Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[alanfromderby]

B&W argued on that before I issued my claim, and so I included the following in my POC's:

 

c) The Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then the Claimant contends that the Defendant is mistaken. As the Claimant only became aware during February 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

[Glenn UK]

alan

 

thanks for that I have used something similar to your comments in my POC, i was wonderign whether there is any ilaeg/possibility of arguing for sec32.1.a too?

 

Glenn

[alanfromderby]

In my opinion it would be difficult, since proving fraud is a criminal issue. I would only see a claim under 32(1)(a) being successful AFTER a criminal conviction for fraud.

[quincy]

I have an issue with SCM (Lloydstsb) and they've quoted the limitation act to me. I have a cheque for charges in the last 6 years only from them in my hand.

No-one's replied to my thread in the Lloydstsb section so i'm going to bank the cheque as payment towards my claim and continue for the rest citing the act, part 32 sec b&c at SCM.

 

As a side point they say i have 7 days form the date of thier letter (dated 28th Nov) after which they'll assume i've accepted and it's settled - the letter only arrived on Friday - not even recorded delivery!

 

Beyond 6 years is worth £600 at least so it's worth carrying on to me.

[JonCris]

If they state it's "full & final of any & all" claims then you must not bank the cheque without 1st getting their agreement that it isn't.

[quincy]

Good point there - i'll take a look in a while, i'll post here what exactly it says.

 

thanks

[bill-k]

If they state it's "full & final of any & all" claims then you must not bank the check without 1st getting their agreement that it isn't.

AAaaaww..Sh111111t...is that right, JC ? I thought that it was OK to bank, as long as you hadn't signed a "F&F" reply.

 

Memo to self - must use "JMHO" in EVERY bloody post !!!

 

...so we DO need their written agreement that a partial settlement is OK, before it's actually OK., then ?

 

...AAaaaww..Sh111111t.

[richwhit1]

sorry all a bit of an aside here but can anyone tell me where I can find the glossary of terms / abbreviations being used as I know they're on the site somewhere cut just can't find them!!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

rich

[JonCris]

No & yes

 

Also be warned if they state that if they don't hear from you by so & so they'll assume its settled then it will be. Not only must you NOT bank the cheque at this stage but you must also write back & tell them your not accepting their payment as full & final.

 

You could also say YOU are willing to help THEM to mitigate THEIR losses by accepting their payment as part payment thereby reducing the debt to you not forgetting any subsequent interest charges

[Guest peed orf]

can anyone tell me where I can find the glossary of terms / abbreviations

Thanks in advance,

rich

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/29941-abbreviations.html

[bill-k]

No & yes

 

Also be warned if they state that if they don't hear from you by so & so they'll assume its settled then it will be. Not only must you NOT bank the cheque at this stage but you must also write back & tell them your not accepting their payment as full & final.

 

You could also say YOU are willing to help THEM to mitigate THEIR losses by accepting their payment as part payment thereby reducing the debt to you not forgetting any subsequent interest charges

 

Cheers, JC - much appreciated. Considering this thread is inhabited by the likes of Alan & Glenn, as well as your good self, I'll take that as bloody useful info, at the very least.

[partyline]

I have just received my statements from the Halifax and they go back more than 10 years, back to 1992. I had only been looking at the relavent ones from 2000 as I thought it was a six year window, but what I have found really confusing is that for the first three years (2001-03) there are a number £5 bank charges - and I have to say I can never remember ever only being charged £5. Looking at some of the statements prior to 2000 (outside the 6 year window) my charges were £28,£30, £39, £60 etc, the amount at which I had gone into my overdraft was always similar. I dont understand how there can be three years out of 10 that changed.

 

I know this must sound very confusing, believe me I am confused. Can the banks alter your statements knowing that you're not likely to remember six years back. In my case there were 12 charges applied in the first three years I am able to claim but for some reason, and I honestly dont remember, I was charged only £5.

 

Has anyone else found this, please help. :???:

[bill-k]

:grin:

sorry all a bit of an aside here but can anyone tell me where I can find the glossary of terms / abbreviations being used as I know they're on the site somewhere cut just can't find them!!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

rich

 

Rich, I think P'O has popped in the relevant link (Gawd bess 'im) - but speaking as a jerk on the wrong side of 50, I actually have great fun just puzzling out forumspeak on my own !! Yeah - it's cliquey - but the good guys'll tell ya.

 

But in the end - Google, and thou shalt find !

 

HTH.......:o :grin:

 

Bill.

[JonCris]

The banks charges have increased over time as the discovered they could get away with it. I have statements going back to the 80's some of which show charges of as little as 30p.

 

I suspect the £5 charges are not penalty charges but charges for a specific service which might make them lawful. These charges should be identified in your statement. Can you tell us what they are described as in the LH side of the statement.

 

There should also be an index of the abbreviations used at the bottom of the statement

[partyline]

All charges are listed the same "Charges as Notified", Halifax have always listed them that way. What I don't understand is why before I am able to claim I have the usual high charges and right at the beginning of when I can claim (when I am most likely not to remember)they have dropped to £5 then the past three years they when right back up again. Not including any of the £5 charges I have calculated they owe me £2,289 before I add any interest.

[JonCris]

All charges are listed the same "Charges as Notified", Halifax have always listed them that way. What I don't understand is why before I am able to claim I have the usual high charges and right at the beginning of when I can claim (when I am most likely not to remember)they have dropped to £5 then the past three years they when right back up again. Not including any of the £5 charges I have calculated they owe me £2,289 before I add any interest.

 

As you clearly appear not to have been notified either phone or write asking them for an explanation.

[technique]

All charges are listed the same "Charges as Notified", Halifax have always listed them that way. What I don't understand is why before I am able to claim I have the usual high charges and right at the beginning of when I can claim (when I am most likely not to remember)they have dropped to £5 then the past three years they when right back up again. Not including any of the £5 charges I have calculated they owe me £2,289 before I add any interest.

 

 

Dunno if it helps but Halifax used to charge £5 to stop a cheque (now it's about £7). I had one at £7 and it was 'charges as notified' on the statement rather than 'stopped cheque' which would have made it easier to identify. If that is the case then you probably won't be able to claim them back as it's a service and usually they tell you on the phone/over the counter their cheque stopping charge before they continue. However you'll probably remember whether you were in the habbit of stopping cheques regularly - probably not. They need to confirm what it's about but be prepared for them to come up with new ways of not telling i.e. 'our records don't go back that far' etc.

[photoman]

I'm sooooooooo gonna try to get my charges back prior to the 6 year Statute of Limitations act (which will probably amount to another £2-3k before interest......over 15 years worth of interest actually) !!

I already have every statement going back to when I first opened my acount (sometime in the 80's..."flock of seagulls", "Duran Duran", Silly haircuts and getting p****d on Cider.....sorry I digress). Anyhow, This is my tact.

I am going to go for the 6 years right now, and then once got it I wil be watching the threads to see if viable to go back further based on wether Banks "Knew" they were making profits from this course of action ( 'scuse me, but we only have to ask to look at their annual profits breakdown for the period, and it should be obvious, none of this debate about prior knowledge etc, they are proffesional institutions employing some of the best brains, lawyers, solicitors etc.......so someone knew what was going on.....and this brings in the deliberate concealment clause of the Statute of limitations act) Plus remember, thatif they pay on your original claim, that is a admission of guilt.

A question though. On my current action, I am going to use the spreadsheets here..which have a section to put in "estimated past charges, to enable it to work out what you've already spent on charges, and so hence would in theory not be so overdrawn by at the point on 2000 when you you are going back to. However, if you do this, and then file a claim later for charges prior to 2000, how does this compute? Surely you have already claimed for the interest portion of these charges on your initial claim, so does this mean that you only claim for the actual charges themselves, or does it mean that you have to submit your original claim within that in order to be adjusted back or forth in line with what you've already recieved?..... soryy if seemed confused..........I'm not an accountant.........I'm ann artist !!!!

:???: :???:

[alanfromderby]

Plus remember, thatif they pay on your original claim, that is a admission of guilt.

 

Not if it is paid out without any admission of liability.

[JonCris]

Correct Alan. They could even claim they settled with a mind to the costs of further litigation without admitting liability

[Guest bong]

I have just received my statements from the Halifax and they go back more than 10 years, back to 1992. I had only been looking at the relavent ones from 2000 as I thought it was a six year window, but what I have found really confusing is that for the first three years (2001-03) there are a number £5 bank charges - and I have to say I can never remember ever only being charged £5. Looking at some of the statements prior to 2000 (outside the 6 year window) my charges were £28,£30, £39, £60 etc, the amount at which I had gone into my overdraft was always similar. I dont understand how there can be three years out of 10 that changed.

 

I know this must sound very confusing, believe me I am confused. Can the banks alter your statements knowing that you're not likely to remember six years back. In my case there were 12 charges applied in the first three years I am able to claim but for some reason, and I honestly dont remember, I was charged only £5.

 

Has anyone else found this, please help. :???:

 

If the statements had been altered you would know about it. The account balance wouldn't carry forward to the next statement.

[JonCris]

Not unless that was altered also. which I doubt but you never know with this lot

[Guest bong]

If that had happened there would be a discrepancy between those statements and your present balance. Its not possible.

[JonCris]

I agree bong & this discussion is a bit OTW. Nevertheless I would point out your assuming the PO would know that & remember all the other entries on the statement some of which may have been inserted to alter the balance.

[Guest bong]

a bit far fetched don't you think JC?