I have just decided to try and get all my charges back from The Royal Bank of Scotland. I am already claiming the standard 6 years, as usual Cobblers entered a last min defence! AQ sent to court so now i await a standard 50% offer before the full amount is paid.

So yesterday i sent rbos a Data Protection Act requesting all my statements from 1988 -2000,

I am hoping to use this below to win.

The Limitation Act 1980 says that claims in contract which relate to breaches more than 6 years old are barred from recovery because too long a time has passed.

However, s.32 (1) (b) of the Act says:-

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ...

The OFT by their investigation has announced that at least all charges more than £12.00 are unfair in that they are most unlikley to represent the true costs of a breach of the banking contract. Also the OFT has made it clear that this is their tolerable maximum before automativ intevention and that charges will normally be much less than this figure.

The OFT has based their conclusion upon evidence provided by the banks and by their own research.

Therfore we can reaonably conclude that the banks must have known this all along.

The banks have always refused to reveal their costs - even to a Treasury Select Committee and certainly to their customers. Most customers have received letters in which the banks have claimed that their charges have been fair and reasonable.

It seems quite reasonabe to infer that the banks must have concealed the information and therefore the cause of action and that this has been done deliberately.

Of course, the test is simple. If the bank agrees to go to court with you, then simply ask them at the hearing if they will say what their costs are. The Bank will probably refuse to do so.

This refusal alone would probably establish the deliberate concealment.

If this is the case then we can say that the 6 year limitation period starts on the day of the OFT statement.

If you would like to try and claim your charges as far back as you have ever paid them, you should try to do so.

However, do note that you will only be able to rely directly on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs.1999 if your bank contract was entered into post 1995

As long as they are less than £5000 you will be claiming on the Small Claims track.

If the figure rises to between £5000 and £15,000 your claim will go onto the Fast track. This will means a limited cost penalty but you may think that it is a worthwhile risk for a larger claim.

It is likely that the banks would argue strongly against the application of s,32 (1)(b) of the Act.

(thanks Bankfodder and Dave)

I would be most grateful if anyone has any pointers or help thank you.

any advice please?

Check out Seminoles post, it's in limitation act lets knock it on the head.

I am waiting for a defence from RBOS i'm claiming for charges betwen 1995 and 1998.

Good luck,

thanks paul.