Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[paulwlton]

Paul.

Fair do's. The term may be unproven or unfounded, or perhaps even used without basis in law.

My post would still have had the same meaning if I had omitted it. In the context I used it, I was just emphasising how we trusted their integrity when they presented a contract, and how we give them more credit for being trustworthy than in most any other deals or agreements we make in our lives.

 

The amount of respect we give senior Bank officials is on a par with that of Solicitors, Lawyers, Doctors and Priests.................How long before the Banks realise that the longer they try to hide the truth, in all these actions, as well as their financial losses, they also are losing respect and trust in greater measures ?

 

photoman, fair comment, the banks will keep hiding the truth, the OFT will put a monetry threashold on the charges just like Credit Cards, the banks will and have increased the overdraft rate to compensate, this will continue for a few years, the banks will end free banking scrap charges and apply a monthly fee, at this point customers claiming back 6 years will not have much to claim back and the longer it goes on the less liability for the banks. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. The banks are happy, the goverments happy, the massive ammount of tax is still rolling.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Paul

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

Re Fiduciary, did the bank present any arguments based on case law/precedent or statute?

 

I did see that issue raised on your thread and meant to ask.

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

I am in court on early this week with SCM (LLTSB) - they offered me the full amount back to 6 years only and i sent it back going for the full amount saying i would contest the statute barring that they cited.

I'll post the letter i recieved from the court this afternoon - it also seems scm have made a (succesfull) application to amemd their defence back on Jan12 (i only know of this on Friday).

 

I did post on th LLTSB section but help was not forthcoming in the slightest - I'll go it alone, doesn't bother me (much!)

 

Quincy

 

Unfortunaltey the forum is pretty busy and unless somen happens to see your thread thenim afraid you will have to try to draw peoples attention to it as you have done now.

 

anyway if you post some details and a link to your thread im sure we can try to help you with any arguments you need to make.

 

I did pop aling to a thread where you posted but im not sure if it was the right one, last psots were beginning of december i think

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

Paul

 

Re Fiduciary, did the bank present any arguments based on case law/precedent or statute?

 

I did see that issue raised on your thread and meant to ask.

 

Glenn

 

 

No Glenn, it was whoever presented the best argument.

[photoman]

photoman, fair comment, the banks will keep hiding the truth, the OFT will put a monetry threashold on the charges just like Credit Cards, the banks will and have increased the overdraft rate to compensate, this will continue for a few years, the banks will end free banking scrap charges and apply a monthly fee, at this point customers claiming back 6 years will not have much to claim back and the longer it goes on the less liability for the banks. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. The banks are happy, the goverments happy, the massive ammount of tax is still rolling.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Paul

 

...........or we could just cut the Banks out of the equation and go back to bartering...........I'll give you two and a half chickens for your ipod !!

[quincy]

Glenn - it's posted here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/50349-scm-claims-beyond-6-a.html

[url=http://http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/50349-scm-claims-beyond-6-a.html][/url]

updated it today.

 

 

(The forum helped me alot when i claimed from smile mod 2006 and i donated then in gratitude)

[Guest bong]

that link of quincy's didn't work for me - try this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/50349-scm-claims-beyond-6-a.html#post502489

[Guest bong]

sorry quincy you beat me to it:)

[RosaChaz]

If there is charges going back over more than 6 years should we be claiming all of them at once, or up to six years and then the remainder??

 

Would like to know before starting a claim incase I do the wrong thing.

[JonCris]

Rosa there are two ways you can go. You can claim the full period or you can claim the post 6 years whilst reserving your position if they settle (the right to come back for more).

 

If you claim for the whole of the period the worst that can happen is that the court can disallow the pre 6 years of your claim

[Guest bong]

I'm not sure about this one JonCris. I read something the other day (shame I don't appear to have kept a note of it) about some kind of a bar on making more than one claim when there is no good reason for starting separate actions. It wasn't about the vexatious aspect of it. I'll see if I can find it again.

[JonCris]

bong I know what your talking about & as some will know I've raised it on a number of occasions but suggest that we don't discuss it here.........walls have ears.

 

Whilst the situation on pre 6 year claims remains unclear (except to us) there is no reason why the PO could not bring such a claim at a later date

[RosaChaz]

Sorry PO?

 

Do I go for as long as possible then - just in case - or stick to 6 and worry about the rest later?

 

Sorry I am sure I am being very thick, but would hate to lose out on MY money ! (and of course the cut for here... )

[JonCris]

Rosa that should be OP (original poster) you!

 

It's been explained & you have to decide which route to follow. The one YOU feel most comfortable with.

[taylormandy]

Hi, I have come across this info and wondered if it is of any use.

 

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.

Is this saying that as I was ignorant of the unlawfullness of the charges and therefore my ability to claim them back, the doctrine of laches cannot be used against me?

[Glenn UK]

Taylormandy

 

Could be, can i ask if you have a link to the text this is taken from, to interpret things correctly it often heklps to read it in context.

 

Also the vlaidity of the quote may need to verified so it all helps if theres a link or reference others can also check/read

 

Glenn

[taylormandy]

LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

 

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

 

Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

 

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

 

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.

 

Legal Definition of 'Laches, Doctrine Of'

 

Hi Glenn, this is the full text and the link. I realise it is very basic, but I'm just trying to read up and find more info.

[Glenn UK]

Taylormandy,

 

No need to appologise at all, anyting that may be of help should be scrutinised, this seems to suggest that you might be right, but it doesnt give sufficent info to move on to the next step as it were.

 

But the thoughts i posted earlier about the OFT report may prove useful.

 

GLenn

 

Glenn

[taylormandy]

Glenn, I've re-read this thread again just now, and there is a lot of mention of the OFT report! Would you mind posting a link to the specific bit for me please?

Thanks

Mandy

[Guest bong]

that quote about laches came from an american (bouvier's) law dictionary.

[Glenn UK]

Glenn, I've re-read this thread again just now, and there is a lot of mention of the OFT report! Would you mind posting a link to the specific bit for me please?

Thanks

Mandy

 

see the last couple of sentences in this post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/3598-do-you-have-charges-31.html#post501663

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[elsinore]

I was just reading the Wiki definition, which is also written from an American standpoint, but explains it quite well.

 

Laches (equity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Elsinore

[Glenn UK]

for those thinking about the fiduciary issues, i wonder if you would consider this.

 

If your bank operates in the IoM, it will have to register as a fiduciary

 

The Regulatory Structure for Fiduciaries (Corporate and Trust Service Providers) - Section 1 - Financial Supervision Commission

 

I wonder if the court would think this was reasonable evidence as to the standards of behaviour one could expect of a bank?

 

I dont know about other banks but the abbey posted the FSA principles on its website

 

9. Customers: relationships of trust

A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgement

 

Seems useful to me i bet other banks have the same published info.

 

Oh and abbey are registered in the IoM too if anoyne is interested in looking on the IoM site theres a search facitlity to let users find out if a bank or other institution is registered there.

 

Maybe not the whole argument but certainly starts the ball rolling.

 

Glenn

[JonCris]

Yes. You could add a paragraph to your POC along the lines of "as a registered fudciary in the IOM it would be expected that my banks conduct of my account would have reached such standards as set out in The Regulatory Structure for Fiduciaries (Corporate and Trust Service Providers) - Section 1 - Financial Supervision Commission which I contend it has not & is therefore fully liable both in statute and common law

[Guest bong]

I'm wondering if this case might help us in establishing that there is a fiduciary relationship lawindexpro