rbs claiming six years back and the limitation act HELP!

[stan5131]

This is their usual standard reply that everyone now gets. Have a look at my thread titled Natwest bank charges. I have just today dealt with this issue. Its just b****cks! Dont worry. They are stalling for time and hoping to intimidate you into dropping the claim.

 

They used the Limitations Act ploy in a letter to me received this morning. The statue of limitations does not apply if the true costs were concealed from you and you were not aware that this was a penalty charge rather than a true reflection of their costs.

 

Have a look at my thread. I am a little ahead of you and it will give you some idea of what to expect and how to respond.

 

Good luck.

[stan5131]

Thats correct. The only reason we are not going back further than 6 years is because by law the banks only need to keep our records for 6 years, so even if they have them, they will deny it because they know why we want them. Some people have been really fortunate in having saved all their statements sometimes going back 20 years and so are claiming back to when the banks first started charging.

 

The banks will argue the statute of limitations but the havent got a leg to stand on.

[stan5131]

There are lots of people of this site who have successfully claim over £5,000 and going back many years.

[stan5131]

More b****cks! They are askiing YOU to prove their costs!!! Write back and tell them it is THEM and not you who are to justify their costs as reasonable and fair.

[stan5131]

UPDATE

 

Sent copy of my AQ to SC & M following their request just before Christmas.

 

No surprises on their AQ!!

 

Have today received the following letter from Newark County Court:

General Form of Judgment or Order

To the Claimant

kazzaw

Before District Judge ................. sitting at Lincoln County Court.

EX PARTE

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

Dated 28 December 2006

 

I assume they won't be sending the Schedule within 14 days so will the Judge then order them to pay up?

 

Is this happening a lot across the country or have I stumbled upon a good Judge?

[stan5131]

Incorporate the above in your letter. This is what another member recently received from the courts.

[stan5131]

Stick to your guns. Have a look at my thread Natwest bank charges. They tried exactly the same with me. You will find my letter which I sent in reply to this. The six year rule does not apply because they hoodwinked you into believing that their charges were fair and reasonable. You have only just become aware that they are not. Dont cash the cheque.

[stan5131]

Airodek, write and tell them they should think themselves fortunate that you are not claiming back to the opening of the account.

[stan5131]

Yes. Natwest tried this stunt with me! I replied to Cobbetts and continued with my claim including charges outside the six years and won!

[stan5131]

BASIS FOR MY CLAIM

 

4 I do not accept that the claim is time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) on two grounds.

 

5 Section 5 of the Limitation Act states that “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action expired”. However, rights under the contract do not become time barred if there is an acknowledgement or payment of a debt within the six year period. I contend that my payments of £38 per month starting in December 1998 and my continuing payments of the balance due under the Defendant’s County Court order constitute an acknowledgement of the debt. I contend that if I acknowledged the debt and the Defendant asserted its rights under the agreement, then any assertion of my rights under the agreement would not be time barred until six years after the last acknowledgement.

 

6 This argument may be illustrated by way of example. If, in July 2002, I had acknowledged a debt to the Defendant but it had not sought and obtained a County Court Judgment, the debt to the Defendant would not become time barred until July 2008. It

would be possible for the Defendant to make a county Court claim at any point during this six year period. The Defendant’s assertion that this claim is time barred implies that it is possible that one party’s rights under an agreement may be time barred whereas those of the other party are not.

 

 

 

 

7 If the charges are time barred by virtue of section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that the defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the defendant is mistaken. As I only became aware during April 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

 

8The Defendant is a major financial institution within a group of companies that have interests throughout the world. They operate as fiduciary to many thousands of customers in the UK, and employ large staffs which include experienced corporate lawyers and accountants.

 

12 The Claimant holds that if the Defendant did not take legal counsel on this issue, and are genuinely unaware that the said charges are unlawful, and that the court does not uphold the Claimant’s view that section 32(1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, then the Claimant holds that section 32(1) © of the said Act should apply.

13 In April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading published “Calculating Fair Default Charges in Credit Card Contracts” ( A statement of the OFT’s position, page 12). Paragraph 1.1 of the report states that whilst it deals with credit card contracts,

 

“The principles have wider implications for analogous standard default terms in other agreements including those for mortgages, current bank accounts and store cards”.

 

 

Paragraph 1.3 states:

 

“The statement sets out our view of the law which is in essence that default charge provisions are open to challenge on grounds of unfairness if they have the object of raising more in revenue than is reasonably expected to be necessary to recover certain limited administrative costs incurred by the credit card issuer”.

 

14 Based on discussions with the banks and information provided by them, the OFT determined a simple monetary threshold for intervention by the OFT on default charges under credit card contracts of £12 (OFT sets threshold for intervention, page 12). This threshold is significantly lower than the default charges levied by almost all credit card companies and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the credit card companies were aware that these charges were intended to generate a profit over and above the cost of remedying contractual breaches by customers. Given that the credit card companies have consistently refused to provide a breakdown of their costs to demonstrate that their default charges are not punitive in nature I believe that they deliberately concealed the nature of these charges from their customers.

 

15 As the OFT has stated that the principles underlying its report on credit card default charges are analogous to standard default charges in bank current accounts, I contend that it is likely that the Defendant and other banks have concealed the punitive nature of current account default charges from me and other bank customers. I therefore further contend that Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act (1980) applies and that my claim is therefore not time barred. In order to determine whether this view is correct it may be necessary for the Court to consider ordering standard disclosure. I am therefore seeking disclosure of this information as set out in paragraph 20 below.

 

16 If the true nature of the default charges applied to the Account by the Defendant were not deliberately concealed from me, I contend that the Defendant mistakenly set these charges with the view of generating a profit and 32(1)© of the Limitation Act should apply. I base this assertion on the principles set out in the OFT report and the Defendant’s failure to defend claims for the refund of default charges applied to bank accounts where the issue of time barring has not arisen, if the defendant did not mistakenly set the charges with the view of generating a profit, then I paid the charges in the mistaken belief that they were lawful, and I further contend section 32(1)© of the limitation act should apply.

 

17 Based on a survey undertaken by the Consumer Action Group, the Defendant has refunded charges totalling approximately £122,384 to 125 customers since January 2006. Over the same period UK banks have, according to the survey, refunded 3,230 customers, a total of £3.6m; all of these claims have been settled before a Court hearing has taken place. Since mid October I personally have received full settlement offers regarding

charges, one after issuing a court claim and the second after threatening court action (attached page 15), I contend that this is because the Defendant and other banks are aware that their default charges are likely to be judged unlawful.

 

SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

 

18 I contend that this claim is not time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) for the reasons set out above.

 

19 If the Court does consider that the claim is time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980), I ask the Court to consider the arguments set out above in respect of Sections 32(1) (b) and 32(1) © and allow this matter to proceed to the full hearing in which these arguments may be considered in detail.

 

20 Accordingly I would respectfully ask the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure, I understand it is in the courts discretion to do so, this to specifically include a breakdown of the defendant’s losses due to contractual breaches compared to the costs incurred by the claimant as a result of the breaches.