Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Hi All, Thought I would start a thread because I'm getting twitchy now. A&L are defending partly on the basis of a silly mistake of mine , or maybe I haven't taken them far enough(?). They're challenging on the basis of The Limitation Act 1980 section 32(1) in that I claimed for very slightly more than the 6 years. I have read a number of cases where people are claiming beyond 6 yrs citing this as the reason:
The Limitation Act 1980 section 32(1) states that:
.... 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
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
Has anyone else had a similar experience because I could really do with some friendly advice. Many thanks! Dave
they are doing the same to me - but so far haven't had the papers from the court - there is a lot of advice on here on how to do it, will get together all the shortcuts later and post them here for you.
Hi tealady51, Phew! Many thanks for your post. While I don't envy you your position I'm so pleased that someone has had the experience. Many thanks for your help. Dave vbmenu_register("postmenu _653962", true);
Basically this is a game of chicken between you and the bank. Just don't blink first.
If this got to court the bank would have to argue that those charges you claimed that are more than 6 years old are time-barred by the Limitation Act. You'd argue that they weren't. The judge would decide on the evidence both sides presented about those charges only.
It shouldn't affect the rest of the claim as what you're doing in effect is saying to the court that the bank took x charges from me and that each charge was unlawful so please decide about each charge, so even if the older charges were ruled out the newer ones wouldn't be.
In terms of practical advice - don't do anything. For them to get anywhere with this it needs to be dealt with in court, which is the last place they want to be. You could possibly raise the s.32 issue on your allocation questionnaire if you wanted to, but no need to go any further than that.
Before I get into this I just want to say a BIG THANKS to all the guys in this forum, without this help and encouragement I would have very likely fallen at the first hurdle. I nearly did when the cq fell on the mat but having consulted the CAG 'Oracle' I have re-energised to take the further steps needed. Thanks again ALL.
16/3 - Copy of defence from A&L. They challenge the charges beyond 6 years. I haven't 'shown my hand' yet wrt Limitation Act 1980 Section 32.
Hi, this is what i responded to their defence with if it helps...
Dear J McGuirk.
Thank you for your letter of the 14th March 2007.
With reference to the charges made to my account, I would be grateful if you would request from the Defendants a full Breakdown to include any work or actions carried out by them, and any costs incurred which resulted in their having to make such charges to my account.
Where they are reluctant or unable to provide this information, please request details of the charging rate they referenced when they applied these charges.
I do not believe that the charges made to my account represent a true reflection of the actual costs incurred by the Defendants and therefore represent unlawful penalties, which are irrecoverable at Common Law. I would request the repayment of all charges made plus interest at the statutory rate of 8% from the time the charges were made.
I refer you to S32(1)(b) and (c) of the limitation act 1980.
S32(1)(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant;
or
(c) 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. References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.
On April 6th 2006, the Office of Fair Trading made a statement outlining what they considered was the maximum amount of costs incurred by the Banks when making such charges.
As a result of media coverage given to several actions made for the recovery of what are now regarded as penalties, I discovered that I had been wronged. The Limitation period therefore runs for six years from the date of discovery, which was after the statement made by the Office of Fair Trading.
The Defendants have failed or refused to provide information requested of them, and I would be grateful if this information could now be requested under disclosure rules.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Barton.
If this has helped in any way please click on the scales..
Dave (DKM130956) vs A&L
, or maybe I haven't taken them far enough(?). They're challenging on the basis of The Limitation Act 1980 section 32(1) in that I claimed for very slightly more than the 6 years. I have read a number of cases where people are claiming beyond 6 yrs
citing this as the reason:
Reply With Quote
Re: Dave (DKM130956) vs A&L
Re: Dave (DKM130956) vs A&L
