Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[bram stoker]

Has anyone had more than 6 years of statements back from Nat West in response to a DPA enquiry?

I'm still waiting for my response which requested back to commencement of my account. I do hope to get them though. Discuss later.

[Seminole]

Og good. Please let me know if you do. I am scheming and plotting to pull another flanker on Nat West but I'm looking to find out how far their records go back.

[planetparker]

Does the 6 year limitation apply to the DPA itself, or just to the amount you could claim once you have all the information since the account was open which is longer than 6 years?

 

I don't see why there would be a statute of limitation on getting the data itself - can someone clarify please? I am going to ask for everything, and then try and claim for it all as well

 

Thanks

 

Janet

[bram stoker]

6 yr restriction is on the amount you can claim but there are exceptions.

 

The DPA request is for all information held. If they shredded everything they had up to yesterday, they can only give you today's records. (Although Inland Revenue won't be happy.) I should imagine every bank staff member has been busy shredding this lasdt month or so.

[fivelaws]

Under normal circumstances, HMRC can only go back one-year prior to your most recent tax return unless you are self-employed, where they can issue a notice of enquiry back 5-years from most recent filing.

 

However, if there is fraud involved, HMRC are *not* constrained by the statute of limitations - they can go back as far as they like. They have some mighty powers - including the ability to retrospectively change the law.... they're trying to do this at the moment for credit card discounting on VAT transactions. They have publicly said that if they lose the case in the courts, they're going to change the law and backdate it.... cripes!

[bram stoker]

And... Companies House state you must keep 6 years worth of accounting records.

[NeilP]

I've just got back £935.03 (£500 odd + interest) from Abbey for charges to my mortgage for the period Nov 97 - Nov 2000.

 

They didn't even contest the time frame issue.

 

NeilP

(Still a very happy bunny - just a poor one until i actually get the money in my account!!)

[lookinforinfo]

I am sure I read in the DPA that info on individuals should be held for thr mandatory period, and NO MORE. So companies should not be holding our info for longer than the 6/7 year period, unless it relates to mortgages for instance, or I presume,

accounts that are in default and still active.

 

Is there a fine if companies do hold on to our info for longer than the statutory maximum, and/or are we recompensed for their tardiness?

[alanfromderby]

Is there a fine if companies do hold on to our info for longer than the statutory maximum, and/or are we recompensed for their tardiness?

 

There are some court remedies within the Data Protection Act that only the Information Commissioner can take. I would guess that this would be one of those.

 

What bothers me is that the IC only seems to have the capacity to handle a small number of cases each year, and would imagine that "tardiness" would just earn a stiff talking to!!

[NeilP]

Just checked my main account which goes back to 1996 and:-

 

1996 - 2000 £1262 of Charges

2000+ Already claimed and got settlement (awaiting funds though!)

Bank Abbey National

 

Am thinking about putting in the prelim and LBA to see what they say.

[Bookworm]

Has anyone had more than 6 years of statements back from Nat West in response to a DPA enquiry?

 

Nope. I made my 1st SAR and got my money back, then we started talking about over 6 yrs and thought I'd send them a 2nd SAR for pre-6 info. Bstrds sent me the 6 yrs info again.

Possibility 1: They're getting so many SAR they don't even bother reading the letters and just send the 6 yrs.

Possibility 2: They don't HAVE more than 6 yrs. Another thing I need to chase up.

 

.

[Seminole]

Well I know that they have data from 7 years ago as they quoted the value of charges in that year. The question is then how far back do they hold this information and are they legally obliged to provide it.

[fivelaws]

I *think* the data protection act allows a data subject to request any information held, regardless of how old it is.

 

This issue isn't what data they hold, the issue is the statute of limitations which, in essence, says you must claim on an offence within 6-years of it occuring. There are, however, some exception circumstances which allow this timeframe to be extended and this thread is about testing those rules.

[andrew1]

So that means if one claims within 6 years of the last charge or from when we found out about the unlawfulness of their action then we can claim back for as far back as we like? So the 6 years statute of limitation actually relates to the period from when the offence by the bank was found out not the period for which we are generally limiting our claims to?

[Seminole]

So that means if one claims within 6 years of the last charge or from when we found out about the unlawfulness of their action then we can claim back for as far back as we like? So the 6 years statute of limitation actually relates to the period from when the offence by the bank was found out not the period for which we are generally limiting our claims to?

 

That's a very interesting question and quite distinct from the issue of deliberate concealment. I don't know the answer but I am about to test it in court with Nat West.

[kkatiew]

Bank charges totalling around £1500 dating back to 1997

Lloyds TSB (and TSB before it joined unions)

 

Havesent DPA to Lloyds TSB today and am awaiting their response !

 

Great site - I will be delighted to donate should this come off.....

[fivelaws]

So that means if one claims within 6 years of the last charge

I hadn't thought of it that way; I would have imagined that each charge was a seperate offence rather than a continuous offence, so the 6-year rule would apply individually to each charge.

 

It's probably academic anyway, I thought the 6-year rule only applied from when you discovered an offence had been committed? If this isn't true, how do people get convicted twenty-years later for child abuse?..?

[andrew1]

That's precisely my point. If it only relates to the time when you discovered the defence ie: now, does it mean that the WHOLE offence should be taken into account, not just the six years we are all restricting our claims on?

[Robertxc]

I think there's some confusion here about how the limitation laws work.

 

I think you'll find that it is a forward looking beast, not a backward one. This means that you have six years to make your claim, rather than, if they can keep it quiet for six years, then they've got away with it.

 

The way I interpret this is that if I write to my bank today and warn them that I'm going to sue them, I have six years in which to do it before I start to have problems with time limits.

 

However, another example of people going back many years to make a claim can be found in the mega claims against the fag companies. The people bringing these claims have to show that the fag company knew that fags were harmful at the time. So, to make the analogy complete, you would have to prove that the banks knew they were making a profit from their charges, and therefore could reasonably have been expected to know that their charges were unlawful. If you can demonstrate this, then all you have to do is show that they made no attempt to warn you that they were charging money which they were not entitled to do.

[Seminole]

And remember that they are judged by a higher standard than an ordinary member of the public because of their fiduciary relationship.

[Robertxc]

Exactly. This means that if any of the Directors at the time were for example, lawyers, they will be deemed to have had sufficient knowledge of the situation that they should have warned the bank that they were acting unlawfully.

[Seminole]

And I just so happen to have lists of all current and former directors (well certainly in the past 10 years or so) of every major bank in the UK. I wonder how many were on the board of Nat West?

[Spiceskull]

I think there's some confusion here about how the limitation laws work.

 

I think you'll find that it is a forward looking beast, not a backward one. This means that you have six years to make your claim, rather than, if they can keep it quiet for six years, then they've got away with it.

 

The way I interpet this is that if I write to my bank today and warn them that I'm going to sue them, I have six years in which to do it before I start to have problems with time limits.

 

However, another example of people going back many years to make a claimk can be found in the mega claims against the fag companies. The people bringing these claims have to show that the fag company knew that fags were harmful at the time. So, to make the analogy comlete, you would have to prove that the banks knew they were making a profit from their charges, and therefore could reasonably have been expected to know that their charges were unlawful. If you can demonstrate this, then all you have to do is show that they made no attempt to warn you that they were charging money which they were not entitled to do.

I really really like that argument and analogy...and whilst I may have temporarily put my claim to 1982 on hold, I would certainly consider testing (from a costs safety angle) this theory going back ten years...

 

In fact I have been thinking about it for a few days, realising that the bigger claim would be almost a no-hoper in the current environment..

[joneshousehold]

Would the analogy also apply to staff employed in legal roles such as in-house solicitors. I have said a few times that I find it impossible to believe that the in-house solicitors at many if not all of the banks were not aware of this legislation. Nationwide have an in-house solicitor I believe, Charles Bacon.

[Shanks]

Wow Robertxc, that is the clearest explanation I have heard concerning this particular topic, thank you.

 

My LBA was sent out today for charges dating back to 2000, however after checking the statements I am owed a larger sum from the time dating back to 1997.

 

I am going to think very seriously when I have settled this first one whether I will start the ball rolling on the older charges.

 

Cheers