the expense of sending a barrister to fight against the stay. But their enthusiasm for going to court is not matched by an ability to brief their barrister!

The barrister's total incompetence did not help his client, although he received no criticism from the judge; but at least the claimant got his judgment entered for his claim.

Published and promoted by Bob Egerton, TR2 4RS