Beyond 6 years

[Ron Baker]

ron,

 

ok i understand, well its entirely up to you really if i was you i think i would be trickling snippets to them just to see if they bit or not, i really cant see them wanting to go to court even over a time barred issue.

Me myself would howevr hold onto a certain amount of info for the day though, and maybe as we have said before be ready to counter with a little trap of your own.

 

get your arguments straight though just incase they do decide to go along on the day, if you argue the case well enough the limitation act will pose no real problems i dont think.

 

Johnny

 

 

Gave the court a little admendment quoting the Misrepresentation act 1967 last month.... the court said they will send a copy to the Halifax so they have had a little snippet.... may go down to the courts on Friday with a little bit more snippets..."not all" just a little more for the Halifax to chew on.

 

If i don't show my hand until the hearing i just hope the judge does not rule its inadmissable, or he my allow it as the Halfax legal team should know the law on the limitation act and have better resources than most of us and to get there act together.

 

Ron

[Parkvale]

RON,

You are playing a very shrewd game. Don't give them to much, because knowledge is power. They need to know you mean business. I bet you are a mean poker player, or if not a player, START. Good luck, watching with great interest. As waitng for my own court date for claim. Part pre 6years and part post 6 years.

[Guest bong]

My own view, Ron, is that you should reveal all the material you will be relying on for the cases put forward by both parties so far, but have a few up your sleeve for things that they might try and spring on you.

[Ron Baker]

Bong,

All the Halifax has put... as their defence, because it’s beyond the 6 years its "statue barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980", and that it.

 

Now they could be playing with me, and on the day of the hearing, produce more in their defence and submit case law, therefore springing a trap... to which I’m going to shout foul you B’s.

 

I’ve been told that if I did that to them...they may scream foul.... And the judge may say to them... you have the money to pay for the top barristers in the land, and they should be submitting Kramer v Kramer, Inland Revenue v Ken Dodd, Inland Revenue V Lester Piggott, (jokes).... but you get me drift.

 

I would love to think that if I went down to the courts with all the case law tomorrow, and asking could they send of a copy to the Halifax.... the Halifax may just settle a few days before the hearing which would be nice?

 

 

Ron

[chocolatte]

I wish you well Ron, and it is my humble opinion that the judge would be far happier knowing all the facts before you go in, judges can be funny like that, also, i think the bank may well just agree to the sum anyway, I await with bated breath!

[Tigs33]

Can somebody please clarify for me, all of my claims have now been paid but I only claimed upto the 6 years, I can however claim further on three claims (total claims would be about £3,000) but on all three I have signed full and final settlement agreements, could I use the argument that because they had concelled the true nature of these charges to go back further, or am I stuffed because I signed the previous agreements "full and final"??

 

Ta

[Ron Baker]

Can somebody please clarify for me, all of my claims have now been paid but I only claimed upto the 6 years, I can however claim further on three claims (total claims would be about £3,000) but on all three I have signed full and final settlement agreements, could I use the argument that because they had concelled the true nature of these charges to go back further, or am I stuffed because I signed the previous agreements "full and final"??

 

Ta

 

i believe you are stuffed my m8 by accepting their offer as full and final payment

 

Ron

[Tigs33]

Bum!!!! lol

 

Thanks Ron, I thought as much

 

Makes me wonder if I should try anyway?? lol

[Tigs33]

Actually that just got me thinking, does this mean that any charges in the future for these accounts I would not be able to claim??

[Ron Baker]

Actually that just got me thinking, does this mean that any charges in the future for these accounts I would not be able to claim??

 

Of course you will be able to claim back any futher charges put on you account

Ron

[Gez]

My bank tried this on me. "you have already been paid 2 huge sums of money for bank charges sir, that's all we are prepared to do". They are now paying court fees & interest for the 3rd time.

 

I explained to them that if I shot them in the leg & went to prison for it, it doesn't mean I can go & shoot them in the other leg when I get out & say "You can't do anything about it, I've already been to prison once"

 

They still didn't seem to get the jist..

[Guest bong]

I'm not so sure that f&f settlement does mean you can't claim further back. Usually a settlement only relates to the claim you're negotiating over at the time. What was the wording of the letters tigs?

[Gez]

I would say it comes down to the wording of the settlement agreement, if indeed there is one. In my book it's for the amount disputed & nothing else. If you insisted they pay unconditionally, which they will, there is no problem.

[Tigs33]

Bong, with HSBC I sent a letter back stating "I will accept this as full and final settlement of this particular claim"

 

Barclays agreement-

 

"This offer to pay £1012.37 is in full and final settlement of your claim and is strictly without any admission of liablity on our part"

[Guest bong]

they're both ok to claim further back on then:)

[Tigs33]

woohooo!!! thanks Bong, sort of missing causing the banks a bit of hassle!!!! lol here I come, Barclays, HSBC and Abbey (I didn't sign anything with them )

[Ron Baker]

Tigs33 i would have thought in accepting and signing a full and final payment,would mean exactly that.... but go for it and good luck.

 

Ron

[Guest bong]

 

"I will accept this as full and final settlement of this particular claim"

 

"This offer to pay £1012.37 is in full and final settlement of your claim

 

Ron both settlements state that they only relate to those claims

[JonCris]

If you intend pursuing them for defamation or consequential loss (having to pay a higher rate of interest) at a later date I would suggest the following wording

 

"I accept the sum of £**** by way of special damages only relating to the monies deducted from & charged to my account no12345 between the dates of 00/00/00 and 00/00/00 inclusive as full and final settlement

 

However I reserve the right to pursue any future legal action if it later becomes known by me that there are further grounds for said action"

[sandbag]

Just subscribing.

Cheers Sandbag.

[Ron Baker]

About to send this.... should i or should'nt i?

Any additions or coments please

 

Ron

 

 

 

Dear Mr Gottig,

 

We are writing to you, as you were the last person in the Halifax chain who contacted me and my wife.

 

If this case is beyond you, please forward it on to the appropriate department.

 

We would like to give you the opportunity to settle this case before it goes to court on the 30th May 2007 at 11.30 at Liverpool County Courts.

 

My belief is that I have a strong case to reclaim charges going back to 1995 we will be submitting evidence using the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (Regulation 5(5) and under the Limitations Act 1980, section 32 (1) (b) © .

 

We will be further submitting case law within my claim... Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council and others, that covers the issue of (mistake) section 32 (1) © of the Limitation Act 1980 and enrichment.

 

We will be further submitting case law Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf covering the issue on (concealment) Section 32 (1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 were any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.

 

I hope you enter into a sincere dialogue this time over this matter, please contact myself or wife on 0151 ***** before the 29th of May, alternatively we will continue this court action on the 30th of May

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

[Guest bong]

hi Ron, these are my comments on the letter.

 

About to send this.... should i or should'nt i?

Any additions or coments please

 

Ron

 

 

 

Dear Mr Gottig,

 

We are writing to you, as you were the last person in the Halifax chain of correspondence to contact me and my wife.

 

If this case is now being handled by someone else, please ensure that this letter is forwarded to the appropriate department.

 

We would like to give you the opportunity to settle this case before you incur further associated legal costs when it goes to court on the 30th May 2007 at 11.30 at Liverpool County Courts.

 

My belief is that we have a strong case to reclaim charges going back to 1995 and we will be relying upon the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (Regulation 5(5) and under the Limitations Act 1980, section 32 (1) (b) and © .

 

We will be further submitting case law within our evidence ... Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council and others, that covers the issue of (mistake) section 32 (1) © of the Limitation Act 1980 and enrichment.

 

We will be further submitting case law Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf covering the issue on (concealment) Section 32 (1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 were any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.

 

I hope you enter into a sincere dialogue this time over this matter, please contact myself or wife on 0151 ***** or in writing before the 29th of May, alternatively we will continue this court action on the 30th of May and be submitting this letter within our bundle of evidence, on the matter of deciding costs.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

[Ron Baker]

Thanks bong for those amendments

 

Ron

[JonCris]

You might like to add the following.

 

Laches

 

Should you rely in your defence on Laches then I would also take this opportunity, with a mind to costs and in the hope of expediting matters, to point out that Laches is intended to avoid a litigant being the subject of a stale claim involving an old cause of action where the evidence or witnesses which would have been relied upon no longer exist and would cause extreme prejudice to the defendant

 

In this matter rather than yours being a single unlawful historical act yours has been ongoing from ?/?/?/ upto ?/?/?/ Therefore any argument and evidence you wish to submit for the courts consideration must by reason be the same today as it would have been then when you first introduced your unlawful penalty charges.

 

Please note that this correspondence will, should I be forced to take this matter forward, form part of my court bundle.

[Guest bong]

sorry to be picky but it's spelt laches not latches.