Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi,   I sent the email to both my local councillor and the leader of my local council yesterday evening. I didn't receive an acknowledgement email. Do you know if I should have, as I know that if you ever email an MP you always receive a acknowledgement email?   Walshy
    • Can I ask how your taking him to court with just his a trade name ?  Yes I notice hes still trading on ebay.   
    • Very good finds indeed which help to undermine their case.. And to strengthen your case take a look  look at a thread by Tom Price also at Southend airport which is several threads below yours and you will see that he won his case on the fact that he was stopped rather than parked. On top of that he had the Airports Act  1986 to quote. The relevant section is no 63 " Byelaws are covered at S.63  (2)Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d)for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;" That confirms that the roads at the airport are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws neither of which is relevant land therefore  PoFA cannot apply. And  VCS should be aware of that. Another thing is that when you posted their WS you didn't include their contract which I missed at the time. However Tom Price included it in his. And guess what-the  alleged offence they are pursuing you for, No Stopping, is not included in their contract. If you look at the end of their Service Agreement [aka contract] you will a list of contravention on Scedule 1 [7] (46) PARKING/WAITING ON A ROADWAY WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITTED That is the nearest to what you did. But you were not parking nor waiting -you were stopped so there was no reason to issue you with a PCN as you never broke any of their contraventions. Looks like they breached your GDPR and you should include that as it carries a hefty charge £750 is not unheard of.   Have a read of his WS too which may give you further ideas even possibly to rebut some of the points VCS  make.
    • Lawrence Stroll, executive chairman of Aston Martin, told the BBC he wants to build a firm with a "luxury profile". View the full article
    • Tax rises and an extension of Covid support are both tipped to be announced in this week’s Budget. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Limitations Act


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5414 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

Can I ask why everyone is limiting themselves to charges levied over the past six years.

 

The Limitations Act 1980 allows for the period to take action to recover charges to be extended to six years from the point at which you could reasonably have been expected to know that you could make a claim.

 

Since the banks have been claiming that the charges they apply are legitimate and lawful, and not excessive penalty charges (as they still do), a lay person could not reasonably have been expected to know any different, to know that they are in fact unlawful, and that they could go to court to claim them back.

 

The banks' customers have relied on what their banks have told them in this respect, and because of this have not believed that they had any cause to refuse to pay the banks' charges, or to take them to court to recover any excessive charges which had been applied - until stories began to appear in the media.

 

The limitation on taking action I would suggest runs for six years from when you read an article or saw a news item which suggested that what your bank told you about its charges being lawful was not in fact true, when you first became aware of this fact

 

This would allow you to claim for all charges the banks have applied to your account, back past six years from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already covered here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3598

 

 

...but you are quite right ;-)

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very well, but judging by the numbers of recent posters who say they are requesting statements for six years, in order to claim charges for six years, this information has not been effectively disseminated

Link to post
Share on other sites

True; we're seeing if anyone want's to try this track first before actively encouraging it.

 

If the bank succeeds in getting the claim thrown out because it's outside of the statute of limitiations, then that person will lose their court money.

 

Many people here cannot afford for that to happen on a whim, so once a few people have tried this and have succeeded, then we will know how to fight this angle a bit better.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
True; we're seeing if anyone want's to try this track first before actively encouraging it.

 

If the bank succeeds in getting the claim thrown out because it's outside of the statute of limitiations, then that person will lose their court money.

What court money would that be? If it's just the small claim court, say of around £100 once I've got my money back from my bank (should be soon) I'll give it a go. I've got bank statements back to somewhere in the 1980s. Been with the same bank since my first job, over 30 yeas ago.

Haven't looked at them in details, so don't know how many charges were levied back then.

 

Neil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give it a go too but there is no way I can get duplicate statements now I don't think (from pre 1998 )

25/06/08 - NatWest - Prelim letter

09/03/06 - Halifax - Settled 27/4

22/03/06 - Capital One - Settled 24/6

17/04/06 - Nationwide - Settled 8/9

 

 

Hit the DONATE BUTTON and give 5% back to support this site!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After I have won my main case against RBS and have about £3k to play with (and a further 26 DCA's to possible sue), I will give it a go. You'll have to wait for a few weeks first I suspect however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
......... over 30 yeas ago ...........don't know how many charges were levied back then.

 

Neil.

 

It could be my memory fading with age, but I don't remember charges being at an extortionate level that many years back.

 

I'd be interested to know when they started ripping off their valued customers in this way - probably longer ago than six years though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your memory fading with age! :p

 

I have some surviving Natwest statements from dec 1991, an o/d letter fee was £20. In October, I have an "advice letter" @ £15 + an "unpaid d/d fee" @ £20, both relating to the same d/d.

 

In terms of what wages were like 15 yrs ago, I suspect it was just as disproportionate then. And of course, interest rates were through the roof...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? :o In that case it's pretty amazing that nobody mounted a serious challenge years ago. Maybe that's because there was no internet and sites like this!

 

I couldn't bear to keep my old bank statements - they depressed me! Luckily for me I haven't been stuffed with charges in recent years (my claim is on behalf of my daughter).

 

I certainly remember the high interest rates - I'm sure I was paying up to 15% on my mortgage during the 1980s. Don't suppose anyone knows how I can claim that back!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think though, the longer we go back the more chance of manual intervention. There must of been a time when people actually had a list of overdrawn accounts and did some semi manual intervention.

 

I suspect that they have wongly upped the charges to justify IT systems been put in to place.

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think though, the longer we go back the more chance of manual intervention. There must of been a time when people actually had a list of overdrawn accounts and did some semi manual intervention.

 

I suspect that they have wongly upped the charges to justify IT systems been put in to place.

 

Good point. Before they handed over control and responsibility to the computer someone probably had to make a specific decision to issue a letter telling you that they were charging you £20 or whatever - but I bet that decision took no longer than 10 seconds in most cases! It would have been a stock letter, so no time needed to compose it, but someone would have had to type it. Still not enough work to justify £15 + £20 in 1991 though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask why everyone is limiting themselves to charges levied over the past six years.

 

The Limitations Act 1980 allows for the period to take action to recover charges to be extended to six years from the point at which you could reasonably have been expected to know that you could make a claim.

.

 

Indeed it does. But I think you may find that it is impractical and virtually impossible to claim beyond the six years..

 

now don't quote me on this, I did my securities institute and FSA regulatory paper in 2004, and I am fairly certain that...

 

Under FSA regulations, and in accordance with the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2000.. fianancial service providers are only required to maintain records of customer accounts and transactional history in a format readily accessible for a period of six years. My understanding is there is no requirement beyond this - save for exceptional investments and possibly mortgages which are not covered by FSMA 2000.

 

I might be misleading you, but I think you will find that a bank/lender can turn around and say bog off (or bag off), because they are in compliance with FSMA 2000 and probably don't even hold the data so are not in breach of DPA.

"BA Group. The World's favourite CA Group"

 

HSBC 2 claims amalgamated. £1195. settled in full prior to filing claim.

BARCLAYS settled in full 2 days prior to submission of defence by Barclays

CAP ONE settled in full on day 14 of LBA (£210)

Link to post
Share on other sites

An accessible period yes, but I am sure they need to keep them longer for other legal reasons too... if you can get access to these then there maybe problems... but if the subject has these already(beit past statements etc) then we have a case, maybe..

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine; if they don't have the records then state that you're claiming under the Statute of Limitations S32(1) (b) and ©, and because they do not hold records that you are using an average based upon the most recent six years of charges.

 

That's what I intend to do; although just to be sure I will place this claim on a separate line of my Moneyclaim form, if it goes that far; so that the Judge has the opportunity to grant the most recent six years and deny the rest if that's what he decides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the point that the bank may not be required to hold the records beyond 6 years, but what if you actually have them yourself? Maybe a bit sad but, I have bank statements from the HSBC going back to early 1980s :) Would they count and be able to be used, even though the bank may not have their own copies?

 

Neil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like documentary evidence to me... it's still an official statement whoever's posession it's in. Personally I don't; so I'm going with the estimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this site and I notice that individuals give a report on where they are at with any claims. Some of them seem to be with institutions other than banks, or at least not just bank accounts.

Does this thread of claiming charges include credit card companies etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post questions to a new thread - I would also suggest that your question is answered in the FAQ's.

Alan, Derby, UK.

 

 

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

 

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

 

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5414 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...