Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[meagain]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood everything I have said, so I will repeat it ad nauseam until you get it

 

There is absolutely no way you can logically make the connection "the bank wants confidentiality" to "they know their charges are unlawful". Would you suggest that any company that concludes any agreement for "an undisclosed sum" is acting unlawfully? There are far too many reasons why anyone might want confidentaility.

 

For each and every one of the following, taken individually, you can make the connection, as they are pretty unambiguous:

 

1/ The OFT report last May

2/ The 1000's of cases being brought against them

3/ The amount of press coverage.

4/ The Parliamentary Early DAy Motion

5/ The letters and campaigns that we have all sent

6/ The fact that many of them are now reducing their charges

8/ The Northern Irish banking report.

9. Whistleblower

10.the fact that some are now changing their terms and conditions (HSBC at least)

 

I've taken out #7, since expensive lawyers is again SOP for big companies (this is self-fulfilling - large companies want reputable firms, and will pay big money for it, so such legal firms can charge as much as they like).

[Glenn UK]

 

Anyway I am sure people are bored about this now.

 

meagain I thank you for your opinions on this, but shall we move on.

 

Surely we should be talking about how we prove the banks have deliberately concealed the unlawfulness of their charges for years and years, not how they are now trying to use confidentiality to limit the damage and to avoid paying out on the inevitable.

 

Tanz

 

Seems to me the proof of the banks concelament, your mistake and even their fraudulent behaviour is pretty much a done deal, at least in principle.

 

I have to say Im with Meagain on the confidentiality clause, however, in the scheme of things its irrelevant as a mechanism for proving concelament.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[progenic7]

meagain,

 

not going to go into it any further, but put simply i think your thoughts on confidentiality are not correct.

[TANZARELLI]

Hi meagain,

 

I will just have to beg to differ on this one, we are all entitled to our opinions and thats fine. People can make up their own minds. Its not a big deal in the big scheme of things and I just see it differently to you, I am not gonna be using this as my main arguement but may use it to add to or illustrate a point that I beleive in. My opinion still stands in my eyes, yours in yours.

 

Tanz

[TideTurner]

All,

 

I was done and dusted with this a while ago, and have learnt that: -

 

1. Never mention the Limitation Act until it is brought up

2. If it is brought up, it is without substance and you have a severe response to any defence

3. The other side must be desperate, else they would put forward a proper defence

4. Even after the OFT's statement last April, there has been no Orders made by a Court showing the application of costs to be unlawful

5. Therefore, the limitation period has not yet commenced as a date of 'DISCOVERY' has not yet been set.

6. You should make clear in any SAR that you require all information under S7 of the DPA, NOT restricted to six years.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

It doesn't actually matter whether it adds up or not, Tide, it's the truth behind it that counts.

 

I've always thought that LTSB/SC&M must recite that as a mantra each morning before the business of the day.

 

Els

 

Cheers Els

[shu11173]

Hello All,

 

Im new to the forum and thought i'd give you my two cents worth.

 

I have requested charges going back almost 10 years from Natwest. Surprisingly these statements going back to 1993 were sent to me by university branch. Natwest Customer Service department refused point blank and stated by law they didn't have to send anything over 6 years to me even if they archived them - which we know is BS as the data protection act states.

Anyway on a telephone conversation today, Natwest advised me that they were considering offering me the charges for the last six years only without any interest. I queried why and was told that following FSA guidlines thats all they had to do. The FSA advise me that this was true due to the limitations act 1980, however advised me that i should seek legal advice as the act can be complicated. The Financial ombudsman service (FOS) stated that there was no precedent for charges going over 6 years and that all refunds are a gesture of good will. I have been reqested to wait until i get a final letter from the bank and then seek advice from the FOS. Section 32.1 of the limitations act is very interesing in regards to mistakingly thinking that the charges were lawful thus alleviating the time restraints.

I would be interested to hear from people who have had similar issues and offer any advice.

 

thanks

[calvi36]

Hi Shu and welcome to CAG, am quite new myself however i have found all members to be a wealth of knowledge and opinions. Take what u want and leave the rest is my best advice. There are people on this site who know far more than myself and am not a daft one. You have obviously done your homework and only you will choose which route to go down in reclaiming. I have chosen the tried and tested method suggested by CAG and am on the way to winning. Going for a claim over 6 years is upto you but unless you are a legal eagle i would suggest to back off from it, or alternately do the first claim going back six yrs, then once you have your cash try to claim back beyond the six years.

Hello All,

 

Im new to the forum and thought i'd give you my two cents worth.

 

I have requested charges going back almost 10 years from NatWest. Surprisingly these statements going back to 1993 were sent to me by university branch. Natwest Customer Service department refused point blank and stated by law they didn't have to send anything over 6 years to me even if they archived them - which we know is BS as the data protection act states.

Anyway on a telephone conversation today, Natwest advised me that they were considering offering me the charges for the last six years only without any interest. I queried why and was told that following FSA guidlines thats all they had to do. The FSA advise me that this was true due to the limitations act 1980, however advised me that i should seek legal advice as the act can be complicated. The Financial ombudsman service (FOS) stated that there was no precedent for charges going over 6 years and that all refunds are a gesture of good will. I have been reqested to wait until i get a final letter from the bank and then seek advice from the FOS. Section 32.1 of the limitations act is very interesing in regards to mistakingly thinking that the charges were lawful thus alleviating the time restraints.

I would be interested to hear from people who have had similar issues and offer any advice.

 

thanks

[Glenn UK]

Shu

 

Personally id claim all my charges of whatever age.

 

Sec32.1.a, b and c can all be used if you have the time to research the case law etc.

 

I don't think its any more complicated than other aspects of the claims ie the common law or the UTCCR for example.

 

I have claimed back charges form Abbey form 1997, and have another claim in progress with them with similar age charges and one with the co-op with charges from 1997.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[shu11173]

Hi Glen/Calvi

Thanks for yourinput.

Its seems to me that certain banks will go back further than six years and others not unless faught.

i will wait for the final response and do some interrogating of cases in the mean time with regards to section 32.1 of the limit act.

 

Cheers guys

 

Shu

[Ginges1973]

Hi sorry to do this,,,, Could anyone who is clued up on getting bank charges read my Thread and give me some advice which will be gratefully receive...

Ginges1973

[mazzafi]

can i claim interst on each charge?

[mazzafi]

what is the next step after u have received the breakdown of charges

[kennythecelt]

Please accept apologies for intrusion.

 

Reading thread closely- facinating.

 

Someone in an earlier post in this thread mentioned a case where someone could not track down an old account through the bank as they had lost all of the details. However, He got the details by going to the local branch who luckily found the details.

 

I have noticed quite a few cases in the media of bank files being left in skips etc. If you were in the banks shoes, what would you do to minimise loss? You would issue instructions to destroy pre 6 year records.

 

Am I being paranoid?

 

Sorry to interupt.

[mancdazuk]

I am still in 2 minds. I have most statements from 1998-2001, just 2-3 months short, and everything post 2001.

 

If I push for a settlement with over 6 years limitation the claim would be somewhere in the region of £6500. This is a lot of money. I am about to fill in my N1, but I am getting serious cold feet about the pre 2001 stuff. Am i just being paranoid??? Im with RBS. any positive feedback would be helpful...

[ebod_files]

There may be a way to overcome the 6 year limitation period for the recovery of excessive penalty charges.

 

If you have been the victim of these charges going back more than 6 years then please make a short post on this thread giving

• details of how far back
  
• likely total of all charges from the beginning until now
  
• total of charges in the pre-6 year period (from mid 1999 - is that 6 yrs???)
  
• which bank

• Charges go back to 27 April 2001
  
• £1228.50
  
• £55
  
• HSBC

I've put in my claim to the court including all the charges.

[groovycaz]

from 1996 cooperative business bank £35 for unpaid dd £15 for letter total charges from 26/11/1996 until 24/07/2000 £1907, unauthorised borrowing rate 34.49%

[oblivion]

i have had an account with alliance and leicester since 1992 no idea what the charges would be but have sent them a sar they sent back 6 years worth so i wrote telling them i wnated all the information they hold on me and pointed out they have now run out of time so sent a non compliancce letter giving them 7 days this willl be up next week

[RevengeAtLast]

Barclays... around 1986-1996, charges probably around £6000

Nationwide... around 1995, charges around £1000

 

No statements for either...

Not sure I can even find account numbers doh!

[lancasterchelsea]

I've got 14 different different bank accounts/private and business/credit cards with most of the statements back to mid 90's

I am working on RBS at present which only goes back to 2000, but I have a very large business account with lots of charges going back to 1985

I only have found a few of the statements so far (bankX)

If I could get them all the claim could be 15,000 plus

I need to apply to BankX for them. I cannot see them coughing up.

 

One thing that has dawned on me is the importance of entering every months overdraft interest in the spreadsheet (advanced compound interest one... Mindzai???) If you have an o/d of £1,000 and old bank charges of £500, half of every subsequent month's interest is due back to you, plus interest and interest on interest. I have only been entering the months when I had charges. Also in my case several o/d were converted to loans.... I can apply the same logic to the loan interest (doh)

[chorlton1]

FYI called Barclays, asked for statements from 1995 to 2001, got them within about 3 weeks, no questions asked. Did not make SAR request, did not pay for them.

[emmaf01]

I'm having to make a second claim with the Halifax because they didn't send me my pre-2000 statements until after I'd started my court claim for charges 2000-2006.

 

As they refunded all my charges, including those over six years old, I am hoping they won't cause me any trouble with this further refund. Plus they got a court bundle from me for the last claim, including the Limitation Act.

 

Fingers crossed, but after last time I'm expecting the worst.

[lancasterchelsea]

I have made 2 claims now with Halifax. After about 10 months after 1st claim, I had picked up a few more charges, so I went through 1st letter/lba/mcol again and they paid up without a word, including mcol fee. The first claim was never referred to, and if I get more charges, I will do it again

[emmaf01]

Mine are from 1998-9. Only £100, but I could do with the extra!

[Capitulator]

I have PPI charges going back to 1996 with MBNA but they've only sent me stuff back to 2001 - they claim that's all the information they hold !

 

Have MBNA provided any pre-6 year information to anybody ? If not, how do I get around this ?

 

Anyway, my penalties are -

 

MBNA - £375 from 2004

MBNA - £423 in PPI payments alone for 2001. Don't know about 1997 - 2000 as I can't get the info !

Crap1 - £458 from 2002

 

Tks,