Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[photoman]

Sorry ....I meant 14 times.......but it's still astounding !!

[photoman]

paulwlton.

Read your link, page 22.........how do you liken our scenario? To example 2 or exmple 3 ?? The way I read it, either side could argue either ?

[bill-k]

Janquinny - Yes, Photoman speaketh da truth !! I, in my short experience here, have seen many a newbie bottle out simply because they could not believe their figures. Compound interest is (and the banks always knew it) very sneaky. It doesn't seem much at first, then it realy kicks in when you've all but forgotten about it.

 

Believe. This is banking at its' best, and reciprocity with a just vengeance.

[iwgunter]

Janquinney.

The figures I have arrived at are by using the Compounded Contractual interest spreadsheets. For example a charge of £100 a year ago would have only now attracted interest of £29.85 (at an APR of 29.85%), but the same charge of £100 in 1985 at 29.85% would have attracted £29.85 interest by 1986, then 29.85% interest on the whole £129.85 in 1987 (ie a further £38.76, rather than just £29.85) thus giving a total of £168.61, then 29.85% on the £168.61 in 1988 (giving £218.94) and so on, and so on right upto present. Just try doing the the same sum manually another 18 times upto 2006, and you'll be astounded !!

It seems astounding when you first see it, but it really starts to add up at an astronomical rate.

Don't feel guilty or embarrassed about it..........this is exactly how the banks work it out !!!

This would make £31,312.88 at the end of 2006 - Is that right?

 

1985      129.85
1986      168.61
1987      218.94
1988      284.29
1989      369.16
1990      479.35
1991      622.43
1992      808.23
1993     1049.49
1994     1362.76
1995     1769.54
1996     2297.75
1997     2983.63
1998     3874.25
1999     5030.71
2000     6532.38
2001     8482.29
2002    11014.26
2003    14302.01
2004    18571.16
2005    24114.65
2006    31312.88

[photoman]

iwgunter

Sounds about right to me ? I have never done it manually, just put the figures into Vamps spreadies...........then fallen off my chair !!!

 

BTW.

Bill-k..........we seem to be following each other around from thread to thread...(swinging from tree to tree) !!

[bill-k]

iwgunter

Sounds about right to me ? I have never done it manually, just put the figures into Vamps spreadies...........then fallen off my chair !!!

 

BTW.

Bill-k..........we seem to be following each other around from thread to thread...(swinging from tree to tree) !!

 

Those figures look about right to me, too, iwg.

 

We have similar interests, here, I guess, Photoman. It must look to others here like David Attenborough's making another wildlife programme !!!

[photoman]

Regards to appealing against the Limitations act, by citing sec 32, upon concealment or Fraud terms, has anyone taken a look at this ?

(the Fraud act of 2002, link posted below)

Can't figure out if it's retrospective to it's issue date, or whether you would then also have to invoke Theft bill prior to it?

We really need some legal eagle to look over both bills?

 

PLEASE, Any help from Mod land out there?

 

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc276bill.pdf

[TideTurner]

Is there any money in the kitty to appoint a sympathetic legal eagle?

[bram stoker]

iwgunter

Sounds about right to me ? I have never done it manually, just put the figures into Vamps spreadies...........then fallen off my chair !!!

 

ROFL (off my chair!!)

[bram stoker]

Do we really have to look at issues of theft or fraud to claim back for 6 years? Being only a numbers person and struggling with legalities, I was under the impression that it's simply a fact that they knew the law and concealed it. Therefore the statute of limitations is over-ridden and you can make your claim.

 

Anyone wish to state what I just stated in law fashion is more than welcome, and please do, in fact, I'm requesting it.

 

Thanks.

[TideTurner]

For concealment they must have had knowledge that what they have or intend to do is wrong. How did the Credit Reference Agencies come into being? I have phoned the Financial Ombudsman Service who have admitted they originally developed the database for credit checking but have not confirmed the date they ceased to develop it and passed it over to private companies. My guess is they developed something they believed to be a service (on the behalf of the banks) and ditched it when they realised the implications of the DPA.

 

Whoever took the reins at that point must have known why the FOS were getting out and either saw an opportunity, or a necessity.

 

Either way, the FOS got out for a reason and this will have been pointed out to their successors.

 

Their Lawyers must have been competent, and therefore informed them what they were doing was unlawful. Else, I hope their Lawyers were relevantly insured.

[Guest ian cognito]

From what I've read on here, the DPA doesn't have any implications as far as CRA's are concerned, or at least thats what they'd have us believe. Love to see one of the cra top brass on that "How do they sleep at night" Horlicks advert.

[TideTurner]

I'd love to see them on watchdog - explain your actions!

[MARTIN3030]

From what I've read on here, the Data Protection Act doesn't have any implications as far as CRA's are concerned, or at least thats what they'd have us believe. Love to see one of the cra top brass on that "How do they sleep at night" Horlicks advert.

 

 

There has been much discussion on this point.

This is why we suggest sending the banks the s10 request.Once the account is closed the contract between the customer and bank becomes effectively finished,as does permission to continue to disclose personal data to third parties.

The baliff and debt forums have some good info on this in particular historical threads where I can recall this being debated at length.

[photoman]

Vampiress

Your'e probably right in respect that if you put in a claim prior to 6 years by invoking sec 32 of Statute of Limitations on the grounds of concealment, you can simply stipulate such on your POC (and perhaps even also bring the point up first on your LBA).

However, I think it would be wise to be prepared with a retort, should they contest on what legal grounds and by what definition you are claiming concealment.

Whether or not to mention your grounds for citing concealment by reference to the Fraud Act, in your POC is something that one of the "wise wizards" on this site could perhaps advise us on?

Otherwise, it could be useful as part of your Court Bundle, should you be required if it went to such a stage to provide a definition of concealment?

That's my view anyhow ?

[bram stoker]

Without the research and legal jargon - I'd say something along the lines of...

 

When the law came in that stated penalties should not exceed costs, the banks and their solicitors should have been fully aware of this at the time. Being an everyday process of charging penalties, this law would have been noted at some point soon after it came into force.

 

If the banks are stating they didn't know this law existed, then I would say there are some pretty serious consequences to that.

 

Whether they concealed it by theft, fraud, ignorance, or plain stupidity is irrelevant. They were aware of the law, and as such statute of limitations does not apply.

 

Or have I missed some major point of law here?

 

I'd love to test it. Surely they pay or look a bit daft saying they weren't aware of that particular law that applied sto something they do every day, on mass.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"For concealment they must have had knowledge that what they have or intend to do is wrong."

For concealment to be invoked I don't believe that the perpetrator has to know that what they're doing is wrong. Were that the case, the banks could plead that they didn't know they were doing wrong and walk away from every single claim. Simply concealing their actual costs - whether they believe it to be right or wrong - is concealing from the claimant. NatWest continually talks about its charges being fair and transparent - but they won't tell you what their costs are. So they are concealing them. And it's only this year, with the OFT and this site's campaign, that the ordinary person now realises the true nature of the charges.

The refusal to state or reveal or even attempt to justify costs is, in my view, evidence of concealment.

 

Vamp -

"When the law came in that stated penalties should not exceed costs, the banks and their solicitors should have been fully aware of this at the time."

Case law goes back to the 19th century. It's not a recent development at all.

BTW - have I thanked you for your spreadsheets lately? They are wonderful and I enjoy having them on my computer. I'm sure the computer likes them, too.

Best wishes

Westy

[photoman]

In my opinion,

I agree that they could perhaps try to claim ignorance of the law......but is that acceptable of a defence? I thought ignorance of the law was no defence??

Plus :

1/ Before the very first moment that any of the Banks started charging these penalties, they must have had internal or external solicitors/ Lawyers look into the legalities?? Surely every big company checks and re checks the fine print and wording on any new policies?

2/ Wirth regards point 1, I think it is evident that they did do that......this is why they have always been so careful to use words such as "fees", or "charges" or "excesses" etc.......never ever using the words penalties......they knew damn well that they were not allowed to blatently and obviousley charge penalties....so they carefully chose their wordings to disguise this fact.

3/ How was the figure of £4.7 billion profits due to these charges that I've often seen bandied around arrived at? Do the Banks publish annual reports/ accounts which have breakdowns of profits, including what proportion is attributable to charges? Surely that would be evidence enough that they are profiting by concealing penalties as recovery of costs?

 

Regards my earlier postings with links to the Fraud bill. I just found it interesting, and wanted opinions. So please do?

I personally, do think it could be useful, as a possible alternative way to invoke section 32, instead of on the grounds of concealment. The concealment issue could just be dismissed as a matter of conjecture (ie, there is no "Concealment bill" ). Whereas there is a "Fraud Bill", which is quite clear in it's definition.

[bill-k]

I personally, do think it could be useful, as a possible alternative way to invoke section 32, instead of on the grounds of concealment. The concealment issue could just be dismissed as a matter of conjecture (ie, there is no "Concealment bill" ). Whereas there is a "Fraud Bill", which is quite clear in it's definition.

That seems an interesting idea to me, P-M, although I worry that it maybe takes out into deeper waters.

[Guest ian cognito]

Just sent my SAR which should cover at least 16 years, always up for a fight - I'll let you know what I get back.

[bill-k]

Be interesting to see if they manage a bit more than the perfuncory 6 years worth, this time, Janquinny. Let us know, won't you ?

[baconbuttyman]

i am starting claims for 3 closed accounts, i have asked for the statement from barclays and i told them as i paid for a dpa request and never claimed that money back in my original case with then that dpa should still stand, expecting them to argue, i was pleasantly suprised they agreed. But i need to send 2 dpa's out to midland and lloyds, should i qoute section 32 and refer to concealment in that or just a standard dpa and leave section 32 to the initial requests

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoman

I personally, do think it could be useful, as a possible alternative way to invoke section 32, instead of on the grounds of concealment. The concealment issue could just be dismissed as a matter of conjecture (ie, there is no "Concealment bill" ). Whereas there is a "Fraud Bill", which is quite clear in it's definition.

 

That seems an interesting idea to me, P-M, although I worry that it maybe takes out into deeper waters."

I'm with you, Bill. The Fraud Act is an interesting approach but we've already got a lot of law on our side - UTCCA, Sale of Goods, etc. The Limitations Act is being quoted in an attempt to stop us going back more than 6 years: simply overcome that hurdle (a minor one, in my opinion) and the core Law is there to be used, all the way back.

 

And I really, really do believe we have very strong indication of deliberate concealment - at NatWest, anyway: I can't speak for other banks, as they haven't written to me!

 

Westy

[redfox]

I have a friend who I am helping with her charges and her charges go back to January 2000. Can I still claim back until then even though that is almost a year over the 6 years? Would there be an issue if it went to court?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Redfox

One year, one month, 10 years - it's all the same issue: the true nature of the charges & costs have been concealed and you have only just realised - and any diligent layperson could be assumed to have only just realised. So go ahead and claim them.

 

Westy