Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[chezt]

Thanks Chezt' date=' your a star! tried it, it worked![/quote']

 

woo hoo! Put the magnifying glass away !

[bill-k]

woo hoo! Put the magnifying glass away !

P'O -

 

The online complaint page is in there somewhere. I saved my forms & supporting docs in a separate folder, then sent them all online with my complaint (which you have to fill in online, as it won't save).

 

Hey - I bet it's a whole new world, viewing your PC screen without needing your glasses, innit ? !!

[chezt]

Hey - I bet it's a whole new world, viewing your PC screen without needing your glasses, innit ? !!

 

I wouldn't know about such things - I've been lasered!!

[Zola]

Hi, could anybody advise me on this please, we are claiming £4500 from Nationwide - including interest. Went to MCOL and they refunded about £3200 saying by their calcs that is all we are owed,etc etc, which I was expecting through other peoples responces.

 

Received the docs from the court saying this is all we are owed going back to November 9th 2000 - have asked for their calculations which I am yet to receive.

Now going through the statements they sent my amount is correct but have noticed the statements go back to March 2000 and I have added those to the amount I am claiming which is just over 6 years - I did not notice this as I presumed they had only sent me 6 years worth, and when I was adding them to the spreadsheet it did not compute!!! what are the implications of going slightly over the 6 years, I have been reading on this thread about going back years and the statute of limitations - would you suggest I go with this and carry on my claim for the sake of a few months and argue it out if necessary or should I accept what I have been offered and try again for the +6 years part?

The date they have in the letter of 9th Nov is about a week before I issued through MCOL however the date I sent the prelim letter was 5th September, so surely I can get the charges back as from 5th Sept 2000 (exactly 6 years).

Am getting a bit confused, am very sorry if this has been covered, thank you for any help

[bram stoker]

Zola, you need first to know exactly what it is that they refunded you.

[Zola]

Yes, thats what I have been waiting for, I have sent 2 letters now asking for them so I can cross reference the charges with the refund, but not surprisingly they have not been produced.

I really need to know this as I need to reply to the courts if I am continuing with the claim.

[elmwilliams]

Hi Bankfodder,

 

I've just been flicking through this lengthy thread and you probably know this already or it may not be of any interest, but under data protection / data retention law once a financial agreement has closed, the lender can only hold records (in any media, hardcopy or softcopy, incl. backups) of the account for between 5 to 7 years (depending on the type of account). I only know this because my occupation is in doc management and one of our customers is a finance provider. So I think anyone who's account was closed pre-1999 would not be able to get copies of their statements anyway...

 

As I said, you probably know this already, but I thought I'd let you know.

 

Cheers

[bill-k]

Hi Bankfodder,

 

I've just been flicking through this lengthy thread and you probably know this already or it may not be of any interest, but under data protection / data retention law once a financial agreement has closed, the lender can only hold records (in any media, hardcopy or softcopy, incl. backups) of the account for between 5 to 7 years (depending on the type of account). I only know this because my occupation is in doc management and one of our customers is a finance provider. So I think anyone who's account was closed pre-1999 would not be able to get copies of their statements anyway...

 

As I said, you probably know this already, but I thought I'd let you know.

 

Cheers

 

Elmwilliams, thanks for that. I daresay Bankfodder knows that, but it is good to post this stuff up for us all to see. Just to be clear, though - are you saying that, under the DPA, the lender MUST destroy the records held within 5-7 years of account closure ? Or are you saying that the lender MAY (if they so wish) destroy them, but is not obliged to ?

 

Big difference, I'm sure you'll agree - and they often use the word MUST to fob us off, when they really should use MAY.

 

Hope you don't mind me putting you on the spot, here !!

[elmwilliams]

Hi bill-k,

 

No I don't mind at all. It's my understanding that they are not allowed to hold personal information about you after this time because they hold no interest and therefore no right or reason (i.e. you don't have any agreement with them). This is to regulate against organisations accumulating huge great databases of information about anyone who has ever come into contact with them. No-one has the right to hold personal info about you (dob, addresses, bank details) without your consent - that consent being given when you sign up for credit. So it's my interpretation that if they still have details of your transactions 7 years after the account was closed then they have broken data protection legislation and that should also be addressed.

 

Now I think I'm right on this, but if anyone wants to correct me please do.

 

HTH

Emma

[Glenn UK]

Hi Bankfodder,

 

I've just been flicking through this lengthy thread and you probably know this already or it may not be of any interest, but under data protection / data retention law once a financial agreement has closed, the lender can only hold records (in any media, hardcopy or softcopy, incl. backups) of the account for between 5 to 7 years (depending on the type of account). I only know this because my occupation is in doc management and one of our customers is a finance provider. So I think anyone who's account was closed pre-1999 would not be able to get copies of their statements anyway...

 

As I said, you probably know this already, but I thought I'd let you know.

 

Cheers

 

This is an important issue and you need to substantiate this with reference to an act or regulation if you can.

 

FWIW I have discussed this issue with the ICO and they were not aware of anything particularly which restricts the retention of data for a specific period, they were also not specifically aware of any legislation that said they had to keep data for a minimum period either.

 

So if you know of anything specifically then you need to post for the benefit of all, if its something you have been told but haven't got all the facts can you go ask who told you the basis for this please?

 

Glenn

[bill-k]

Emma, thanks - and your reasoning for data destruction does make sense, I believe. But if Glenn thinks this is important, then it surely is !!

 

Sorry to put you on the spot, but can you find the source or provenance of that ?

 

Be great if you could.

 

Bill.

[technique]

The statements I got from the Halifax went back to Dec 99. They've said today that they won't pay the couple of charges before Sep 00 because that's more than 6 years ago. Works out to be about £220

[Glenn UK]

DO you want the £220 plus interest you have paid plus interest you can charge them?

 

If so advise them that you will be relying on Sec32.1.b and 32.1.c of limitations act and youd like them inlcuded please.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[maybelline]

just when do halifax start their calculations from re limitations act because it doesmt make sense to me , if they are saying only six years, then from when, the OFT statement, the beginning of the year, when you actually post a prelim letter, its all over the place, surely they cannot expect to go into court saying statute barred in this way?

[bill-k]

If I've got this right, the Limitation Act is effectively a six-year "egg-timer." It is started at a moment in time, and you then have 6 years to make your claim. It is that moment in time which is so debatable, here, I think.

 

It suits the banks to say that this moment in time is when the penalty charge was levied, but the Act allows us to take that moment as the point at which we could reasonably be expected to have known that there was anything to claim. This point is widely accepted as being the date of publication of the OFT's report, but the banks will argue otherwise.

 

So, in the same way that the banks might argue that contractual interest cannot be claimed, they might also argue that the Limitations clock started clicking before we say it did. It appears confusing if we're not clear ourselves as to what that time was. If we have a clear reason ourselves for establishing that time, then theirs is just another argument in the bargaining process.

 

JMHO

 

Bill.

[technique]

DO you want the £220 plus interest you have paid plus interest you can charge them?

 

If so advise them that you will be relying on Sec32.1.b and 32.1.c of limitations act and youd like them inlcuded please.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

Thanks Glenn. If I'm confronted by them as to what Sec32.1.b and 32.1.c are, then is this info published in this forum or this particular thread? What I don't want is for them then to say "and what is that when it's at home?" or that they know what the limitations act is but I don't know myself. Thanks for your advice.-

[JonCris]

This is it

 

Fraud, concealment and mistake

32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or

mistake

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any

action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,

either--

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has

been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant;

or

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a

mistake;

[technique]

If I've got this right, the Limitation Act is effectively a six-year "egg-timer." It is started at a moment in time, and you then have 6 years to make your claim. It is that moment in time which is so debatable, here, I think.

 

It suits the banks to say that this moment in time is when the penalty charge was levied, but the Act allows us to take that moment as the point at which we could reasonably be expected to have known that there was anything to claim. This point is widely accepted as being the date of publication of the OFT's report, but the banks will argue otherwise.

 

So, in the same way that the banks might argue that contractual interest cannot be claimed, they might also argue that the Limitations clock started clicking before we say it did. It appears confusing if we're not clear ourselves as to what that time was. If we have a clear reason ourselves for establishing that time, then theirs is just another argument in the bargaining process.

 

JMHO

 

Bill.

 

Thanks to JonCriss who's supplied me the limitations act. A question now relating to the above quote - 'banks might argue that contractual interest cannot be claimed'. The Hali are suggesting that to me right now, and that the 29.8% I've claimed based on their cardcash account interest rates is not right and that I can only claim 8%. I cannot recall though whether it's their published 29.8% that acts as the contractual interest or whether it's the 8% they're on about that is the contractual bit. If the 29.8% is their contractual, and therefore they're arguing it cannot be claimed, what can be done/what's the response back from the claimant? My bank's said they will contest in court if I don't agree but this halves the amount I've claimed for if I do. It's also why I've queried the 6 year rule cos if I've got my interest rate wrong then the more I can get off the b*stards the better for my family.

[bill-k]

Tech, the huge thread "A New Way of Looking at Interest" has the answers, I think you'll find. Glenn or JC could answer this better than I, as I do tend to rabbit on a bit. Statutory interest id the 8% rate that the court can impose, if requested. Contractual interest is the rate (eg your 29.8%) that they charge you under the contract that you (arguably) have with them. The idea is that you are entitled to reciprocate that by charging them the same rate for the money they unlawfully "borrowed" from you.

[robwhitestone]

£970 reclaimed from Natwest -

[bill-k]

£970 reclaimed from NatWest -

Congratulations, Rob !!

[martinpar]

Rob, is this charges from over six years ago? I'm very interested because I had a business account with Natwest during the nineties which must have cost several thousand in charges and I would love to get them back.

[Glenn UK]

I have been wondering whether ther is any reason why we sh0uldnt add in sec 32.1.a when presenting out claims where charges older than 6 years are claimed (edit for clarification) as a possibillity in respect of the banks charges?

 

Consider it this way, the bank should know what it costs to service a bank account and they shold know how much they make, they shuold also know since they have a legal section about the unlawfuloness of penalty charges and cintract law.

 

I know this has kind of been touched on before but i wanted to explore this sec of lma further.

 

Glenn

[alanfromderby]

I am not sure that it is a good idea to raise the limitation issue on the claim, unless it has been originally raised by the bank. It can always be raised in a Response to the Defence, if necessary.

[Glenn UK]

oh its being raised alright sec 5 of course