Why let your bank keep your money? Calculating your charges claim

[Ibsys]

If the case is decided this month with the OFT and the bank charges, then I wouldn't think any new ruling would be retrospective.

[the_shadow]

If the case is decided this month with the OFT and the bank charges, then I wouldn't think any new ruling would be retrospective.

 

As bookworm has stated even if there is a decision made this month, the banks will appeal to the european courts I feel.

 

S.

[Bookworm]

Not just that, but then there'll still be the second part of the test case, to decide what constitutes a fair term in this instance.

 

Anyone who thinks that this is will be over by July 09 is in for a very big shock, I think.

[the_shadow]

Not just that, but then there'll still be the second part of the test case, to decide what constitutes a fair term in this instance.

 

Anyone who thinks that this is will be over by July 09 is in for a very big shock, I think.

 

I'd be happy with July 2010 the way its dragged on... just glad my case is in court and stat interest is accumulating at present.

 

S.

[Bookworm]

Yep, quite agree with you there. Mine's only a small one, but hey, it all helps!

[car2403]

Thanks car, have you a quick thread/template letter on how to sue......

 

Voila...

 

Data Protection Act: Non-Compliance - Consumer Wiki

 

[enoughisenough]

This is all very interesting.

 

Two things - bank cases can still be won if you push them and the courts hard enough on narrower issues such as hardship. They will fight you all the way and it does need some assistance from the courts. But they will cave in eventually. I know this.

 

What I also know is this. The 12 threshhold means diddly squat. Again you can get the lot back if you push hard enough, sometimes by just drowning them in paperwork to which they never get around to responding properly I didn't even have to issue claim against one major credit card provider. Just a couple of strongly worded letters.

 

I am now fighting two very very big and important claims aside from fighting 2 concurrent repo orders.

 

PPI claim voided on grounds of pregnancy at time of claim.

An £1800 liabilty to NASTY WEST going back to 1996 which resurfaced in the hands of a DCA based in Southend in 2006 to the tune of 6000. ANy help on either of these would be gratefully appreciated. Oh and by the way I am going to do something I've not done with any prior claims and that is to heed bank fodder's advice and go full tilt at the interest. This will run into the tens of thousands, which I have been unlawfully shafted for.

[paulwlton]

This is all very interesting.

 

Two things - bank cases can still be won if you push them and the courts hard enough on narrower issues such as hardship. They will fight you all the way and it does need some assistance from the courts. But they will cave in eventually. I know this.

 

What I also know is this. The 12 threshhold means diddly squat. Again you can get the lot back if you push hard enough, sometimes by just drowning them in paperwork to which they never get around to responding properly I didn't even have to issue claim against one major credit card provider. Just a couple of strongly worded letters.

 

I am now fighting two very very big and important claims aside from fighting 2 concurrent repo orders.

 

PPI claim voided on grounds of pregnancy at time of claim.

An £1800 liabilty to NASTY WEST going back to 1996 which resurfaced in the hands of a DCA based in Southend in 2006 to the tune of 6000. ANy help on either of these would be gratefully appreciated. Oh and by the way I am going to do something I've not done with any prior claims and that is to heed bank fodder's advice and go full tilt at the interest. This will run into the tens of thousands, which I have been unlawfully shafted for.

 

It may be that the Nat West liability is time barred.

[enoughisenough]

It may be that the Nat West liability is time barred.

 

True. But that cuts both ways. This debt has been sold on and on for years until the last DCA managed get a charge registered against my mortgage. All the add ons are likely to have been placed there at the flimsiest of reasons. This virulent DCA/firm of solicitors might well be getting a letter threatening complaint to the law society and the OFT.

 

Isn't there something about time of discovery of offence in the Limitations Act (1980) rather than time of offence?

 

Anyway the DCA/Sols who appeared out of the blue had no rights regarding the collection in 2005/2006 did they?

 

Anybody know for sure? The interest on all this will be staggering.

[the_shadow]

Isn't there something about time of discovery of offence in the Limitations Act (1980) rather than time of offence?

 

Anybody know for sure? The interest on all this will be staggering.

 

The Limitation Act 1980 says that claims in contract which relate to breaches more than 6 years old are barred from recovery because too long a time has passed.

 

However, s.32 (1) (b) of the Act says:-

 

• (1) .... 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
    
  • © 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....

taken from this thread -->> here

 

S.

[enoughisenough]

Thought so.

 

Thanks Shadow. That's exactly what I was looking for.

 

Right now do I go for Nasty west, the horrible Sols/DCA who resurfaced in 2006, or do I go for both?

 

Cheers. EIE. Keep the faith.

[Spanner1]

Hi i am very new to this, I'm just starting to begin the process and i fear that i am stumbling at the first hurdle,

I've been with Barclays for YEARS, and am pretty sick of them, I want to begin a claim for my Bank charges to be returned to me, but for the life of me I cannot work out where and what to send to barclays in order to get my bank statements, and I'm not sure how far back i should go too.

 

If anyone can help me with this I'd really apprieciate it.

 

Thanks

Spanner1

[Stubie]

You need to send a subject access request. If you go to the information comissioners office website (google it) there is details on there of what to pu and plenty of templates on this site.

 

State in the letter that you want all statements since opening the account, they may try to wriggle out of giving you all of the them so be persistent.

 

An SAR costs £10 and they are entitled to take up to 40 days to provide this. You may need to chase them.

 

It might be worth calling them to find the right address to send the SAR to as the banks tend to have a seperate department handling these applications.

[Notty]

"I'm sorry, I haven't been on as much as usual lately, so I may have missed something, but why the big rush to get a claim in before the HOL hearing"

 

I think someone said on a previous thread that you may not get the 8% interest after 22nd June on your court claim.

[enoughisenough]

I think someone said on a previous thread that you may not get the 8% interest after 22nd June on your court claim.

 

That's essentially the argument.

[Stubie]

Assuming their lordships meander to a conclusion on that day:smile:

[enoughisenough]

Slight Hijack. Sorry!

 

Let's just hope they don't conclude that the CA was wrong. if the banks lose I can't see them getting any sympathy at all from the ECJ. The ECJ Justices will beat them to within an inch of their lives. Most of this consumer protection comes from the EU. Incidentally the UK government itself can be held to account for any loss by a citizen due to late, incomplete or ineffective implementation of a directive. (so called Francovich damages, 1991). Since the regulatory bodies are so ineffective it may be that we ultimately have a claim against the following emanations of the state (OFT, FOS). Interesting angle.

 

Foster V British Gas (1990)

 

Marshall V Southampton Health Authority (1986)

Edited June 8, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos

[Bookworm]

You need to send a subject access request. If you go to the information comissioners office website (google it) there is details on there of what to pu and plenty of templates on this site.

NO need to go to the ICO, there's a template SAR right here on CAG. ;-)

 

State in the letter that you want all statements since opening the account, they may try to wriggle out of giving you all of the them so be persistent.

Not statements, all DATA relating to your account.

 

It might be worth calling them to find the right address to send the SAR to as the banks tend to have a seperate department handling these applications.

Each bank forum has a sticky detailing who the data controller is for their company.

[Bookworm]

"I'm sorry, I haven't been on as much as usual lately, so I may have missed something, but why the big rush to get a claim in before the HOL hearing"

 

I think someone said on a previous thread that you may not get the 8% interest after 22nd June on your court claim.

 

That's essentially the argument.

Ok, now I am really confused. Why not? :-? The 8% is a statutory thing, set in s.69 of the County Court Act 1984, how could it not be claimable? :-?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of people lodging in their claim asap for whatever reason, but I can't see the 8% interest being an issue here.

[enoughisenough]

Pessimistic soul that I am an assuming all things are possible. The machinations are boundless. I present the we'll carry on charging whilst stopping you from claiming stitch up as exhibit a. You can bet individual banks will be trying it on over 8% where they think they can get away with it.

 

I fully accept you're right by the way, I'm just a battle hardened cynic who believes that they'll stop at nothing and their oft fsa friends will usually let them get away with murder.

[car2403]

Pessimistic soul that I am an assuming all things are possible. The machinations are boundless. I present the we'll carry on charging whilst stopping you from claiming stitch up as exhibit a. You can bet individual banks will be trying it on over 8% where they think they can get away with it.

 

I fully accept you're right by the way, I'm just a battle hardened cynic who believes that they'll stop at nothing and their oft fsa friends will usually let them get away with murder.

 

Only a Court can award interest under s.69 County Courts Act - nowt to do with the OFT or the FSA

[enoughisenough]

Yes of course. Nowt to do with the oft fsa etc on the specific issue of 8%. What i'm suggesting is that it might be possible that a settled final 'fair' charge is agreed, previous charges or the difference are refunded and that's it-no more court claims ever. And then no more statutory interest.

[car2403]

Yes of course. Nowt to do with the oft fsa etc on the specific issue of 8%. What i'm suggesting is that it might be possible that a settled final 'fair' charge is agreed, previous charges or the difference are refunded and that's it-no more court claims ever. And then no more statutory interest.

 

I seriously doubt that would happen. There won't be a "fair" charge agreed, but there may be an "investigative limit" set by the OFT to say they won't take action under that limit. Exactly that happened with Credit Cards - there, still to this day, is nothing to stop you taking a Court claim on a Credit Card, so the same will happen with Bank Charges, IMHO. (Worth noting some CC claims that include 8% are settled prior to getting to a hearing, though, so nothing to suggest this will be different)

 

My point was a Court can award s.69 interest, but a Bank can also settle for an amount that includes it, even if they don't have to.

 

EDIT: Just checked my 8% interest against NatWest and it's doubled in the year that my claim has been stayed from £465 to over £1k...

Edited June 8, 2009 by car2403

[enoughisenough]

Hi car

 

Your argument is sound and backed up . No quibbles from me. Incidentally though I can tell you from the horses mouth that they want s. 69 looked at given where interest rates are at the mo. So my overall point is that they'll look very carefully at anything that will skew things their way.

 

Cheers. EIE.

[car2403]

Hi car

 

Your argument is sound and backed up . No quibbles from me. Incidentally though I can tell you from the horses mouth that they want s. 69 looked at given where interest rates are at the mo. So my overall point is that they'll look very carefully at anything that will skew things their way.

 

Cheers. EIE.

 

Which Horse is this?