Thread: Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

There may be a way to overcome the 6 year limitation period for the recovery of excessive penalty charges.

If you have been the victim of these charges going back more than 6 years then please make a short post on this thread giving

• details of how far back
• likely total of all charges from the beginning until now
• total of charges in the pre-6 year period (from mid 1999 - is that 6 yrs???)
• which bank

Similar Threads:

• About to claim back charges over 6 years
• Years of charges to claim back
• Going Back 6 years in charges
• I WANT ALL CHARGES BACK!!! more than 6 years
• Will My Overdraft Be Cancelled & Ask For Charges back for last 20 years

I suggest that people get the statements and work it out accrautely. DPA request if necessary. Also I need to know how much they were charging then because it won't have been at today's levels.

Don't forget that it is just experimental.
Also - Bovvered, you haven't said what your figure between 2000 and now is.

If I don't have statements, can the DPA be stretched further than 6 years?

Originally Posted by adamruston

If I don't have statements, can the DPA be stretched further than 6 years?

This is also a question I would ask. I actually had ALL statements going back to 1982...but when I moved house 7 months ago, and took up 'online' statements, I threw them all away!!! God, how could I have been so shortsighted...

Me too - and I had a lot and lot of charges pre 2000!

Yes, the DPA appies to any data which is held in a form which is contemplated by the Act.

I suggest that you make the DPA request asking for a complete DPA disclosure. At the same time go to the IC's website and start understanding the DPA.

Also go to the limitation act 1980 which linked in the statute library. have a brief look through the Act and pay special attention to s.32 (1)(b)

Thanks BF - have read the act, although it does state that some of it may well be either repealed or out of date. I have spent a lot of time on the IC site over the last few weeks, and whilst not claiming to be an expert, I have a much better understanding of the issues than I once did.

I suppose the thing to do is make a DPA request to the bank for the last 24 years, and see what they come up with. I have already requested my initial contract in this way, but am still awaiting a response on this...

Will keep you posted on any developments as they arise (in my own thread) and in this one when relevant.

My charges go back to the early 90's I reckon.

I shudder to think how much in total but probably twice as much before 2000 as after.

My after 2000 stuff is Abbey, cap one and barclaycard.
My before 2000 stuff is abbey, barclaycard (2 cards), M&S store card, HFC bank.

Companies are only obliged to keep information for certain lengths of time. Thus there are customer files in my banks storage marked with "destroy November 2006", "destroy January 2011" etc etc. I am not sure how statements work but certainly (with RBS anyway) they do not all appear to be on computer. We can only see back a year I'm not sure how far back the main computers / microfiches go.

I'd be looking at about 1999 backwards - but I'm also concerned about how far back they legally have to keep the data. If they only have a 6 year legal requirement, I can't see them bending over backwards to give us data that they don't really need to - especially as they know we are going to use it against them. I'd imagine the shredders are on red alert as you read this.
Alsa, my only statements are all showing me in the black apart from a solitary £15 charge. Wish I'd kept everything, which I normally do, but can't find any other statements.

Originally Posted by Dammam

If they only have a 6 year legal requirement, I can't see them bending over backwards to give us data that they don't really need to - especially as they know we are going to use it against them. I'd imagine the shredders are on red alert as you read this.

This is the position I hope they maintain - as I have requested that they send me a copy of my original contract (that they are so keen on making reference to...) This information will be in a box marked "25 years ago" and therefore I don't think that they will be able to deliver...

I would recommend that you don't mention the idea. Just get your statements, make your clam and see what happens.

Let me know when your claim is underway - and I am especiually interested to know in what way they refer to the 6 years and at what point.

I have added this to the FAQ:-

If you are going to try this then probably the best approach is to treat it as a normal claim.

Get your statements, calculate your charges.

Send a preliminary letter then an lba.

It is strongly suggested that you don not refer to any aspect of the limitation period in your correspondence.
if you are asked why you want statements so far back the the approach is that it is none of their business
You are not obliged to refer to the limitation act even in your claim.

It is for the other side to raise the matter in their defence or in court. Even if it gets to court without the other side raising the matter, the judge has no duty to strike out the claim unless the matter is raised by the defence and you are not able to provide any argument to justify your position.

Don't however, think that they are not going to spot it. They will. But wait for them to bring it up.

Reading the FAQ I am not quite sure what you are suggesting, so would be grateful for clarification.

Is it that you can make your claim for charges past the six year limit, and wait for the bank to raise the limitation statute. At that point, and ONLY at that point, you need to defend your extended claim, and that your defence is the issue of withheld information as highlighted in s.32 (1) (b) of the Act?

If so, how could I argue that the bank has DELIBERATELY withheld the information if they do send me my statements? And if they don't send the statements, I would not be in a position to calculate the refund due anyway...this FAQ and associated arguments is not clear to me at the moment.

Thanks.

By the way, I should point out that in a pre-6 year claim, you would only be able to rely directly on the UTCCR 1999 if you entered into your banking contract after 1995.

If so, how could I argue that the bank has DELIBERATELY withheld the information if they do send me my statements? And if they don't send the statements, I would not be in a position to calculate the refund due anyway...this FAQ and associated arguments is not clear to me at the moment

The argument is that what is being concealed by the bank is the fact that their charges are much more than their actual costs. The banks say that they charges are fair and reasonable and yet the OFT statement has made it clear that this is almost certainly not true.

None of us have ever had access to the kind of evidence which has been available to the OFT so even excercising reasonable diligence we could not have been expected to discover that these facts had been concealed from us.
By pretending that their penalties were being levied in line with UK law the banks are concealing the fact that they are not lawful and that they make profits about them - which is contrary to UK law.

Of course, no one can predict the outcome of a claim on this basis. It needs to be tried.
It is a matter for the Small Claims track.
It could be moved away from the Small Claims track if the bank lost the limitation issue and decided to appeal - but of course, at that point a litigant could withdraw from the case and it would not suffer the costs penalty.

But at least in that case the principle would have been established and people could bring claims even if ultimately the bank went on to threaten an appeal on the limitation issue. Is the bank really going to go and threaten an appeal in every claim made against it?
Ultimately they would have to try and get a declaration. Very risky for the bank if the failed.

The issue of concealment goes further. If the bank has a fiduciary duty towards you, this means that it is obliged not to mislead you and must protect your interests when make statements to you about its charges. This is because the bank knows that you trust it and rely on its advice and its integrity.
It seems to me that by misleading you as to the fairness of its charges and also that its charges reflect actual losses, that it may be in breach of fiduciary duty.

This all needs to be tested in the courts of course.