Cap1 & CCA return

[rosierose]

it was your contractual obligation to issue me with a signed copy of the agreement relating to this account when you issued me with a new card.

 

One point, Ladybird... It was their statutory rather than contractual obligation but otherwsie it looks good to me.

 

Well done in ploughing through it all

 

Rosie

[zubo]

It is my intention therefore, to claim back the interest and any other illegal charges that have been applied to my account since the date of issue of the new card. I shall however, desist in doing so for 14 days from the date of this letter to allow you the opportunity of sending me a satisfactory response.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Please tell me I have successfully understood this thread! If you can't tell me that, please send me copious amounts of alcohol in which to drown my sorrows! THANK, THANKS

 

afaik and being pedantic you should use lawful or unlawful instead of legal and illegal.

 

Otherwise is probably very similar to the boy's upcoming Chapter 2 offering - eh Tam? :)

[zubo]

Tamadus - how can a claim go back that far? I thought consolidation was only from when you issue a default or limited to 6 years?

 

Tam - don't respond - I just got down to your post responding to an earlier question of mine - I will hold my breath waiting for Chapter 2 - sounds like it will be more than worth the wait.....

 

Can anyone please explain how the Statute of Limitations allow you to go back further than 6 years in a claim... ta

[ladybird17]

Thank you both Rosie & Zubo - I am not going to send letter until Monday - as I'm sure this will get read, re-read and amended - for the better - over the weekend. And to think I only came on here to see if anyone else had had their cahoot flexible loan rate almost doubled! Now I have about 6 months worth of "ongoing projects" with all those nasty financial instutions to work on, plus I am spending every free moment on ths site and picking up great advice from some very clued up people. It's become my new hobby!

[zubo]

And to think I only came on here to see if anyone else had had their cahoot flexible loan rate almost doubled!

 

Ladybird....

 

there is so much on the site that it is easy to miss things - especially other folks problems when focused on your own... I too am about to embark upon close to 20 projects... waiting patiently on the guy's version of strategy here, however I just noticed above and I know cahoot have messed around with rates - but double? - was that just for you???

[ladybird17]

hi Zubo - no it wasn't just for me. Cahoot suddenly decided they were stopping their Flexible Loans and raised the rate of interest to 14.9% - they informed us on 6th December that rates would go up on.....6th December! I was paying7.9% up until then. It obviously depended what rate of interest you were paying prior to the hike, and I know some people were paying less than me, some more - but it appears they just sent a generic e-mail to all Flexible Loan customers with their kind "announcement"!

[Guest Battleaxe]

I have just caught up with the thread, it tooks two cups of tea and a bunch of grapes (no not bottled). I haven't really started with Capital One Mbusa is my target at the moment with Crap One being worked on as time permits, just enough to post off a letter a week to them to keep them in momentum, but Mr Udy might be uncomfortable on Monday I must update both threads in case anyone stumbles on them and finds the term Section 85. This might help them apply a bit more pressure to their tormentors.

 

I am waiting for another letter from GE Finance saying they are going to raise the rate on our 'home loan' with them. That project will be my last one to tackle, in the meantime it is up to date, never had a late payment on it, but the tiny fonted word 'variable' is the the lynchpin on that one, and it will require a lot more research and doubling the time of the loan from 60 months to 120 months. I think all the loan opportunists are using the Bank Of England for the rate hike.

[JonCris]

I think where there has been such hikes in interest rates under the present climate (the banks losing their pot of gold) there may be grounds for arguing that these new rates are penalty charges in all but name & NOT just due to ordinary commercial decisions.

[ladybird17]

Good point JonCris - although their T&C's state 7 day's notice for interest changes, and in effect, they gave retrospective notice, so wote to them last Monday - they have acknowledged, and they HOPE to get back to me in 5 working days ...so just wating.

[TideTurner]

noomill,

 

it is the company I am keeping these days.Terminator and Tam need the credit, they started me on this path. I have no problems holding my own and it takes a lot to intimidate me. I am enjoying tormenting the banks these days. Of course this then flows on to the other lot who think they aare so clever. Just getting them engaged and making them take notice that I am serious. I had Reliable Collections backing off this morning when I told them, that i was now able to apply for compensation through the courts and they have given me the ammunition to give to trading Standards. The tone of the conversation completely changed. Now who walks around with a big stick?

 

 

Battleaxe - love it. The hunter has become the hunted.

[e28bigalbexley]

Just in case anyone wonders why I post so many replies in one go it's because I have spent the last 2 hours dealing with PM messages, so I have to catch up on about 2-3 pages at once

 

 

Sorry darling :o i will try to keep the PM's to a minimum from now on.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Tide Turner,

 

We are on roll....

[tamadus]

Sorry darling :o i will try to keep the PM's to a minimum from now on.

 

It's ok Al they were not all from you

 

Oh and less fo the darling bit

 

[tamadus]

Tamadus - how can a claim go back that far? I thought consolidation was only from when you issue a default or limited to 6 years?

My claim against BArclaycard actually doesnt involve sec 85 ....YET....

 

They have failed to send a copy of the executed agreement under sec 78 prefering to think an application form and nothing else is sufficient.

 

If they cannot supply an agreement now because they dont have one then they obviously never had one and they can't prove they ever did. Consequently my claim can date back to the day they sent me the card.

 

Statute of limitations allows 6 years for a claim. However sec 36 (if I recall correctly with a thumping headache) allows a claim to date back longer where it can be proved the defendant knew about the situation and tried to conceal it. barclaycard must have always known there was no agreement and kept it hidden from me. Hence a near 30 year claim becomes a possibility.

 

This is partly why this one is taking so long to formulate properly.

[TANZARELLI]

My claim against BArclaycard actually doesnt involve sec 85 ....YET....

 

They have failed to send a copy of the executed agreement under sec 78 prefering to think an application form and nothing else is sufficient.

 

If they cannot supply an agreement now because they dont have one then they obviously never had one and they can't prove they ever did. Consequently my claim can date back to the day they sent me the card.

 

Statute of limitations allows 6 years for a claim. However sec 36 (its Section 32) (if I recall correctly with a thumping headache) allows a claim to date back longer where it can be proved the defendant knew about the situation and tried to conceal it. barclaycard must have always known there was no agreement and kept it hidden from me. Hence a near 30 year claim becomes a possibility.

 

This is partly why this one is taking so long to formulate properly.

 

Tanz

[JonCris]

tam surely the 6 year limitation can only be invoked (subject to sec 32) to defend against claims on accounts or in causes that ceased or happened more than 6 years ago & not on going accounts. If the account is still open or if the account was closed less than 6 years ago even though it ran long before 6 years then perhaps the banks cannot rely on section 5 of the act.

 

In my view the limitation act was not intended to allow anyone to escape their blanket liabilities but like latches to protect defendants from being pursued long after the event when witnesses and/or documents might be no longer available to the defence. In the case of penalty charges that dioes not apply...........Any views

[tamadus]

At the moment Jon its just an idea in progress, as I research it more. Your right its section 32 I am looking into,

 

if they have deliberately concealed the fact that no agreement exists then the Act in theory doesnt bar a claim going back that far. Any comments from you are greatly appreciated.

 

I'm in 2 minds as to even claim penalty charges back from them as no agreement means no interest oir charges since its inception.

[JonCris]

Hi tam

 

What I'm suggesting is if the account is ongoing then perhaps the 6 year limit cannot apply much like it does when the debtor are paying off a debt more than 6 years old. We will have acknowledged that debt right upto our last payment which may be last week.

 

In other words they can't claim the pre 6 year debt IS enforcable whilst our pre 6 year claim is not

[tamadus]

Hi tam

 

What I'm suggesting is if the account is ongoing then perhaps the 6 year limit cannot apply much like it does when the debtor are paying off a debt more than 6 years old. We will have acknowledged that debt right upto our last payment which may be last week.

 

In other words they can't claim the pre 6 year debt IS enforcable whilst our pre 6 year claim is not

 

Ahhhh then your thinking is parallel to mine and the statute doesnt apply.

 

Plus the 6 year limit basically says thet I have 6 years from the date of finding out a claim may exist to making it. which to me means if I find out about penalty charges today then I can bring a claim at any time in the next 6 years. It doesnt say that I can only claim back for 6 years. (this is the literal wording and not the accepted version of it's meaning)

[un1boy]

In my view though, the limitations act shouldn't apply to unlawful penalties as this is bascially theft and the banks knew exactly what they were doing....

[JonCris]

Tam correct...........It's my view that limitation clock starts running from the time of knowledge of the claimant & not cause.......much like it does with personal injury. Many of the cases now being brought involving asbestos are the result of contamination from many years back (50-60)

[joneshousehold]

Two thoughts ( and you will probably correct me!)

 

First - the Limitation Act refers to the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. A cause of action has 4 elements - a duty (ie the contract), a breach, proximate cause (happening that results in an event) and damages.

 

The duty will still be in force for as long as the contract exists but the proximate cause part might bring the date of the breach into effect so restricting the 6 year period from the date the charge was levied (or the date the breach occurred).

 

However and this is my second thought, the Act refers to the cause of action accrued. The definition of accrued is - gathering or clustered together over time. This implies that each charge levied should not be taken as an isolated event. Each such event is gathered together. So is the cause of action valid until either the contract ends or the particular clause in the contract is removed?

 

Is that understandable?

[JonCris]

Yes but the argument as that the limitation is, like PI, based in knowledge & not the event, causation.

 

Yes I agree with your premise that if the account is still ongoing then the cause is ongoing & pre 6 year events on the same account (or same bank for that matter) cannot by definition be viewed by either the litigants or the court in isolation & should be considered as a single action when considered by the court.

 

After all if you cause a loss to a person pre 6 years & continue to do so due to their ignorance you can't then claim limitation protection when they suddenly discover they have a claim. Apart from everything else to uphold such limitation is against natural justice

[un1boy]

After all if you cause a loss to a person pre 6 years & continue to do so due to their ignorance you can't then claim limitation protection when they suddenly discover they have a claim. Apart from everything else to uphold such limitation is against natural justice

 

Yes, I understand what you mean now and it does make sense!

[tamadus]

I'm glad that others see this in a similar light to me.

 

The arguments stated by JonChris and others justify my belief that the staute of limitations is irrelevant in my claim and in all charges claims. The time period basically starts from when we discover that a claim is possible and justified.

 

Now if we can convince the banks to send our full history as requested

 

I'm also considering the same line of attack following (surprise surprise) a rejection of a complaint made to the FOS over a churned endowment insurance policy. I dont see any justification in allowing Insurance companies to dictate a time bar period when the law is somewhat specific.