Very Interesting Case Folks! - Limitation Act

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Just came across this case:

 

Vincent Cunningham V Friends Provident

 

Although it was dealing with a claim of misselling an endowment policy & The Limitation Act 1980:

 

This is Money

 

If you read through the case,I would conclude that the same arguments could potentially be used regarding bank charges and thus bring claims back further more than the 6 years because:

 

1.It was not only until this year when consumers found out about the unlawful charges

 

and

 

2.Thus claims could potentially be claimed 6 years as from this year even if say they were charged account holders 20+ years ago!

 

ABOVE ALL ...

 

3.The Limitation Act 1980 would not be a defence for a finance company!!

 

This is my understanding of the case plus my 2p's worth!

 

Good luck with your claims and dig out your statements from the attics!

 

BY THE WAY,THE LINK WORKS NOW.

[Guest bong]

the link didn't work when I tried it

[photoman]

Financial News, Mortgages, Loans, Savings, Pensions, Market Reports | This is Money

[photoman]

Thats the link. Nightmare4banks had put up the homepage, and there is a search feature in top right of page.

[Guest bong]

thanks

[Michael Browne]

PDF version here:

http://www.adamsamuel.co.uk/pdf/vcunningham.pdf

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Thanks for highlighting the fact that the link does not work.

 

ANYWAY...

 

Now,the link on my first post within this thread works now.

[Guest ian cognito]

Thanks for that, of particular interest to me, will give me something to do st work later!

[meagain]

The implication of the Limitations Act is that if someone wrongs you, you have 6 years from the point you became aware of the wrong to rectify it. What the banks tell you is that means you can't claim back anything over 6 years (though they end up paying some of them out anyway, for fear of being made to go to court). What I think it actually means is that anything over 6 years is fair game, but you only have 6 years from now to get them back. The whole "6 years old so its out" is only supposed to apply when you were aware of the wrong at the time it happened. If you were not aware at the time it happened, you then have (IIRC) 3 years to sort it out. The key piece is having the necessary knowledge to realise you have cause of action. So, in theory, if you just became aware of the unlawfulness of the penalties today, anything that occurred in 2003 or earlier expires at the end of 2009, and anything later than that 6 years after the charge was applied. In theory. (I can't stress that last bit enough)

[Guest bong]

meagain I think the 3 years refers to personal injury claims, whereas it is 6 years for actions founded in contract.

 

Under s.32 Limitation Act if there has been concealment, mistake or fraud, you have 6 years from the date of discovery of it in which to start court proceedings in respect of any losses, no matter how far back, which arose out of the fraud, concealment or mistake. I think its no matter how far back but not 100% certain of it.

[meagain]

meagain I think the 3 years refers to personal injury claims, whereas it is 6 years for actions founded in contract.

 

I only raised the 3 years, as the judge in the case above raised it, and that is not as I understand it a personal injury case. This statement comes with the usual I-could-be-hopelessly-wrong-and-missing-something-blindingly-obvious warning.

[Guest bong]

meagain I think the 3 years refers to personal injury claims.

 

sorry meagain, I've checked it out and its in cases of negligence not personal injury.

[meagain]

Hmm... so that would mean that it might well be 6 years then. Not that I'd recommend that anyone delay their claim for 4 years anyway ...

[Guest bong]

where do you get the 4 from?

[meagain]

From my backside. Even if it's more than 3 years, I wouldn't recommend that anyone hold off action for that long anyway.

[Guest bong]

[bottomburp]

deleted

[Bicester1]

Hi

 

Do the same arguments apply to miss-selling of PPI insurance? I was sold a PPI in 1999 which I simply didn't need but was told I had to have it if I wanted the loan. Is this fraudulent miss-representation which I think would remove the time bar in any case. i was never given a PPI contract,and no attempt was made to see if it was really suitable for my needs. I was not told that early settlement would not give me a pro rata refund!

 

Any help much appreciated.

 

Bicester1

[photoman]

Just found this. Copied and pasted directly from the Theft act 1968 (do your own google and download the pdf version). Could have some implications regards Sec 32 of Statute limitations as this defines an act of theft ( which is a cause for invoking sec32)

 

Theft act 1968

15A. Obtaining a money transfer by deception

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a

money transfer for himself or another.

(2) A money transfer occurs when-

(a) a debit is made to one account,

(b) a credit is made to another, and

© the credit results from the debit or the debit results from the credit.

(3) References to a credit and to a debit are to a credit of an amount of money and to a

debit of an amount of money.

(4) It is immaterial (in particular)-

(a) whether the amount credited is the same as the amount debited;

(b) whether the money transfer is effected on presentment of a cheque or by

another method;

© whether any delay occurs in the process by which the money transfer is

effected;

(d) whether any intermediate credits or debits are made in the course of the

money transfer;

(e) whether either of the accounts is overdrawn before or after the money

transfer is effected.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on

indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

15B. Section 15A: supplementary

(1) The following provisions have effect for the interpretation of section 15A of this

Act.

(2) ‘Deception’ has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act.

(3) ‘Account’ means an account kept with-

(a) a bank; or

(b) a person carrying on a business which falls within subsection (4) below.

(4) A business falls within this subsection if-

(a) in the course of the business money received by way of deposit is lent to

others; or

(b) any other activity of the business is financed, wholly or to any material

extent, out of the capital of or the interest on money received by way of deposit

 

 

Any comments anyone ?????????

[photoman]

I like the bit also about a prison sentence of upto 10 years. By definition of the act (read the full act), it implies that where it applies to a business the directors are held accountable/ responsible, so liable for prosecution/ prison !!

I also like the definition of account (15B, sec a & b) which clearly describes the actions of a bank.

[photoman]

As they got us to sign contracts that "decieved" us into believing their "charges" were legit, and also sent us letters that "decieved" us into believing that the charges were legit........this is deception, and so constitutes theft under the theft act in my book !!

 

 

Worth looking into ??

[photoman]

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc276bill.pdf

 

Or there is the Fraud bill of 2002, which it appears has superceded the Theft act, but has much the same implications.

I read it that the definitions of fraud by concealment are totally applicable.

We need to find outif this is retrospective, if not then will the Theft act will cover offences prior to 2002 ?