As has been widely reported in today's press (07/06/2007):

"Judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, rights to bring actions (for personal injuries) became time-barred past 1990."

 

Solicitor Cameron Fyfe said that he would now consider taking the cases (3 out of a possible 450) to the UK's highest court, the House of Lords.

 

He said: "I accept that these time bar cases are very difficult in Scotland. There's been more success in England and it may be that we will pursue this in the House of Lord. We shall have to consider how we go forward."

Although this is to do with hundreds of former children's home residents claiming they were abused by staff - I am confident that this may have set or be setting some sort of legal precedent.

Well done Dusary!

How could they do this to people who have suffered such abuse at the hands of supposed carers? It's abhorrent.

The scars of these poor victims (why, btw, should that word be struck from our vocabulary: guess it's those doing the inflicting who think people should not be referred to as victims -sorry - sidetracked rant,) are not time barred.

The struggles caused by the hardships some of us (probably most of us,) have experinced because of the banks taking our money, thereby landing us in increasingly deeper debt, is not time barred.

The tax man (person) isn't restricted to "time barring", when it comes to collecting money (although they don't appear too ready to announce when someone has overpaid) so why should those the banks have robbed fall VICTIM to time barring?

Justice, huh? Perhaps someone should reset the scales.

So, 'scuse the ignorance, is Cameron Fyfe for or against the victims? I'd be rather surprised to discover that he's against given what know of his past history alone.

He''ll be on side of victims, normally takes up the good causes.

Hope he is successful.

That's what I meant by being surprised given my knowledge of his past history, if it was t'other way round.

Thanks though.

Maggie-the-Pict.

Naebotherataweeyin!!Howudoinyersel!!

Maggie the pict------ what a nice name!!!!

An' jist hoo did ye ken A wiz wee? Bit, nae sae much wee as concentratit Guidness.

A dae fair like yir cloud formation.

Ah comoan. Are ye no in the vital spark!! Nae mare than 2 wid git init!!

re photo

I had and have never seen a cloud like that! Some folk thought it was a nuclear test mushroom but it wasn't. Brilliant sight that day. And its Scottish!!

There was probably something deep down that made me choose it to represent the way I feel about how the banks treated me!!

Guys!

Steady on!

This is important for us!

Sorry to be a "downer" - and, yes, I did enjoy the chit-chat!

BUT:

For those of us whose lives have been *put-on-the-line* by these institutions - the ruling in the Court of Session is important!

Sorry Dusary

You are right and I apologise!

It was not appropriate!

I was being a tad grumpy - that's all!

Fed up with the inertia from HBoS, Trinity Road.

You know something ? - The only correspondence they've had the courtesy to acknowledge were the two SAR requests way back in April, 2007!

You are right Dusary. I too apologise. Just a wee lighthearted break from the drugery of chasing banks. Soon they'll have taken our sense of humour in charges, if not already.

So does the case (involving Cameron Fyfe ,) stated above, mean that the courts are likely to judge against customers who are claiming?

Hey!

I really was just a tad and a half grumpy! (Guess HBoS had taken my sense of humour!!!!)

Well, as far as I see it:

1) Court of Session ruled that anything pre1990 was timebarred.

2) Fyfe is considering appealling to the House of Lords.

But, at any rate, interesting that it would appear that we might be justified in claiming at least as far back as 1990...... I don't know whether this is a precedent being set for the old Limitations thingie!

(PS. I'll try to keep smiling!!)

Hey!

 

I really was just a tad and a half grumpy! (Guess HBoS had taken my sense of humour!!!!)

 

Well, as far as I see it:

1) Court of Session ruled that anything pre1990 was timebarred.

2) Fyfe is considering appealling to the House of Lords.

 

But, at any rate, interesting that it would appear that we might be justified in claiming at least as far back as 1990...... I don't know whether this is a precedent being set for the old Limitations thingie!

 

(PS. I'll try to keep smiling!!)

The P & L Act covers many aspects of life including suing someone for bodily injury but precludes suing them after the prescribed period of 3 years after the injury, see link:-

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52) - Statute Law Database

I don't think any ruling on this particular section of the Act will affect any other parts of the Act, especially as regards the time barring on debt, which of course works both ways. None of your creditors can pursue you for your debt after 5 years.

The Act also covers land or property prescription whereby if you fence a piece of land or use a property for 10 years without any judicial interruption i.e., any court ruling, then you can register Title to that property, see link:-

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52) - Statute Law Database

and then that property is yours, except for property as in Subsection 4 where the time limit is 20 years.

So you can see there are various periods of time for different things in the Act and as I said, I don't think any ruling by the House of Lords would affect the 5 years on debt recovery.

You appear to know what you are talking about (which is infinitely more constructive than my speculations!).

Thank you, Yanni.

Still - there are some of us who are aiming to go beyond the 5/6 year limit. And, I'm one of them!

I am only really familiar with the P & L Act as applied to land registration and registration of inhibitions, an inhibition being a legal device to stop a debtor from selling his land i.e., hoose!! without repaying his creditor from the proceeds of the sale - see

Registers of Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An inhibition falls after 5 years unless renewed, i.e., the creditor has to apply to the court to have the inhibition renewed after 5 years if the debt is still outstanding. Inhibitions also fall if you die!!

Below is lifted from Shelter website

"What is an inhibition?

When a property is sold, the buyer's solicitor searches through the property registers held by Registers of Scotland, to make sure the seller has the right to dispose of the property. Inhibitions are recorded in the Register of Inhibitions (sometimes called the ROI or Personal Register). If you have an inhibition registered against you, you won't have the right to sell your home, or to take out a secured loan (such as a second mortgage) against it.

If you're in the process of selling your home and the missives have already been concluded, the inhibition won't affect the sale. Nor will it affect any property you buy after the inhibition was registered.

How long does an inhibition last?

An inhibition will no longer apply if:

• you pay off the debt and the creditor discharges the inhibition
  
• the creditor discharges the inhibition on the condition that you repay your debt using the proceeds of the sale of your home
  
• it is dismissed by the court (for example, because the court doesn't agree that you owe the creditor money)
  
• you successfully apply to the court to have the inhibition recalled
  
• you die
  
• five years have passed - however, the creditor can re-register the inhibition if they choose.

Once the inhibition has been discharged, this will be registered in the ROI."

I think it is a long shot in going over the 5 years but they can only say no.

A long shot ? Agreed! BUt worth a try. I can always amend the N1 can't I?

Or negotiate with them when they try to settle before it comes to Court!

can i claim from an old business account which opened 16 years ago then closed 5 years later due to bank charges

can i claim from an old business account which opened 16 years ago then closed 5 years later due to bank charges

I'd say it is worth a try.

I got a lsit of charges taken from my account in resonse to my last letter complaining about them not sending all of the material I requested and for which I paid the £10. The letter said that, if I wanted information form prior to the year 2000, it would take a lilttle longer to obtain and send.

I want it.

I'll get this Lloyds thingy over first before going on to Clydesdale and Mastercard.

Perhaps, though, someone here might be able to help me regarding the MasterCard. I got it through the Clydesdale Bank, does that mean my reclaim would be via that bank or would I go for MasterCard?

I'm not quite sure how these credit ca rds work. I don't use tehm any more.