Jump to content


Robertxc

20 year claim limit in Scotland

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4079 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

This article was written by a solicitor from Burness, one of the top Scottish law firms:

 

Scottish law articles in association with Burness

Prescription and limitation in contract

The terms prescription and limitation are often used synonymously but do in fact refer to two distinct principles, explains senior projects solicitor Adrian Huett. Prescription is a rule of substantive law whereby certain rights and obligations are created (positive prescription) or extinguished (negative prescription) after a specified period of time. Limitation is a rule of procedure – and so must therefore be raised by the defendant in proceedings – whereby certain rights and obligations (while remaining in existence) become legally unenforceable after a specified period of time.

 

Scottish law

The current law is found in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as amended). The provisions on negative prescription set out when contractual rights and obligations are extinguished. There are two time periods: the short five-year period and the 20-year long-stop period. Both run from the date on which the obligation became enforceable and this will vary depending upon the nature of the obligation.

 

For example, the date upon which a claim under a contract (eg a claim for loss and expense under a building contract) becomes enforceable will depend upon the terms of the contract and will always be a question of fact and circumstance. However, it will usually be when the dispute crystallises, ie when a claim has been made by one party and rejected by the other. Thereafter, the pursuer has five years from this date in which to make a claim otherwise their right – and the defender’s obligation – will be extinguished.

 

In contrast, a claim for breach of contract generally becomes enforceable when there is a concurrence of liability (ie the breach) and actual loss. Again, the pursuer then has five years to make a claim. However, given that a pursuer may not realise that they have suffered a loss until some time after the breach (eg where there is a latent defect in a building), the five-year period will not start until the pursuer becomes aware, or could with reasonable diligence have become aware, of that loss. This qualification is subject to the 20-year long-stop which applies irrespective of the pursuer’s knowledge.

 

Accordingly, if an owner discovers a defect in their building three years after completion then, provided that defect could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, they have until year eight to make a claim against the contractor for breach of the building contract. However, if the same defect is discovered 18 years after completion then the owner has only two years to make a claim before their right is extinguished.

 

It follows that correctly identifying the nature of the obligation is key to understanding when the prescriptive periods apply and, consequently, when rights and obligations will be extinguished under Scottish law.

 

English law

The current law is principally found in the Limitation Act 1980 (as amended). This sets out when contractual rights and obligations become unenforceable. There are two time periods since English law divides contracts into two categories: there is a six-year limitation period for simple contracts, and a 12-year limitation period for contracts executed as deeds.

Only one limitation period will apply to any contract and that will run from the date on which the cause of action accrued. In a claim under a contract, this will be when the dispute crystallises. The claimant will then have either 6 or 12 years in which to make a claim otherwise their remedy will be time-barred.

 

In a claim for breach of contract, this will be when the breach occurred and again the claimant will have either 6 or 12 years in which to make a claim. It should be noted that, unlike Scottish law, time will run from the date of the breach and not from the date of any resulting loss. Moreover, the start of the limitation period will not be deferred merely because the claimant was unaware of the breach. As a result, a claimant’s remedy may become time-barred before they realise they have suffered a loss or even before such loss has materialised. In order to address this injustice, the English Law Commission has published proposals which allow claims for breach of contract to be made within three years from the date of discoverability, subject to a ten-year long-stop. The proposals largely mirror the provisions of the Latent Defects Act 1986 which allows claims for negligence (other than actions involving personal injuries) to be brought outside the usual six-year limitation period but within three years from the date of discoverability, subject to a 15-year long-stop. The proposals are unlikely to be on the statute book for a number of years, however.

 

Conclusion

Whether prescription or limitation applies will depend upon whether the contract is governed by Scots law or English law. In either case, once the solicitor has established the relevant time period and has decided to proceed with the claim, he must then be sure to stop the clock by raising either court proceedings or arbitration proceedings.

 

Source: Burness May 2003


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, this is interesting.

 

I used to have a account with Lloyds which was closed 3 yrs ago. They were a sharp thorn in my side for a number of years prior to that. Here was me thinking I would only be able to get them for a couple of years.

 

If I'm reading this right, can we really go back as far as 20 yrs in bonnie Scotland?


Darren :p

 

BOS - WON - £5.6k

------------------------------------------------

Virgin Mastercard - WON - £300

------------------------------------------------

Barclaycard - WON - £200

------------------------------------------------

Lloyds - WON - £1.6k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says what it says.

The author is a partner at Burness

- they're one of the top Scottish law firms (with one of the poshest offices too).

 

 

I'd be very surprised indeed if it was incorrect.

 

 

Unfortunately,

I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as amended) yet for total verification.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be successful in the early 90's in getting back bank charges through my contcts with the bank manager. Then the systems changed and despite following the same procedures, I was singularly unsuccessful in getting back abnk charges. This article givesus much comfort, but does the bank need to admit that thye do indeed hold records of customers accounts for last 20 years or five?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article givesus much comfort, but does the bank need to admit that thye do indeed hold records of customers accounts for last 20 years

 

No. It just states that you can claim back up to 20 years.

 

The bank may or may not hold details going back this far.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

christmasrallycag_468x60.gif


Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of people out there (my Mother for one) who routinely save all their bank statements, and have a nice archive going back through the mists of time. Those people could potentially clobber their banks for a fortune if they added the contractual rate of interest. The problem with that of course is that there is still a £750 small claims limit in Scotland, so it might take a while.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting indeed.I mistakingly got 6 years back statements so maybes no harm in

 

trying,

 

the bank in question are finding it hard to belive that ive already made a second claim.

 

sending me false statements for dates I never claimed and trying to fob me off with

 

another 50 nicker,stating that will be the end of that the bliters.

 

mikeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarification:

 

20 year prescription applies only in relation to certain obligations. Regardless of how you quantify the obligation to repay bank charges (if there is indeed an obligation, which legally remains to be determined) it will not be one to which the 20 year period applies.

 

As to the question of when the party becomes "aware" that they have a claim, it is necessary for individuals to exercise reasonable diligence in protection of their rights. The banks have been pretty clear in their terms and conditions as to what charges will apply on default and so it is not possible to argue that the banks have in some way "concealed" the charges which they are to apply. The law in relation to unfair contract terms has been in place since 1999 and the law on penalty charges has been clear for decades. As a consumer you could easily have sought advice on the lawfulness of the bank charges by consulting a legal adviser or citizens' advice bureau. This is what is meant by using "reasonable diligence". If you have failed to do that, the courts will not entertain an argument that you did not know until other people started to claim or the OFT report came out. Individuals must look out for themselves.

 

Fact is, any claim you make in relation to bank charges in the Scottish courts, whatever its legal basis, can only be made from a date 5 years prior to the date you claim.

 

Hope that clears matters up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input Advocate.

 

There are a couple of things however which I think need to be clarified:

As to the question of when the party becomes "aware" that they have a claim, it is necessary for individuals to exercise reasonable diligence in protection of their rights. The banks have been pretty clear in their terms and conditions as to what charges will apply on default and so it is not possible to argue that the banks have in some way "concealed" the charges which they are to apply.
It may be true that they've been clear about what charges will apply, but no-one is challenging the banks on the basis that they didn't know charges were going to be applied. The legal challenges are coming from the fact that it's become apparent relatively recently that their charges are actually penalties, and therefore not enforceable.
The law in relation to unfair contract terms has been in place since 1999 and the law on penalty charges has been clear for decades. As a consumer you could easily have sought advice on the lawfulness of the bank charges by consulting a legal adviser or citizens' advice bureau.
It's difficult to see how consulting CAB would help in deciding about the lawfullness of bank charges - since the banks vehemently insist that their charges are not penalties, and - so far - not a single bank has been prepared to go to court to justify them. (I know, lots of banks make a pretence of fighting court actions - but that's not the same as going all the way)

 

I don't think that a consumer with no legal training could in any be expected to be familiar with the UTCCR1999, or the law as it relates to penalty charges, and I so I think it's perfectly reasonable that when it's pointed out to them today that they've been getting ripped of by their bank , the Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act allows them to seek proper redress.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first point must be that while I appreciate the comments that people make regarding my argument, it is based on an understanding of the law of prescription as it applies in SCOTLAND. The law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter is different. s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 therefore has no application in the Scottish courts and the concepts used in that Act are different as a matter of law and principle. A consumer making an argument based on the 1980 Act in the Scottish courts would be unsuccessful. it is not OUR law.

 

To understand my argument it is important to remember that the law has not been clarified in any way by the OFT report. It content does not give a determination of the law in question, rather an opinion by a public body of what they believe the law to be. Only the courts can decide what the law is on any given point.

 

If the charges are penalty charges, they have been so since they were first applied. The law on penalty charges has been very clear for years. While it may seem unfair to require the ordinary consumer to enquire into a complicated legal point, that is what lawyers are for I am afraid. The fact that it may cost people or that people may find it difficult to understand has little bearing on the question of whether they could "with reasonable diligence have become aware" of their right to make a claim. The fact that you are a consumer does not mean that you have no access to law. If the law excused people on account of their ignorance, then does this not justify people seeking to remain ignorant? The floodgates would be opened and the policy of the law would be seriously undermined in this area if this were indeed the legal position, which it is not.

 

The fact that the OFT report may have raised awareness of the argument that bank charges may be unfair or penalty charges is not denied, but ignorance of the law is not enough to postpone the start of the 5 year prescriptive period. There requires to be something else which would justify the claimant's ignorance.

 

Bookworm says:

 

"1 year ago, any, and I mean ANY solicitor consulted on penalty charges would have patronised an "ordinary" consumer right out of his office. As for the CAB, they STILL to date do not advise to reclaim charges, and instead advise to "enter into a dialogue with the bank" or to go to the Ombudsman"

 

This is just nonsense and deeply patronising to the legal professions involved. It I am afraid it also panders to easy stereotypes and portrays a naivety about the nature of advising clients on legal problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the charges are penalty charges, they have been so since they were first applied.
This is not correct. You have to remember that the charges banks levy for various things have rocketed over the years, while the cost to them has plummeted. There was a time when the bank charged a couple of pounds for returning a cheque because it actually did use up a load of resources, because the entire process was manual. If a cheque was presented without there being sufficient funds to clear it, the branch had to dig out the person's file, check the balance, type out a letter and post it to the customer. As banks have become more and more autmotated, they've reached the point where the overwhelming majority of transactions - authorised, unauthorised, paid or otherwise - are handled entirely by computer. This means of course that the cost to the bank for an individual transaction is now so small that it cannot be expressed in terms of pounds and pence (instead they use 'CPM', which means 'cost per thousand', the M denoteing the Latin term for a thousand, 'Mille'). Over the years of course, the banks reralised that this was a rather nice earner, which is why every so often you get a letter saying that their charges have gone up by another fiver.

 

I really don't think that the issue is whether or not you could "with reasonable diligence have become aware" that penalties are unlawful has much bearing. The real issue is whether or not you could have known that your banks charges are penalties, and that's something which is much trickier, since they don't publish details of their income from chrges, and they vehemently deny that they make any profi from them.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert you say:

 

 

"This is not correct. You have to remember that the charges banks levy for various things have rocketed over the years, while the cost to them has plummeted. There was a time when the bank charged a couple of pounds for returning a cheque because it actually
did
use up a load of resources, because the entire process was manual. If a cheque was presented without there being sufficient funds to clear it, the branch had to dig out the person's file, check the balance, type out a letter and post it to the customer. As banks have become more and more autmotated, they've reached the point where the overwhelming majority of transactions - authorised, unauthorised, paid or otherwise - are handled entirely by computer."

 

in doing so I believe you have misunderstood my point. I am not suggesting that bank charges have always been "penalty charges" as that term is understood at law and I agree that it is perhaps possible that they have only become so as technology has allows the process to become as cheap as you siggest. Rather, I am saying that bank charges people are seeking to claim back as discussed in these fora, if they are penalty charges, they have been so since the date they were applied to the consumer's account. They did not become so simply as a result of the OFT report.

 

It follows that, as the law on penalty charges has been clear for years, the Scottish courts will not entertain the suggestion that a pursuer has only now become aware that they are penalty charges, as these same people have access to lawyers (this despite the cost!) to advise on these legal questions. This is what is meant by exercising reasonable diligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It follows that, as the law on penalty charges has been clear for years, the Scottish courts will not entertain the suggestion that a pursuer has only now become aware that they are penalty charges, as these same people have access to lawyers (this despite the cost!) to advise on these legal questions. This is what is meant by exercising reasonable diligence.
I don't think that anyone could possibly have been certain that the bank's charges amounted to penalties prior to the OFT's statement on bank charges earlier this year. The OFT of course have access to evidence from the banks which a customer would never be able to get. I think that from point on you have 'official' confirmation that the charges amount to a penalty, and so I think the five years timescale begins then.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my argument(OFT statement using it as discovery rule) when RBOS qouted the limitations act to me and i went to court seemed like sheriff was egging me on to continue but there is the problem of it getting taken out of small claims and then into summary cause or possibly ordinary cause which i would have been liable for the banks expenses. i bailed out......soz this would be better tested by a individual on legal aid.

 

also i can bring this action again as no evidence was heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in summary, even though there is a 20 - year limit on claims in certain circumstances, because I have paid the penalty charge and was aware of this fact, I would have had to have lodged a claim very soon afterwards to try to recover the penalty charge?

 

I'm specifically thinking about when I was a student in the dim and distant mid - nineties and going overdrawn by £10 or so from time to time wasn't unknown. The penalty charges sometimes (unfortunately) incurred would make it just that wee bit harder to get back on to an even keel and it becomes an ever decreasing circle.

 

To cut a long story short, I have found the boxes in which all my BoS statements are kept and there's probably a few hundred pounds in there that I would feel justified in lodging a claim, more through anger than anything else ;) . However, if the time limit is five years back from the date of claim then I can't do anything about it?

 

Incidentally i don't bank with BoS any more as they managed to make a mess of tax on savings interest for me, resulting in 3 years of tax claims, where I had to pay inland revenue the princely sum of about £8 one year, £12 the next, and I got back a cheque for some pence on the third year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in summary, even though there is a 20 - year limit on claims in certain circumstances, because I have paid the penalty charge and was aware of this fact, I would have had to have lodged a claim very soon afterwards to try to recover the penalty charge?
I don't think so. Very simply - Advocate is correct that a 'resonable person' could have found out the penalty charges were unlawful, BUT I would say that there's no way you could have known that the banks charges were actually penalty charges. You have to bear in mind that non of the banks have ever released breakdowns of how their charges are made up, and to this day they swear blind that their charges are 'reasonable'. For me, the key event was the OFT's statement in July which was the first official indication that the banks charges are penalties. I think the the 'reasonable person' has five years from July to make his claim.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none of the discussion so far on this mentions the question of what the act calls fraud, ie the banks concealing the facts on the charges by maintaining that they were lawful

 

"reasonable diligence" needs to be taken in context of the reputation of the banks and their self portrayal as prudent professionals over the years

It would have been extraordinarily diligent for anyone to discover the duplicitousness of the banks before the publicity recently, the reasonable person would perhaps have been duped by the publicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid not BfB. The "fraud" discussed in the 1973 Act is equated with the requirements for fraud at common law, i.e. the criminal variety. The Banks have been pretty up front about the fact that you would get charged if you breaching your contract (and lets not get too sanctimonious. The charges are only applied when the consumer fails to adhere to the terms of their contract. While harsh to be charged £25 for going £1 or so overdrawn, it seems to me that you cannot rack up thousands of pounds in charges without being at least a little financially irresponsible, if not reckless).

 

The best argument is that suggested by Robertxc. He is saying that as the Banks have not disclosed the costs involved in administering breaches of contract by the customer, a consumer exercising reasonable diligence could never have known until the OFT report that the charges were penalty charges. The riposte is that that is exactly why we have litigation. People believing they have been wronged and then using the process of litigation to determine the true facts through the process of pleadings and the tools afforded by the process to discover information from the other side. If it appears half-way through that the other side actually has a reasonable defence, it will cost you cash to have found that out, but then you have to settle and pay their expenses.

 

Whether the banks will actually run with the prescription defence is yet to be seen, but if they do the consumer will be well advised to seek the assistance of a lawyer, or give up. These kind of legal arguments require someone with a knowledge of the law and the ability to argue on the basis of analogy.

 

Also, if the courts were to allow such a subjective interpretation of the requirements of reasonable diligence, it would open up claims on the basis of peoples' deliberate ignorance, directly contrary to the policy of the Act, which is to ensure that claims are dealt with within a period of time which allows witnesses to remember things and documents to be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 year ago, any, and I mean ANY solicitor consulted on penalty charges would have patronised an "ordinary" consumer right out of his office. As for the CAB, they STILL to date do not advise to reclaim charges, and instead advise to "enter into a dialogue with the bank" or to go to the Ombudsman.

 

As someone who has a 'special interest' in the limitation argument I'm afraid I have to agree with the mod & most of the other posts. To suggest that an ordinary consumer should have known or even questioned the banks charges is a complete non-starter. Not only that CAB & all the solicitors of my aquaintance didn't realize what was happening was unlawful & why should we we trusted the banks.

I believe the concealement argument has merit & if that isn't the case the limitation act provision allows that even if they have made a mistake which could have been found through due diligence (like consulting their lawyers perhaps) then they are still not protected by the act

 

Advocate your comments about many people living beyond their means shows a clear lack of understanding of whats going on in our society.

 

Most need to borrow just to survive in todays overtaxed country. Also if you took the trouble to read most of the stories on this & other websites you will note that most of the lenders victims have not got into their situation because they are feckless but most for reasons such redunancy/illness/ & other family reasons yet these are the people the banks actually target to penalise in their already dire situation. Not only that they activley encourage these same debtors to take out loans to pay their overdrafts & then wonder why they can't pay when the money runs out.

 

My point is unless you have been in the situation which many here have found themselves then I suggest you refrain from implying that debtors only have themselves to blame they dont!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

The Limitation Act is, of course, an English Statute. We have our own legal system up here which, while similar and often influenced by yours, is based on principles and not, as in England, remedies. Not only do we have separate legislation on this matter, our judges approach problems in different ways. I confess it irritates me when people fail to make the distinction and seek to spread "knowledge of the law", which does not apply in this jurisdiction. It is misleading for people.

 

If you are someone who has managed to get a bank to settle beyond the Limitation period in England and Wales (6 years), congratulations to you. However, this does not necessarily imply that the law in relation to the postponement of the beginning of limitation period is in your favour. The reasons for not fighting such claims could be multifarious, and may indeed least of all be that the Banks consider the law to be on the side of the consumer. One extrajudicial settlement does not mean the law is on your side.

 

We are overtaxed and need to borrow you say. I would be interested to hear what all this borrowing is required for, although I sense that you are saying it is all the banks' faulty for entering into commercial arrnagements with a view to securing profit from the consumer. If this is abhorent, stand for election on a platform for change. Fact is, we are all better off in terms of meeting basic needs than at any other point in our history, yet we have more than twice the levels of consumer debt than in any other country in the EU. Personal sequestrations/bankruptcy is at an all time high. Whose fault is this, Sky tv for making such an irresistible if not indispensable product? People are living beyond their means, it is essential that this is recognised if people are to be proactive about dealing with their levels of debt. Life in our society is not about fairness, it is about survival first and foremost.

 

BTW been unemployed, been a student, I was always overdrawn, but never charged. It can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry advocate whilst I don't speak for the board I'm sure all opinions are welcome here but with the greatest respect I suspect you not having ever been penalised by the money lenders it appears your pontificating about something of which you no little. Also I suspect your income is such that you have little or no need for their services as your not on a fixes income. Either that or like my kids who think there is a money tree at the bottom of the garden you have yet to leave home

 

To get a feel for what this site is all about I suggest you miss a couple of DD's & then watch the charges escalate to alarming levels almost overnight. Within a few days 1 missed DD will have incurred both an unauthorised overdraft fee of between £25 & £30 plus a DD return fee of between £25 & £30. Thats a possible £60 for going as littel as £1 overdrawn. Nor does it include the receivers penalty charges which could be anything upto another £50. So in almost the blink of an eye your £1 has escalated to over £100 Now because you can't meet your other liabilities (as there not enough in the bank because the bank take their charges 1st) it escalates even further until your hundreds of pounds out of pocket & if you don't believe me ask a few others on this site

 

Your inability to understand why most people get into debt shows a lack of understanding of the world in which you live.

I have no problem with the banks or any business making an HONEST profit which the banks aren't. Also to suggest that the banks are blameless is nonsense. Of course they are as they have specificly targeted consumers on limited incomes because they know that they will be 1st to fall foul of the penalty charges thereby adding to their profits & because of bad debt tax breaks at little overall cost. After all no point in targeting the more well off is there? They like you will never go overdrawn beyond their agreed limit

 

Also as for your other remarks regarding limitation I would remind you that the concealment clause was included in the act for a reason & I suggest the reason is precisely why many are now bringing claims outside the 6 years. As to whether they will be successful we'll have to wait & see but it will be interesting period in our fight with the money lenders.

 

As for the difference in laws. Of course there are differences we all know that. but there are also many simular laws. The Common Law is a moveable feast & often a finding in Scotland will be considered by the courts in England who will make the same finding.

 

Finally I would remind you that this site is about the unlawful & reprehensible conduct of the money lenders, which you choose to defend, & is not about all of us feckless debtors

 

BTW both myself & spouse students, like you always overdrawn, unlike you charged but despite the banks constant threat to cut us off managed to get our degrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all,

i am at court on thursday for proof hearing, RBS have posted defence that half my claim is time barred, i will endeavour to prove otherwise using the argument (in short) that since charges are unlawful, they are a breach of contract. and therefore i have 20 years from date of last breach to claim and also can go back last 20 years since date of "enlightenment" to their breach. i have researched some documentary evidence to support my position, but any more would be more than helpful, such as prior cases where such an argument was proven etc, otherwise its on a wing and a prayer and i hope they dont turn up.


RBS account 1: LBA sent 7/7/06 £1285 RBS offer to settle at £1090, accepted 5/8/06damn i wish i hadn't

RBS accounts 2 and 3 and 4: court claim lodged 5/9/06 for £745 + costs NO RESPONSE 26/10. SETTLED AT PROOF HEARING

CAP ONE : court claim lodged 8/9/06 for £160 account creditted with £46: settled in full 14/10/06

BARCLAYCARD: court claim lodged 8/9/06 for £445, Information Commissioners Office complaint made - offered to settle for 160 17/8/06 refused DEFENSE LODGED 26/10 in court 2/11. SETTLED IN FULL

style financial - lba for £106.16, settled in full 20/9

ge money - lba for £73 20/9 repayed £45

RBS account 4 again : LBA sent 9/10/06 £38

ge money 2: lba sent 9/10/06 £174.95 and default removal, 16/10 settled in fullrefused to remove default

RBS account 1 again : Prelim approach sent 26/10/06 £293.17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS BOTTLE IT!!

After stating my case before court, rbs agree to settle

before submittion of evidence ( of which i had very little)

my opening argument seemed to be enough to rattle their feathers

Obviously not prepared to argue that 20 year limit doesn't apply.

i advise everyone to go for it, nothing to lose and lots to reclaim!!!!!!


RBS account 1: LBA sent 7/7/06 £1285 RBS offer to settle at £1090, accepted 5/8/06damn i wish i hadn't

RBS accounts 2 and 3 and 4: court claim lodged 5/9/06 for £745 + costs NO RESPONSE 26/10. SETTLED AT PROOF HEARING

CAP ONE : court claim lodged 8/9/06 for £160 account creditted with £46: settled in full 14/10/06

BARCLAYCARD: court claim lodged 8/9/06 for £445, Information Commissioners Office complaint made - offered to settle for 160 17/8/06 refused DEFENSE LODGED 26/10 in court 2/11. SETTLED IN FULL

style financial - lba for £106.16, settled in full 20/9

ge money - lba for £73 20/9 repayed £45

RBS account 4 again : LBA sent 9/10/06 £38

ge money 2: lba sent 9/10/06 £174.95 and default removal, 16/10 settled in fullrefused to remove default

RBS account 1 again : Prelim approach sent 26/10/06 £293.17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very interested in this 20 year limit.

 

I previously had a business and private account with the RBS from 1989 to 1993 where £thousands was charged in fees. I also had business & personal account with the Clydesdale from 1995 to 1999 again £1000's charged in fee's.

 

I don't have statements with account numbers from the RBS, but if I proved my identity and address at the time would they have to give me the information required to reclaim these charges.

 

The RBS situation ended with a bankruptcy and they received £1000's in fee's and interest when I paid this off after receiving an inheritance.

 

If its possible I would like to try recovering this money.

 

Alasdair


Alasdair

 

LloydsTSB - Settled unconditionally

 

 

If this site has helped you pleas donate so that it can keep helping people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...