Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[BankFodder]

I don't think that it would be at all straightforward but think that it might be worth giving it a go.

The OFt report is not a piece of legisaltion with no retrospective effect. It is merely making a judgment about unfairness and in fact in a way it would be difficult to say that the unfairness only occurred at the date of the OFT announcement. It actually refers many times to the common law principle of charges covering losses.

 

Where a bank has relied on the charges as penalties - and they all have really, then I hope that the cirumstances of the law, the obviously excessive nature of the charge together with the OFT report would sway the judge on the balance of probablities in our favour.

I don't think that the bank can say "it's not true" to push the burden of proof back. They might well have to start revealing sime info and if they refused I think that the judge would styart to draw his own conclusions.

 

At the end of the day it is all experimental. We are simply testing the water. If the banks want to defend then they will have to test the water too. It is much riskier for them than a small claims litigant claiing a small amount of money.

 

They may back off and pay up.

[Dread]

I'm claiming my bank charges from clydesdale bank and have statements going back to september 2002 which show charges for some £1,400 (boy, was I ever shocked). I had written to the branch requesting a full set of statements for the last six years that I thought I was entitled to but received a reply back stating they would give me the last years but would charge me £5 each for every other statement.

 

I went to the Information Commissioner's Office and went here

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=89

 

where I downloaded 'A Guide for Data Subjects' which states quite clearly that a £10 fee can be charged for access to ALL information held on the data subject (you and I) and mentions nothing about supplementary fees unless you are a medical or educational institution who has to manually retrieve records. The expression “disproportionate effort” is mentioned but, in their own words, not defined rather it is left up to each individual case to establish whether the effort to retrieve personal information was disproportionate.

 

I sincerely doubt the Information Commissioner would view the electronic retrieval of statements, no matter how many there are, and recording them to CD/DVD which should take literally minutes, represents disproportionate effort. therefore accessing all your information should be possible to whenever you joined the bank so theoretically it ought to be possible to recover all your charges. I suspect, however, the 6 year statute of limitations is linked to the Inland Revenue who can only claim income/corporate tax withinn a 6 year period therefore the banks couldn't adjust their tax returns and claim back anything for their repayments to claimants.

 

I have recently written to Lynn Peacock, the Chairman of clydesdale bank as I couldn't get a responsible reply from her employees and shall await the outcome. The whole story I have to recite really is horriffic but I will have to wait and see what happens before I can recite it here.

 

Regards, and keep up the good work pressurising these organisations.

 

BTW I have always found that bugging the person at the top of an organisation gets far better results as when their subordinates are handed a task to complete they do it rapidly whereas a request coming up from a subordinate is invariably ignored. It might be worth publishing the names and address details of the senior bank officers within each organisation so we can start dealing with them rather than individual departments. They, after all, get their salary directly from our pockets!

[Giddiemum]

Hi please can someone help me i cannot find the letter on this site to send to bank re the charges. I have spent ages on here looking but no joy.I would appreciate some help as to where i can find it. Thanks S Giddings

[homer_j]

I have a feeling that you may struggle to go back so far as I recall that some records the FSA only state you must keep for 7 years. Not sure if this includes bank statements though. Will have to wait and see..

[Spiceskull]

Hi please can someone help me i cannot find the letter on this site to send to bank re the charges. I have spent ages on here looking but no joy.I would appreciate some help as to where i can find it. Thanks S Giddings

It really does take a few days to get your head around all the arguments and all the information. You must also be fully familiar with what your are doing BEFORE you do it. Without wishing to sound rude, you say that you have looked 'everywhere' but clearly you haven't...

 

You will be setting a timetable (the timetable that the bank says it will work to is irrelevant). In the FAQ you will find 'first steps.' Start this, be clear on what your first step is (requesting the info from the bank so that you can calculate what they owe you)

 

Whilst waiting for the info, read up on your next step. If you make sure you stick to your own thread in the relevant area (eg [username] claim against [bank]), and use this as a sort of diary which you can update as things progress. It will also enable you to check responses to your questions, and people will be able to find your thread a lot easier.

 

Good luck.

 

You are here, you want your money back, you will get help and support in this, but it is YOUR call, and you must be prepared to put in the effort.

[Spiceskull]

Made a request last week for statement/transaction details going back to 1982 (HSBC/Midland). Received a letter back, confirming that ALL details over six years old are destroyed/disposed of, as per the statute of limitations.

 

This could be a good or bad thing, depending on how you view it. Clearly, at least for HSBC, you are unable to make an informed calculation of charges on which to base a claim. However, there is always the option to extrapolate backwards, and put in for an estimated claim. I may try this at a later stage, but I think it needs more discussion, and more guidance/advice from BF before being considered seriously.

 

Scanned copy of the letter sent to research@BAG

[maggie]

used to bank with lloyds over 7 or 8 yrs ago.took at least £4000.00 in charges.my marriage fell apart thru this as well as losing our home.it stinks,that you are unable to claim back beyond the 6 yr period.

[neilloffhagen]

Over the weekend we were clearing out the study and going through stuff that hadn't been looked at in years and found bank statements back to early 1980s. Had a quick look at some and saw there were some charges applied. If i've got the statements that show charges does this mean I could make a claim and still do it in the small claims court? I'm already making a claim for the last 6 years.

[di0430]

Hi

Not sure if anyone can help me and advise me, will be very grateful.

We have been customers to Lloyds TSB approx 14 yrs, and over the time have been charged hefty charges.

How do you actually go about putting in a claim from your bank ??

Thank you all info/advice will be a great help, thanks again.

[Guest Lueeze]

Please read the forum before asking cos everything is on here as how to proceed

 

and your best starting your own thread...more people will see it...

 

Currently you cant really claim more than 6 years but claim that for starters!

 

Good luck

 

Lou x

[paulwlton]

between 96 and 99 was strugling with young family with charges of 100 pound a month on average 20 pound unpaid direct debit 25 pound referal fees etc was at breaking point went to see cab who gave excelent advice was told to close account straight away and slowly got out of mess

[CrispDust]

Damn I just threw away my statements pre 1999 when I cleared out loft, knowing that the leeches from HM Inland Revenue would no longer be able to request them.

Have to see if I can fish out my old computer spreadsheets for business account.....

[Guest BlueRuby]

I thought the Taxman could go back as far as he liked ie not just 6 years like us mere mortals?

[funkyparott]

I have sent my DPA request to my local bank recorded delivery. I have used the standard template DPA letter with a few additions.

 

"To clarify; I require in addition to the list of transactions and charges relating to my bank account, any information that shows an employee checked my account, allowed / disallowed a transaction, applied a charge, sent a letter.

 

I further require any notes on your system made by employees regarding any correspondence between us. I require the time and date such transactions occurred and the employee’s initials concerned. (I may require to call this person as a witness pending any legal action)."

 

"I understand that you have quoted Part 2 Section 7(3) of the Data Protection Act to persons, requesting further identification details as a stalling tactic. I herby give you notice that I am prepared to attend the ***** Branch of Barclays and furnish my passport, driving license and recent utility bills should you require further proof of my identification."

 

"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. "

 

I am in the process now of studying the Statute of Limitations Act and for any relevant case law. The danger I feel in making a claim under this act, is that the bank could apply for the claim to be 'struck out' before the court date is set. I have had this happen to me before. (not in relation to penalty charges though).

 

I wonder whether it would be prudent to mention the Statuate of Limitation Clause on the particulars of claim. I know people will argue that this can be mentioned later down the line. However it is my experience that claims can be 'struck out' on application by the defendant by the judge. Eg, no mention of Statute of Limitations Act on claim. Claim served. Bank defends by mentioning 6 year Statute of Limitation and requests the court strikes the claim out without further notice.

 

FP

 

FP

[CrispDust]

No AFAIK, Inland Revenue can only go back 6 years - statute of limitations goes both ways! They can request back further but you can refuse and they would need a damn good reason for a court order to do so. You are not obliged to keep records any longer than 6 years previous to your current accepted assesment.

But I'd get an accounts/lawyers opinion if yuor're not sure.....

[Seminole]

They can go back as far as they like if they have a reasonable suspicion of fraud.

[bram stoker]

I'm an accountant. Our tax department say IR can go back as far as they like if they have good reason to suspect fraud or negligence.

 

Discuss that one out!

[bram stoker]

They can go back as far as they like if they have a reasonable suspicion of fraud.

Jinks ;-)

[Seminole]

I'm an accountant. Our tax department say IR can go back as fas as they like if they have good reason to suspect fraud or negligence.

 

Discuss that one out!

 

No I know why you've called youself Vampiress!! Before you shoot me, I'm an accountant too.

 

I've never come across them doing it for negligence although I can think of scenarios in which negligence is effectively fraud. Mind you I don't do much complicated tax work nowadays.

[bram stoker]

It could be argued that banks have been negligent in their duties, but I don't think it would amount to fraud. Wow, what a thought, if it were to be proved that the banks have been fraudulent. The phrase "revoke licence" springs to mind. A little extreme maybe, but hey.

[Seminole]

I may well be about to deploy this argument about fiduciary responsibility and deliberate concealment in a live environment. I don't think that their behaviour is fraudulent as such, but the accusation we're discussing throwing at them is extremely serious.

[bram stoker]

I may well be about to deploy this argument about fiduciary responsibility and deliberate concealment in a live environment.

Not sure what you have in mind, but keep us posted. Good luck.

[BankFodder]

s.32b Limitation Act doesn't need to be fraudulent - just deliberate concealment - and there is a RizLa+ between them!

[breadline]

copied form breadline Vs lloyds thread

 

Its so annoying as even 10 years ago they where having £25 a month of me. AAGGHH

 

1996 unauthorised borrowing fee was £7.00 but theres up to 3 in a month!

1999 its £10 again 2 or 3 times a month.

----------------------------------

IS there anything else i should look for

I will highlight

unauthorised OD fees

rejected DD Charges.

 

if i calculate from 1995 to 2000 is that correct?

 

thnaks BL

 

 

[alanfromderby]

Do the full calculation back as far as you can with the fees you have highlighted. When you have a total it will help us to advise you of the best approach.