Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[TANZARELLI]

Can anyone point me to a prelim letter which includes contractual interest and also goes back further than 6 years. I know bong is working on some currently to add to the library section hopefully, just wondered if anyone has already sent one so I can get some ideas on it for my claim.

 

Tanz

[maybelline]

Yes I did

 

well done again Crash!:)

 

I see the comments re using your case as an example, I know 'WifeandI' had a thread in which they received more than six years, think it was about seven on one account but then the next account was argued against so it may be it just slipped through without being noticed, so you are not the only one and I think there may be others who just put in estimated figures as they did not get their full statement info.

 

I am pretty sure halifax know they are refunding from ambigous dates also, first of all I was told the six years starts from the date of the claim, but they did not pay me from that date, others have been told it is the OFT date and halifax have on the phone offerred me back to Feb when I sent my prelim in June? so we see it is not so fixed as they would have us think and just reminding them that we know of several cases could be enough without getting into anything personal.

 

well done for holding out for YOUR money!

[maybelline]

Can anyone point me to a prelim letter which includes contractual interest and also goes back further than 6 years. I know bong is working on some currently to add to the library section hopefully, just wondered if anyone has already sent one so I can get some ideas on it for my claim.

 

Tanz

sorry Tanz, I used the standard prelim and took out the bit that says 'six years' and then attached my schedule of charges with all the dates amounts etc, they offerred part payment on the first six but of course we are now arguing about the remaining bit, isnt there a spreadsheet made by Vampiress for contractual interest somewhere in templates library?

[Glenn UK]

Ive just found a case which confirms that when claiming against a fiduciary that the limitations act doesnt apply.

 

Nelson Vs Rys this is from 1995, so it may have been overturned although it refers to several earlier cases.

 

Glenn

[bill-k]

Ive just found a case which confirms that when claiming against a fiduciary that the limitations act doesnt apply.

Glenn

This might explain why one bank was at great pains to explain why they were not a fiduciary a while back !! Soz- can't remember who, now.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Can we get that one into the library? Or at least a link to it?

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

This might explain why one bank was at great pains to explain why they were not a fiduciary a while back !! Soz- can't remember who, now.

 

NatWest, definitely - the infamous Mr Higley.

And others, too, I trow.

 

W

[bill-k]

NatWest, definitely - the infamous Mr Higley.

And others, too, I trow.

W

Old wounds, eh, Westy ??

 

The wound heals, but one doesn't forget the inflictor !!

[natwesttookmymoney]

Oh, they didn't do it to me because my letters didn't suggest they were acting as 'my fiduciary', it talked about their 'fiduciary role'.

 

I learned that because of the replies I saw others getting. And I thought the grammar was a bit suspect anyway - you know I'm a bit of a pedant on spelling and grammar!!!

 

W

[bill-k]

Oh, they didn't do it to me because my letters didn't suggest they were acting as 'my fiduciary', it talked about their 'fiduciary role'.

 

I learned that because of the replies I saw others getting. And I thought the grammar was a bit suspect anyway - you know I'm a bit of a pedant on spelling and grammar!!!

 

W

I should have guessed it wasn't you, mate. I recall the post(s) pointing out that it is better served up as an adjective, than as a noun !!

[natwesttookmymoney]

Aye, that was me!

 

W

[Bigmac versus]

I am claiming from Halifax and my return date is the 16th Feb, i live in scotland and the halifax first offered me 6 years worth being £443 i refused and argued the point over the limitation act on the phone with rachell hinchcliffe (legal) they said that was going to be defended and £443 was all i was going to get. Friday there i got another offer this time by letter of £568 plus interest at 8% and costs totalling £883, this offer includes one month over the 6 years (if prelim letter is the start of your claim) however during the 7th year i had another £1200 (shock), phoned them again Friday there and again was told this is all you will get blah blah blah, told them i wasnt accepting and was told i will be phoned on monday by someone regarding this claim.

[mcuth]

Ive just found a case which confirms that when claiming against a fiduciary that the limitations act doesnt apply.

 

Nelson Vs Rys this is from 1995, so it may have been overturned although it refers to several earlier cases.

 

Nice work Glenn - any chance of a link to wherever it is? Maybe it's my hungover eyes, but I can't seem to find it...

 

** EDIT: Never mind, got it from your other posting (vs Abbey):

Judgement - Nelson v. Rye

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[TANZARELLI]

For those whoo have yet to see these Bong has been working on some prelim letters for contractual and would like comments from mods et al.

 

Heres the link #36 onwards: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/49074-can-we-have-new.html

[JOE 90]

Hi, trying to get info on estimated claims and the best way to do it.

I HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST NATWEST AT THE HEARING STAGE BUT AFTER FLICKING THROUGH THIS THREAD HAVE DECIDED TO GO FOR THE JUGULAR

HAVE A LIST OF QUESTIONS SO MUCH HELP REQUIRED

1 IS IT WORTH REQUESTING THE STATEMENTS WHEN THE RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE NO!

2 CAN I USE THIS FORMULA FOR ESTIMATING BACK CHARGES TO 1984

Count the no. of months account runs for.

Count the no. of months statements you have.

Add charges on statements.

Divide charges by no. of statements.

Muliply that figure by total of months on account

 

3 I HAVE 216 BANK STATEMENTS GOING BACK OCT 2000 WITH 89 CHARGES TOTALING £3500ish

4 IF MY MATHS ARE CORRECT IGET THE ANSWER TO 84 CHARGES BUT WHAT DO YOU TIMES THAT BY ?

5 HOW DO YOU CALCULATE INTEREST ON CHARGES YOU D'ONT NO THE DATE OF!

6 HAS ANYBODY HAD ANY SUCCESS WITH THIS METHOD!!!!!!!!!

LOTS OF HELP REQUIRED TA ...........

[maybelline]

i think the WifeandI (thread) did an estimate, if you find the thread it might help.

[martinpar]

Only thing I would point out is that even if you can get round the 6 year rule, which they will undoubtedly contest, there is an absolute cut off of 15 years, meaning you can't go back further than 1992 anyway.

[JOE 90]

How Do You Fin A Specific Person Its All Newish To Me

[JOE 90]

Sorry Thread, Told You

[Guest bong]

Only thing I would point out is that even if you can get round the 6 year rule, which they will undoubtedly contest, there is an absolute cut off of 15 years, meaning you can't go back further than 1992 anyway.

 

I don't think that is correct, I think (from memory) that refers to negligence claims.

[Glenn UK]

Martin

 

if the banks are fiduciaries there is no limitation unless you can point to something that says there is?

 

Glenn

[The Phantom]

Good evening.

I am currently in a court case with Nat West (won't go into details, if anybody is interested thread is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/48764-being-taken-court-joint-5.html#post535925

Anyway, I need to prepare a counterclaim against NatWest and sent them a SAR (template letter from site)

In response they sent me their usual six years (incomplete as their envelope ripped in transit so Royal Mail lovingly repacked it all and deliverd the rest in a see-through bin liner)

As I need to get as much in charges together as possible I want to claim further than the six years. I hope this is the correct thread to ask

How do I go about it if Nat West refuses to send info older than six years because they may not keep it any longer (or for whatever reasons they only provide six years worth.) there has been some talk about estimating older charges but couldn't find anything concrete...I am already at the track allocation stage, so it is relatively time sensitive and I am dealing with Green & Co which are their solicitors acting on their behalf. They insist their client has fulfilled his obligations under the Data Protection Act whilst I am saying they haven't. Anyway, I am following this thread with interest and thought I butt in now.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Alex

 

Hi, trying to get info on estimated claims and the best way to do it.

I HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST NatWest AT THE HEARING STAGE BUT AFTER FLICKING THROUGH THIS THREAD HAVE DECIDED TO GO FOR THE JUGULAR

HAVE A LIST OF QUESTIONS SO MUCH HELP REQUIRED

1 IS IT WORTH REQUESTING THE STATEMENTS WHEN THE RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE NO! Use the Data Protection Act request for information. They have no choice but to send it to you: there is no discretion or choice involved, they have to say yes. It's not just a good idea - it's the law!!

2 CAN I USE THIS FORMULA FOR ESTIMATING BACK CHARGES TO 1984

Count the no. of months account runs for.

Count the no. of months statements you have.

Add charges on statements.

Divide charges by no. of statements.

Muliply that figure by total of months on account I think (and it's just my personal opinion so is open to debate) that you have to have some basis for your estimate. Simply basing something on the number you first thought of won't cut it. Ask for all your statements, going back to when you opened your account. The DPA has been around a long time: they have to keep info in structured files. Get the info and get accurate. It will probably work for you - I had a lot more charges than I imagined.

 

3 I HAVE 216 BANK STATEMENTS GOING BACK OCT 2000 WITH 89 CHARGES TOTALING £3500ish

4 IF MY MATHS ARE CORRECT IGET THE ANSWER TO 84 CHARGES BUT WHAT DO YOU TIMES THAT BY ? No idea.

5 HOW DO YOU CALCULATE INTEREST ON CHARGES YOU D'ONT NO THE DATE OF! If you can't get the info from the bank, consider a DPA action - you'll find the letters in the library section.

6 HAS ANYBODY HAD ANY SUCCESS WITH THIS METHOD!!!!!!!!! No idea.

LOTS OF HELP REQUIRED TA ...........

 

It really is best, if you possibly can, to use the methodology from this site, which has been exhaustively investigated and applied. People who've tried to do things differently - averaged interest rates and so on - have found things much more difficult than anticipated.

 

What you could do is lodge a claim for the stuff you DO know right now, get the money for that (which will relieve any immediate problems you may have) and then go for the pre-2000 stuff.

 

I doubt the courts will look enthusiastically on a claim based on information you haven't tried hard enough to get. The legal remedies are there: they expect you to use them.

 

JMHO.

 

W

[The Phantom]

1 IS IT WORTH REQUESTING THE STATEMENTS WHEN THE RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE NO! Use the Data Protection Act request for information. They have no choice but to send it to you: there is no discretion or choice involved, they have to say yes. It's not just a good idea - it's the law!!:grin:

 

I think what Alex means is that NatWest won't provide statements older than six years. I think their argument is they do not hold them any longer

I have used the SAR on NatWest and they only provide six years and consider the matter closed. Their solictors say they have complied with the DPA by providing six years (see my post above)

[joneshousehold]

The template letter however asks for transaction details not just statements. Most banks hold data further back than 6 years. I know Abbey does because an ex member of staff told us and I thought NatWest did as well. Can anyone remember?

Here I have found the thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/53877-NatWest-data-protection-act.html

I haven't read it but give it a look.

I have no experience of how you go about including this in your defence but if you post in a thread or start up a new one you may get someone to help. You will need to start pointing ut to NatWest's solicitors that someone is not being entirely honest with you and the judge won't be happy when you point this out!

Good luck