AQ Help Needed! (the 6 year deadline)

[BLESS]

i received my allocation questionnaire last week, it needs to be sent for the 16th Jan.. the Barclays defence is pretty standard from what i've seen posted in other threads, however they have added the following paragraph:

 

 

10. The defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded by the Claimant or at all. In the alternative, which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on breach of contract, it is averred that the charges asserted by the Claimant to have been applied to the account prior to 24th November 2000 would not be recoverable for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractural claims from the date of accural, pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980.

 

 

 

My online claim was submitted 23/11/2006 and received confirmation 24/11/2006 which is the date Barclays are saying i can claim from, but i have always gone by the date i initially requested my money back which was my prelim letter sent to Barclays 05/10/2006 (which keeps me within the 6 year deadline of reclaimable charges)..

 

i worked it out to be £40 they'll have scraped back from me, should i just ignore this and let them keep it when settlement comes? i just want to hurry my AQ along..

[hagenuk]

They are trying it on. Typically being disingenuous regarding the Limitation Act. Ignore this and continue with your claim - including this £40!

[Bookworm]

BLESS: unfortunately, Barclay's right and you are wrong.

 

I used to - until very recently - think (and advise) the same, but then came across a thread with the same scenario, where OP referred to a post by Bankfodder, so I asked BF to clarify, and he confirms that the 6 yrs run from when legal action is started, and NOT from when the first letters are sent.

 

However, personally, I would tell the bank that they'd be better be ready to argue the case against deliberate concealment (s 32 a & b of SOLA 1980) if they want to claim some of the charges are statute-barred, as I will be asking the judge to decide on that too. Remember you do not have to respond to the bank about it at this point, and just make sure you ask the judge to order standard disclosure in your AQ.

 

Worse case scenario, if it went to court, the judge could easily say yes to post-6 yrs charges, not to pre-6 yrs, and you'd be no worse off... In reality, of course, the bank is probably going to be even more scared to test SOLA's 6 yrs limit than the lawfulness of the charges, so it is still a damage limitation exercise IMO.

 

But that's me.

 

PS: Could you change your avatar to something a little less controversial, please?