Natwest letter - is this a defence?

[gmm100]

I have now received a 'stay' from Guildford. Presume that means that I won't now receive an AQ and should await the test case?

 

Edit - sorry, me again. Can anyone confirm that the stay will now mean I won't get an AQ until outcome of the test case is known and that I should just sit tight for now? Thank you!

[gmm100]

Natwest's solictors served a defence a few days after my case was stayed, back in March, and I've had nothing since.

 

Does anybody know if I should've received an AQ by now, especially as the test case outcome was released or is it all still on hold pending appeals?

 

Thank you!

[MilkTrayMan]

A Stay is a Stay...everything is suspended until the Stay is lifted...

Here is a useful link for U to browse through...

Making a Claim

 

 

...

[gmm100]

hi gmm100,

that is the standard get lost letter that Nat West use.

go through the same proceedure as for bank charges under 6 years and on the final letter state the limitation act is the basis of your claim.

i have just had a settlement offer for a claim going back to 1997.

explain that you will rely on the "provisions of S.32(1) (b) Limitation Act 1980" to argue that the 6 year period of limitation commencedwith your discovery, through the oft's report of April 2006, of the banks deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to your right of action.

 

hope this helps.

 

Just to 'bump' this and see if I am awaiting the lifting of the stay in vain!

 

Everything that I read now seems pretty certain that the 6 years is cast in stone, anybody know if there's still a chance of going back further, having used the above in my stayed case?

[steven4064]

You do not stand any chance (IMHO) of getting the stay lifted before the High Court case is finished. But it will end sometime and then you can proceed. As oggy says, we believe that s32 gives grounds for going back beyond 6 years.

[gmm100]

I've read somewhere that the OFT has now stated that claims can't go back over 6 years - does anybody know if this is this the case? I think I issued in SCC prior to this but am not sure?

 

Thanks in advance - can't believe it's a year since the stay!

[gaz2006]

The oft cant say anything about going back more than 6 years thats th ecourts to decide s32 of limitation act 1980 can allow it in certain circumstances regards Gaz

[yourbank]

I've read somewhere that the OFT has now stated that claims can't go back over 6 years - does anybody know if this is this the case? I think I issued in SCC prior to this but am not sure?

 

Thanks in advance - can't believe it's a year since the stay!

Their argument about the Statute of Limitations excludes s.32 and concealment. The fact of the matter is that at present, due to the FSA Waiver, you can go back(excl. statute of limitations argument) back to July 27th 2001 due to the stay period within the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges.

[gmm100]

Their argument about the Statute of Limitations excludes s.32 and concealment. The fact of the matter is that at present, due to the FSA Waiver, you can go back(excl. statute of limitations argument) back to July 27th 2001 due to the stay period within the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges.

 

Thanks yourbank, my claim is from 1998 to 2000, as this is before July 27th 2001 does that mean I'm out of luck unless the court accepts the s32 argument or cobbetts make an offer when/if the stay is lifted?

Edited March 12, 2009 by gmm100
edit

[paulwlton]

One thing to consider is only contracts entered into after 1995 would fall under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1999