Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[Glenn UK]

Nicole

 

One of the problems with this issue is that the banks have histrocially held lots of data. Their systems are designed specifically for this purpose.

 

They also use thrid party organisations to holddata for them too.

 

However, they have recently started to say they dont hold more than six years worth of data.

 

I wonder how they destroy data older than six years?

I wonder how they store their data less than six years old?

 

So you have to decide whether to give up and roll over or whether you want to fight them and find out if theyre telling you the truth.

 

I took the CO-op to court and they found data over nine years old before the claim for non-complaince was closed.

 

My personal view is that where the CLaimants are told that their data is no being held then the best course of action is to take them to court for non-complaince.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[natwesttookmymoney]

I agree with you, Glenn. There's a big thread about Abbey National trying to avoid delivering stuff more than 6 years old (JONESHOUSEHOLD HAVE ID'd IT) and one of their arguments was...it was on microfiche and therefore 'not a structured record'. I believe they had a visit from the Information Commissioner who explained that those are, indeed, structured records.

 

If an account is still open from pre-6 years ago, the chances of them having destroyed records are, I would venture, nil.

 

I have a feeling that Natties has answered exactly this point for NatWest but can't remember where.

 

Westy

[joneshousehold]

If you have to take court action to recover more data then you probably need to tell the court dealing with the joint debt that NatWest are not providing information and this is prejudicing your counter claim plus is in contravention of the Data Protection Act. It will make the NatWest solicitors get a bit jumpy (worth it for that alone!) and you might suddenly find they are a lot more helpful. Solicitors can be very agressive when they want to be and will just take the client's word for it. If you show their word is in doubt then they will have to at least respond in an informative way otherwise the judge will be asking them to explain themselves to him/her.

I am not in any way qualified or experienced to be able to help you with any authority but it seems to me that if you can show that NatWest are being obstructive it will help your cause.

I think I remember reading somewhere that you should ask the date specific records were destroyed and what form they were held at the time, what happens to microfiched documents and things like that. Try to pin them down to specific responses because that's the only way you will make someone really check it out.

Nattie who posted on the thread I posted a link to, is or was I believe a member of staff at NatWest, he/she may be able to help with perhaps some more probing questions to ask.

[joneshousehold]

I have just tried searching for posts in the NatWest forum using search terms Data Protection Act - there seems to be quite a few gems in the few I looked at. Mcuth might be of interest and a few others too. Try spending some time reading other peoples threads, they are often useful, usually interesting and without doubt very helpful in making you feel that you are not alone. Get yourself a glass of wine and settle down for a good read - better than the telly and more profitable.

 

Good luck with this Nicole, you will always have the advantage that for you it is personal but for the other side it's just a job and they often can't be bothered to look properly before they put pen to paper.

[The Phantom]

Yes, I just sat back and had a think about it. I sent the template letter from the site here, and of course it says in there " Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history with your organisation. Alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period will be acceptable." I did not ask them just for statements, I said these would be acceptable as an alternative but for the entire period. And that is what they didn't do. Never mind the fact what they sent was incomplete as well as a lot seems to have been lost in transit. So if they can't supply statements then anything else in relation should have been sent. So you are correct to suggest to ask them what exactly they have destroyed and when if they can't provide anything and try to hide behind it. (I have also asked for the true signed agreement under the CCA but that hasn't been supplied either as yet)

I have already made these issues my main points in my defence. As NatWest is not disclosing relevant documents and information I cannot really build a defence as I don't know what amounts I am defending or whether NatWest is entitled to pursue me at all - their solicitor's response was that they want me to withdraw my defence as it would not stand in court and make a full admission within two weeks to them and their client will consider any new repayment plan I am coming up with (but this does not belong in this thread).

I am digging around to find ways to build a counterclaim for charges way back to when I started banking with them, that's how I stumbled across this very informative thread and have subscribed straight away.

[joneshousehold]

That's the spirit!

 

I was always told that the devil is in the detail. Pull apart what they say and they have to start again. I bet they want you to make a full admission because they think they may have trouble proving the debt.

 

I'm off to see your main thread - can't say that I will be able to help - I walked away from NatWest years ago but I will keep trying to maintain this bulldog spirit!

[bill-k]

Martin

if the banks are fiduciaries there is no limitation unless you can point to something that says there is?

Glenn

Mad Nick found this earlier - any use ?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/58038-limitation-act-fiduciary-relationship.html#post485493

[JonCris]

If they are claiming they have disposed & no longer hold your data write back & ask how, when , & where they disposed of it.

 

Also remind the solicitors that if the data is held no matter what age, as there is NO limitation, their client is required to supply it

[The Phantom]

Excellent - will certainly do. I knew there was a reason I joined this web site !!

[joneshousehold]

Just a thought. I have seen this in another thread about the Fraud Act. Post No 1967 is the one you want to look at (and 1971)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-99.html#post538092

 

Might be worth a bit of research.

[j.barton1]

Hi Everyone, I have just posted my first letter to request my charges back for 2000-2001 from alliance and leicester http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester/56153-hi-all.html

 

Any help would be appreciated, especially about the six yr statute should any problems arise.

 

Thanks

#

jenny

[The Phantom]

Just a thought. I have seen this in another thread about the Fraud Act. Post No 1967 is the one you want to look at (and 1971)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-99.html#post538092

 

Might be worth a bit of research.

 

I find that highly interesting, especially in my court case. But as it states this Act only came into effect 15.01. of this year, I made the requests to NatWest before that, so it may not be affected by this law. Of course I am not a lawyer and do not know , but I think only cases that were initiated after the 15.01. will possibly be influenced by this, or what does anybody else think ? Certainly excellent for new cases but maybe not for people with older , already running claims / cases

[groovycaz]

I suggest that people get the statements and work it out accrautely. Data Protection Act request if necessary. Also I need to know how much they were charging then because it won't have been at today's levels.

 

I have business statements from the cooperative bank from 1996 and they charged me £30 for returning an unpaid DD plus £15 fee correspondence, ie the letter they sent to inform me they were returning my DD. Overdraft advice £10, which is my call to them complaining about the charges. In total they charged me £1877 until they closed my account in 2000. This account was the 1st one I had when I started my business, the bank were no help at all to me and never offered me any help in the way of overdraft facility and in the end they wrote to me and told me they were closing my account. I dont know how I never went under. I wrote to them requesting they repay me these charges and sent them copies of all the statements showing the charges, they wrote back saying they would not be repaying me because of the limitation act

[The Phantom]

Hi

 

have a read through this new thread - you will find it relates directly to the previous problem the limitation act posed for claims going back more than 6 year. Appears a way around it has been found !

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/65306-forget-32-limitations-act.html#post563678

[groovycaz]

Hi yes ive printed a copy off, just getting all my information together, then im writing to the bank again requesting repayment, if i get no response again I'l start court action and see how it goes, does anyone know when you have the proof of charges going back 10 years to calculate the interest, is it 8% per annum from the date thay started to charge until the account was closed in 2000 or per annum to date?

[The Phantom]

Oh dear - on that one I will have to pass. That I really do not know

Hope someone else replies to this for you so you can get the ball rolling

[maranatha]

I need to clear my head and want some advice regarding the 6 year rule

after reading through this thread.

 

I am currently at LBA stage with the A+L. Just had a formal reponse saying buzz off). I'llw ait until the 14 days are clear then proceed to action.

 

Now questions:

 

1. I got about 6-1/2 years of statements. I've requested further details regarding possible microfiche holdings and will consider a further action under the Data Protection Act. Is this wise or should I just take what i can get?

 

2. Regarding the six year rule. There have been a number of points raised.

 

2.1 Fiduciary Duty - Nelson -v- Rye (1995) - Nice one Cyril. Are the banks claiming that they are NOT fiduciaries? It seems plain as a pikestaff to me that they are!. Has this been tested recently?

 

2.2 Withholding. The fact that the banks will not disclose their actual costs in dealing with these things, means, (to some) that they are withholding (or some other word) -and therefore not time limited. Is this s32? - Has it been tested?

 

2.3 When does the six years start? The Banks are saying - six years back from now -- but some here are arguing that the six years starts from the date of discovery - which in my case was when the BBC did their programme. There was an assumption in the Nelson -v- Rye (1995) judgement that the six years referred back to the actual incident. Again, what law are we relying upon here.

 

3. I do have another question regarding Compound Interest and whether in the statement of claim, I can give the judge options ??

 

Ok - sorry there was a lot there, but I need to get my Initial court documents together. Need the cash. DW (Dear Wife) and LD (lovely daughter) need a holiday this year.

 

Blessings

 

-maranatha-

[progenic7]

maranatha

 

check out this post i made earlier and all will be revealed, sorry i probably should have posted it hear to start with, but i forgot this post was still live ;-)

 

anyway here is the case law to back this up, seems everyone is confused as to whether case law exists or not...well here you go

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66227-limitation-act-1980-s32.html

[groovycaz]

Hi thanks very much, you have given me just the information I was looking for, I wonder, do you know how I should calculate the interest, would it be until the account was closed or to date? any help would be much appreciated.... thanks again groovycaz

[Gary JAY]

The Latent Damages Act, 1986, inserted Sections 14(A) and 14(B) into the Limitations Act, 1980. But, these were overrided by the insertion of Section 32. Basically, if one of 3 situations arise then the period of limitation is suspended INDEFINATELY!!!!!

It's up to the discretion of the court (ultimately) to judge whether each case is proved or not (but with OFT findings changing all the time and banks not wanting to be the first 'Test Case') go for it - what have you got to loose??!!

 

With Data held by the banks, all of them have a 'weeding' period (the time period after which all info is destroyed). However, they should supply all info as none want the intervention of the Data Commissioner!! So, if you've asked for all info etc, then normally accept what you get back BUT never ask fo r just the last 6 years because this is the normal 'limitation period' - leave it 'open-ended.'

 

Hope this helps

[sn00psmum]

Hi all,

 

I have a thread going in the RBS Scottish section for an account which we have only had for just over the five years. But I also have a few closed accounts which I want to pursue as I incurred alot of penalty charges which go right back to my teens, about 20 years, gulp!! However, I live in Scotland and was wondering if any of the issues raised in this thread would apply here? I realise that certain aspects of law differ here but surely there is something that covers the whole of the UK? All but two of the accounts were closed over 5yrs ago. I keep reading about LA sec32 and concealment but i've read on another forum that it's English law. (The same forum advises against mentioning contractual interest or indeed any interest until the court stage, however i've followed some of the advice on this site and claimed for it anyway as it's a substantial amount)

 

:o :o Hope someone can help me with this as i'm keen to get going with my old accounts! (DPA sent for one of them last week)

[TideTurner]

The RBS have branches in England and therefore must conform to Scottish and English Laws. The law comes into play where you sue them in a Scottish or an English Court.

 

Lodge your claim in England, you are dealing with the same organisation, just making your claim at a different Court.

 

Can anybody suggest a Court? maybe Carlisle or Newcastle?

[TideTurner]

Sorry missed the main point, make your SAR as you would in England. This was originally forced by Europe.

[sn00psmum]

Hi, thanks for that! I've just rejected the offer of goodwill from RBS. The ones I was wondering about going back further than 5yrs are, among others the Bank of Scotland (now HBOS?). I'm not going to do an English claim as i'd like to keep it local if possible. Travelling to England is not really an option (hubby, 3 kids, 2 dogs etc) and we live near Inverness so it's not just a case of popping over the border! I just wondered if I could cite the LA sec 32 even though I am a Scottish resident going through the Sherriff Court system? I have already sent my DPA letter for HBOS and have numerous others yet to go!

 

Thanks for help:-)

[TideTurner]

41 Short title, commencement and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Limitation Act 1980.

(2) This Act, except section 35, shall come into force on 1st May 1981.

(3) Section 35 of this Act shall come into force on 1st May 1981 to the extent (if any) that the section substituted for section 28 of the Limitation Act 1939 by section 8 of the Limitation Amendment Act 1980 is in force immediately before that date; but otherwise section 35 shall come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes of that section (including its application in relation to different courts or proceedings).

(4) The repeal by this Act of section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1963 and the corresponding saving in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland, but otherwise this Act does

not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.

 

I haven't got the Limitation Act 14(1).

S.(2). The amendment made by section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1963 in section 5 of the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945 (which provides that section 5 shall have effect as if for the words "in force in Northern Ireland at the date of the passing of this Act" there were substituted the words "for the time being in force in Northern Ireland") shall continue to have effect notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 14(1).

 

Also look at

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Tide