Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[deemacperth]

Right, here's my tuppence worth on the statute of limitations.

 

I had an account with Lloyds from 1996 to 2001. I have requested a full disclosure. When I receive that, I will claim back from the current date to the point which would take me up to the 6 year limitation, that should be uncontested.

 

I will then attempt a further claim for the remainder without mentioning the statute of limitations. I would expect the bank to defend this using

Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf [2002] UKHL 18, [2002] 2 WLR 1107 the gist of which is:

 

"If the claimant can show that the defendant knew he was committing a breach of duty, or intended to commit the breach of duty - I can discern no difference between the two formulations; each would constitute, in my opinion, a deliberate commission of the breach"

 

I suspect this would suceed, as we cannot prove that they deliberatly knew they were being unlawful. Unfortunatly ignorance of the law is allowed in the statute of limitations, just because they should have known isn't good enough.

 

What I would hope to rely on instead is a similar case

Sheldon v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd [1996] 1 AC 102

 

"concealment occurring one month or even one day, after the accrual would afford the plaintiff no protection at all. Perhaps a more cogent argument against the construction is that if it is correct even a concealment taking place more than six years after accrual of the cause of action would bring section 32(1) into play. But that is not a realistic objection, since it is not conceivable that a potential defendant would set out to conceal facts relevant to a cause of action when more than six years had elapsed since its accrual." Yet it is that inconceivable event which has occurred in this case; Cobert set out to conceal facts long after the time when it believed the German limitation period had elapsed."

 

Now here's the interesting bit. We're all telling them they're unlawful, applying these charges, going against the duty of care they owe us as our fiduciary and that they've been deliberatly concealing the facts by charging us and sending out the letters, but what are they still doing? Has any bank actually admitted fault yet or is it more a case of refunding claims as a goodwill gesture.

 

That's my thoughts anyway. Dave, perhaps you could ask closey to get her boyfriend (the barrister) to see how valid my argument is?

 

[deemacperth]

Hmmm, question here.

 

If we lodge a claim in the small claims court and win setting aside the statute of limitations, it will almost certainly be appealed.

 

Now if that ruling is set aside in a higher court, would we be liable for costs even though the original claim was under £5000?

[deemacperth]

Hmmm, question here.

 

If we lodge a claim in the small claims court and win setting aside the statute of limitations, it will almost certainly be appealed.

 

Now if that ruling is set aside in a higher court, would we be liable for costs even though the original claim was under £5000?

 

 

Anyone??