Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[BankFodder]

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

[Bovvered]

Charges between 1997 - early 1999 likely to be at least £900+

Nationwide

[Dammam]

I'm going to have to go into the attic/shed/wherever but I had an account at Barclays which closed about 8 or 9 years ago. I'd imagine the charges were in the low £thousands at least.

[BankFodder]

I suggest that people get the statements and work it out accrautely. DPA request if necessary. Also I need to know how much they were charging then because it won't have been at today's levels.

 

Don't forget that it is just experimental.

Also - Bovvered, you haven't said what your figure between 2000 and now is.

[Bovvered]

It was a joint account that was closed in 1999 or 2000 because the of the charges by my ex partner so there may have been more charges than that but we had split up by then, I just know that up until I went off the scene the charges were around the £900 level. I don't however even know the account number anymore...

[Neo]

If I don't have statements, can the DPA be stretched further than 6 years?

[Spiceskull]

If I don't have statements, can the DPA be stretched further than 6 years?

This is also a question I would ask. I actually had ALL statements going back to 1982...but when I moved house 7 months ago, and took up 'online' statements, I threw them all away!!! God, how could I have been so shortsighted...

[Neo]

Me too - and I had a lot and lot of charges pre 2000!

[BankFodder]

Yes, the DPA appies to any data which is held in a form which is contemplated by the Act.

 

I suggest that you make the DPA request asking for a complete DPA disclosure. At the same time go to the IC's website and start understanding the DPA.

 

Also go to the Limitation Act 1980 which linked in the statute library. have a brief look through the Act and pay special attention to s.32 (1)(b)

[Spiceskull]

Thanks BF - have read the act, although it does state that some of it may well be either repealed or out of date. I have spent a lot of time on the IC site over the last few weeks, and whilst not claiming to be an expert, I have a much better understanding of the issues than I once did.

 

I suppose the thing to do is make a DPA request to the bank for the last 24 years, and see what they come up with. I have already requested my initial contract in this way, but am still awaiting a response on this...

 

Will keep you posted on any developments as they arise (in my own thread) and in this one when relevant.

[heppy23]

My charges go back to the early 90's I reckon.

 

I shudder to think how much in total but probably twice as much before 2000 as after.

 

My after 2000 stuff is abbey, cap one and barclaycard.

My before 2000 stuff is abbey, barclaycard (2 cards), M&S store card, HFC bank.

[thegoodsamaritan]

Companies are only obliged to keep information for certain lengths of time. Thus there are customer files in my banks storage marked with "destroy November 2006", "destroy January 2011" etc etc. I am not sure how statements work but certainly (with RBS anyway) they do not all appear to be on computer. We can only see back a year I'm not sure how far back the main computers / microfiches go.

[Dammam]

I'd be looking at about 1999 backwards - but I'm also concerned about how far back they legally have to keep the data. If they only have a 6 year legal requirement, I can't see them bending over backwards to give us data that they don't really need to - especially as they know we are going to use it against them. I'd imagine the shredders are on red alert as you read this.

Alsa, my only statements are all showing me in the black apart from a solitary £15 charge. Wish I'd kept everything, which I normally do, but can't find any other statements.

[Spiceskull]

If they only have a 6 year legal requirement, I can't see them bending over backwards to give us data that they don't really need to - especially as they know we are going to use it against them. I'd imagine the shredders are on red alert as you read this.

This is the position I hope they maintain - as I have requested that they send me a copy of my original contract (that they are so keen on making reference to...) This information will be in a box marked "25 years ago" and therefore I don't think that they will be able to deliver...

[vogelrok]

just finished reading bankfodders post about hits in the FAQ thread, will be ringing barclays tomorrow to try and get them to send out the rest of my bank statements.

[BankFodder]

I would recommend that you don't mention the idea. Just get your statements, make your clam and see what happens.

 

Let me know when your claim is underway - and I am especiually interested to know in what way they refer to the 6 years and at what point.

[BankFodder]

I have added this to the FAQ:-

If you are going to try this then probably the best approach is to treat it as a normal claim.

 

Get your statements, calculate your charges.

 

Send a preliminary letter then an LBA.

 

It is strongly suggested that you don not refer to any aspect of the limitation period in your correspondence.

if you are asked why you want statements so far back the the approach is that it is none of their business

You are not obliged to refer to the limitation Act even in your claim.

 

It is for the other side to raise the matter in their defence or in court. Even if it gets to court without the other side raising the matter, the judge has no duty to strike out the claim unless the matter is raised by the defence and you are not able to provide any argument to justify your position.

 

Don't however, think that they are not going to spot it. They will. But wait for them to bring it up.

[Spiceskull]

Reading the FAQ I am not quite sure what you are suggesting, so would be grateful for clarification.

 

Is it that you can make your claim for charges past the six year limit, and wait for the bank to raise the limitation statute. At that point, and ONLY at that point, you need to defend your extended claim, and that your defence is the issue of withheld information as highlighted in s.32 (1) (b) of the Act?

 

If so, how could I argue that the bank has DELIBERATELY withheld the information if they do send me my statements? And if they don't send the statements, I would not be in a position to calculate the refund due anyway...this FAQ and associated arguments is not clear to me at the moment.

 

Thanks.

[BankFodder]

By the way, I should point out that in a pre-6 year claim, you would only be able to rely directly on the UTCCR 1999 if you entered into your banking contract after 1995.

[BankFodder]

If so, how could I argue that the bank has DELIBERATELY withheld the information if they do send me my statements? And if they don't send the statements, I would not be in a position to calculate the refund due anyway...this FAQ and associated arguments is not clear to me at the moment

The argument is that what is being concealed by the bank is the fact that their charges are much more than their actual costs. The banks say that they charges are fair and reasonable and yet the OFT statement has made it clear that this is almost certainly not true.

 

None of us have ever had access to the kind of evidence which has been available to the OFT so even excercising reasonable diligence we could not have been expected to discover that these facts had been concealed from us.

By pretending that their penalties were being levied in line with UK law the banks are concealing the fact that they are not lawful and that they make profits about them - which is contrary to UK law.

 

Of course, no one can predict the outcome of a claim on this basis. It needs to be tried.

It is a matter for the Small Claims track.

It could be moved away from the Small Claims track if the bank lost the limitation issue and decided to appeal - but of course, at that point a litigant could withdraw from the case and it would not suffer the costs penalty.

 

But at least in that case the principle would have been established and people could bring claims even if ultimately the bank went on to threaten an appeal on the limitation issue. Is the bank really going to go and threaten an appeal in every claim made against it?

Ultimately they would have to try and get a declaration. Very risky for the bank if the failed.

 

The issue of concealment goes further. If the bank has a fiduciary duty towards you, this means that it is obliged not to mislead you and must protect your interests when make statements to you about its charges. This is because the bank knows that you trust it and rely on its advice and its integrity.

It seems to me that by misleading you as to the fairness of its charges and also that its charges reflect actual losses, that it may be in breach of fiduciary duty.

 

This all needs to be tested in the courts of course.

[Spiceskull]

Okay - the argument seems a lot clearer now, so I will wait to see how they treat my request for 24 years of statements and a 24 year old contract. If this provides scope for a further claim I will get back to you with more info, and will no doubt need a bit more advice...

[funkyparott]

I have made my DPA request to Barclays - requesting full information since the initial opening of my account - 9 years back.

 

I was hit heavily with penalty charges when I was a student. I would estimate in the region of £250 worth in the 90's.

 

I can recall having to phone up begging for my overdraft to be extended; and being made to feel like a bit of dirt.

 

I have no quarms about taking this all the way to court. However, I know they will not produce the information I have requested under the DPA going back for the full period.

 

I have added to your template DPA letter

 

"I will not accept the excuse that historic entries are stored on microfiche. If this statement is made I shall make a full formal complaint to the Information Commissioner. Furthermore, I shall be forced to sue for an ‘estimated’ amount and bring to the attention of the court any non-compliance by yourselves.

 

You will of course know that you have a duty to mitigate losses outside the court in the first instance."

 

FP

[moneyback]

I had a Natwest current account around 95-99 and left them because of regular excessive charging. I've just phoned them and the account was closed last year as it was dormant, I probably don't have the account number.

 

The final straw being not telling me that they we're charging me £3.50 per day. They applied those charges to my account, so when I paid in what I thought would bring me back to my limit, I was still over without knowing with £3.50 per day still being charged to my account. This instance as £3.50 x 45 days (approx).

 

I reckon the total would be about £700-900.

 

I would like to claim. Can I on the basis that they knew the charges were illegal and didn't tell me? Or any other grounds?

 

Thanks for any help.

[bram stoker]

I do. I'll get the details and let you know. A slow process I've yet to really commence. Keep us up to date on what your plans are please on this route. Cheers.

[rbrears]

Hi BF

 

Have a look at this case. It is relevant to the issue.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020425/cave-1.htm

 

A Claimant would need to show that the banks knew the charges were penalties and didn't tell us. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this might have been the case but not much concrete before the OFT and parliamentary commission interest began.

 

If the banks were to plead that they genuinely believed the charges to be lawful at that time then the evidential burden would be quite difficult to discharge, don't you think?