Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[Capitulator]

Hi All,

 

Up until 2002 I was paying PPI on my MBNA card held since 2006 but, by all accounts, it was of no benefit to me as I was a self-employed contractor !

 

I am considering claiming back these charges at least but I know I was paying PPI since long before then - probably even back to late 199x. Unfortunately, the statements provided to me from MBNA only go back to 2001 as my SAR letter seemed to be based on an old template only requesting the last 6 years ! (I didn't know any different at the time!)

 

Anyway, from 2001 to 2002 I had paid over £400 in PPI ! Unfortunately, I don't know when I started paying PPI but on that basis the total amount could be significant - if only I knew !

 

Should I send another SAR for everything ?

 

Tks,

 

Tim aka Capitulator

[TideTurner]

Muggins,

 

Who would you rather be? Would you rather be in the shoes of the banker who has 1000's of claims firing at him?

 

You're in a great position, take a deep breath and try to focus on getting as much as you can out of them. You'll be surprised how the time will fly. When you get stuck, post your questions onto your own thread (do you have one?) and somebody will help and give ideas.

 

You'll be fine - wouldn't like to be the other guy though.

 

Good Luck

 

Tide

[muggins73]

Thanks TideTurner for those comforting words:)

 

I certainly do have my own threads

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/64195-muggins73-halifax.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/67502-muggins73-mum-lloyds.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

I've been out of sorts for a while and seem to have lost my bearing somewhat:o Winning against natwest seemed a walk in the park compared to what I'm about to embark on.

 

And in relation to your question as to who I'd rather be...at the moment...the other guy.

they get paid for the grief these claims are causing and if it gets all too much they can pass it on to a solicitor who knows what the hell all this jargon is all about:D But hey-ho, i'll get there it's just gonna take a lot of reading!!!!!

[russ2101]

Russ,

 

Have they replied and told you you were not entitled to anything above 6 years? If so, you should make a full SAR (wording important - see my thread).

 

If not, you should write again, informing them that the 40 days is up, the information provided is not complete and that they haven't fulfilled their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. If they do not provide the missing data within 7 days, tell them you will make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Look out for posts, in particular for archives or records on microfiche. Where they have the information, you are entitled to it. Where they haven't you should insist on the date, method and parties involved with the destruction of it.

 

They cannot say data has been destroyed without providing a valid reason, and certainly cannot produce any information afterwards which they have previously claimed has been destroyed.

 

Tide

 

 

hi, could you give me the link to where the threadis with your SAR on, i want to make sure i get it right when sending it to them.

 

cheers russ

[muggins73]

Do I opt to claim for 6 years within the time limit and another claim outside as I've just read a thread by livelylad and in it he said that he has seperated his?

[muggins73]

Do I opt to claim for 6 years within the time limit and another claim outside as I've just read a thread by livelylad and in it he said that he has seperated his?

 

On reflection, is it best to keep all the charges going back over 6 years together and make one claim only? This way should help to keep this nice and tidy?

[j.barton1]

Hi Ive kept my claim together, much easier.

jenny

[muggins73]

Hi Ive kept my claim together, much easier.

jenny

 

Hi Jenny and thanks for the response.

 

Have you claimed contractual interest or opted to keep it simple with the statutory 8% once at court stage (if not already)?

[JonCris]

muggins is it a mortgage product?

If so you can claim back 12 years without them being able to claim limitation.

 

Also would suggest claiming contractual compound interest at the outset

[TideTurner]

JC,

 

2 years - Criminal Injury, 3 years - Personal Injury, 6 years - Contract, 12 years - Mortgage.

 

All of the above pertain to the Limitation Act, but apply from the point of discovery.

 

I currently have a live argument with respect to this and will post further when I win!

 

Tide

[muggins73]

muggins is it a mortgage product?

If so you can claim back 12 years without them being able to claim limitation.

 

Also would suggest claiming contractual compound interest at the outset

 

No, unfortunately not.

 

Believe me I am trying to but I'm having rather a lot of problems with spreadsheets at the moment, along with various issue surronding CI.

Bearing this in mind, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the following..

kindly check out threads #53-61 you'll see what I mean.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/64195-muggins73-halifax.html

[debbiVwoolwich]

I have my Abbey statements from 1997-2001, charges amount to £1,800 (£300 charged on one day alone !!) I have sent a DPA letter to the Abbey as I noticed I have several months missing but I havent said that I have the majority.

[TideTurner]

I like your style, it will be interesting to see which ones they omit.

[elsinore]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80486-claiming-beyond-6-yrs.html

 

Els

[calvi36]

this will shock most but I have court assesed charges made by nationwide of £48,000 taken by my building society which was more than 6 years ago, any help is greatly appreciated

[TANZARELLI]

this will shock most but I have court assesed charges made by nationwide of £48,000 taken by my building society which was more than 6 years ago, any help is greatly appreciated

 

Duly shocked.

 

Thats gonna be a biggy.

[cleanslate]

can i re-claim my back old credit card charges which i pay to westcot got my visa 1997 i have only £1200 on it to clear. point one do i sent dpa to associates visa or to westcot i have only a few statements or is it to late now to do anything about it

[TideTurner]

No shocks here Calvi, what issues are you unsure about?

[calvi36]

I am unsure as it relates to a mortgage and reposession of my home. They also sold the property for £70,000 less than it's market value.

[TideTurner]

Calvi,

 

My thread's only small, but I have the same issues.

 

You can read it here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/34094-mortgage-creditagricole-birminghammidshires-halifa.html

 

It might give you a few ideas.

 

Also see one of the several mortgage forums.

 

Tide

[paulwlton]

One of a number of jems in Cave v Robinson.

 

20. Lord Denning MR explained the meaning of the expression "concealed by the fraud of [the defendant or his agent]" in King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34 as follows:

• "The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time. The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406. In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it. He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566. Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it. The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563. If the defendant was, however, quite unaware that he was committing a wrong or a breach of contract, it would be different. So if by an honest blunder he unwittingly commits a wrong (by digging another man's coal), or a breach of contract (by putting in an insufficient foundation) then he could avail himself of the Statute of Limitations" (emphasis added).

[photoman]

Agreed Paul

And the simple fact that they continue to exercise the same charges regime, and continue to refuse to reveal their true costs, despite all the publicity and case brought before them is powerful evidence that they certainly know they are committing concealment.

[joneshousehold]

Good find Paul. I have for a long time made reference to the legal advisors that the banks must employ or utilise. We know they do because they are the same people that we meet when dealing with our charges claims.

 

All of these people are highly trained in law. I did some very basic study of law and one of the first things we looked at is the Law of Contract and the UTCC. As soon as I started reading on CAG the penny dropped with me that the argument was strong and I believe that had Dave et al gone to court they had a good chance of winning. Abbey knew it too which is why they settled and I seem to recall they settled at way over the amount of the charges claim. Now if I realised this with only a basic understanding of contract law then I'm pretty confident that the legal advisors knew it too.

 

What's more there is some evidence about that they knew it too. There can be only one reason why the banks failed to reveal the information to a Parliamentary committee even though they were asked to. The committee expressed its frustration about it but ultimately I think they could do nothing. It's a great pity the Secretary of State has sat doing nothing over this because he certainly intervened in one of the Mrs Wilson case. Its a scandal because I believe there is only one reason why SofS has not intervened and that is vested interests of some ministers. Too many ministers are too closely involved with banks. I believe we have one on the case now and I will be interested to see what happens.

 

You never know we could be on the verge of a quiet revolution!

[photoman]

I notice we have a guest viewing our thread now ?

........ maybe it's the Secretary of State ?

[joneshousehold]

Let's hope he feels shamed into doing the decent thing!