12 years of bank charges

[lenney]

Dear Forum, over the last 3 months i have sent various letters to my bank explaining my disatisfaction with their charges to my accounts; the bank in question is the RBS. Whether in error or not, my bank has sent me details of all my bank charges - not just for the last 6 years (as requested) but for the last 12 years - which total over £3000! (a large proportion were racked up during my student days). I'm about to send a letter to my bank asking for a full refund of all illegal charges... but should i claim for 12 years, or am i only legally alowed to claim for 6? Many thanks for any help you can offer.

[kateandpete]

6 years is tried and tested, safe and secure.

If you feel a little daring then claim contractual interest. The argument is you borrowed off them at whatever overdraft APR (16% in my case) - therefore the unlawful charges were borrowed off you at 16%. Charge them 16% on everything. People are winning with this now.

 

12 years? The relevent piece of legislation is the statute of limitations (search on this for more info). The pioneers on here are trying to challenge this. If you can prove that the bank knowingly deceived us all because it has known the charges were unlawful all along, then the statute falls and the 6 year rule does not apply. At the end of the day it's all up to a judge.

[BankFodder]

Limitation Act 1980

[livelylad]

Dear Forum, over the last 3 months i have sent various letters to my bank explaining my disatisfaction with their charges to my accounts; the bank in question is the RBS. Whether in error or not, my bank has sent me details of all my bank charges - not just for the last 6 years (as requested) but for the last 12 years - which total over £3000! (a large proportion were racked up during my student days). I'm about to send a letter to my bank asking for a full refund of all illegal charges... but should i claim for 12 years, or am i only legally alowed to claim for 6? Many thanks for any help you can offer.

 

 

Here is the relevant section.

 

32.--

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  [*]the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....

  [*](2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty