Hi Zoot or BF or anyone,

I've been attempting to draft a suitable application for refund, given that I've already had a settlement for a more recent period.

I have taken on board that we are 'pre' UTCCR '99 and have UCTA 77, SGSA 82 and LA 80, to hand as well as our trusted common law references.

I can also point them to s.32 but without knowing comprehensively why; even having read the section!!

I know, and can address the banks concealment, given the Whistleblower program, but it is the many references to "deliberate concealment", "fraud" and even "mistakes" (in Sheldon v RHM Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd [1996] AC 102) that are throwing up something of a smokescreen. Is it sufficient to argue concealment (of true cost)?

Also any idea when there might be some new templates?

Below is a first draft of a revised application borrowing very heavily on existing templates and your collective wisdom.

Customer Relations

Customer Central Support

First Floor, The Forthstone

56 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh, EH12 9LE

FAO Mr T McLean or Mr R McDonald

Dear Sirs

Re Ac XXXXXXXX

As you already aware, and due to recent media coverage on bank charges, we are also now aware, that you, RBS, have been levying, charges, that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and, indeed you have already settled a claim with us for the period xxxxxxxxx2001 TO xxxxxxxxxxx2006.

We have already stated that we believe your charges to be disproportionately high and now wish to apply for a refund of such charges for the period xxxxxxxxxx1995 to xxxxxxxxxxxx1997 inclusive.

We are aware that under normal circumstances The Limitations Act 1980 would ‘time bar’ such an application. However, since recent media events have shown there to be probable Concealment exercised by the bank, so far as the actual compilation of charges levied for referrals and other transgressions are concerned, we will, in seeking this refund, invoke s.32 of the Limitations Act 1980; one precedent for this relating to concealment occurring after the cause of action is Sheldon v RHM Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd [1996] AC 102.

In addition we believe that your charges are a Penalty.

Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.

Furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, we request, without further notice,

• a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses, in any breach of contract, to which these charges relate with yourselves,
  
• and, proof that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

We also hereby request a detailed report, of which clause in your terms and conditions each charge has been applied against.

Your charges appear to be nothing more than a profit-making scheme. Therefore we require you to refund us at a total of £XXXX, representing the total, unlawful during the period in question, with interest applied to the base sum (£XXX) at rates levied by RBS in that period of 27% (employing the principle of mutuality and reciprocity).

Since some of these charges were levied on balances already inflated by earlier, illegal, penalties this exacerbated the situation.

I hereby give you 14 days to refund the charges back on to my account. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done within 14 days, I will commence my claim in the courts without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in additional costs.

Yours faithfully

So, fill yer boots folks and hack if you will.

Bump!

kennyh, The limitations issue does not hold much asteem with the banks. I have just successfully claimed back £25,000 with 2 years of that being pre- 6 years. About £2,500. The judge on his directions gave the bank no room to manouvre. So they paid up. Your letter looks fine and and crack on with your claim and see what they throw back at you. Good luck.

Since some of these charges were levied on balances already inflated by earlier, illegal, penalties this exacerbated the situation.

May I suggest you change the highlighted word to "unlawful" as the banks aren't committing a criminal offence.

Kurt - noted; don't know wot made me do that-IDO know better (sorry Zoot)

and Parky - RESPECT!!

N1 about to go

I learn this morning that RBS have passed the case to..... Cobbetts.

Just received Cobbetts defence and I have, undoubtedly, made almost the same errors that Brown 1950 did initially; so I'm about to crawl over that thread(Cobbetts defence on claim 1992-1999 ) and try to take on both brown's efforts at revision and Zoots input. When I've done that, I'll post their defence and my draft revised POC.

Do any of the MODs have any idea when we might see a new draft POC for RBS sufferers in the Library - HATs OFF!! to those who have toiled thus far on the POCs.

I note in para 17(3) (of one of the template POCs) mention of Interest under s.69 of CCA84 is the only one mentioned.

Is this to herald the passing of 'debited' interest (they had 30+% off me an I would like it back)?

Maidstone CC have placed a 'stay' on the case.