Beyond 6 years

[Ron Baker]

Will be appearing in court soon with my case, going back more than the 6 years limit, and like a few on this website quoting section 32 of the limitation act 1980 concealment etc.

The judge in may case would like to know why it should not be statue barred otherwise it will be struck out… have till the 1st Feb 07 to reply.

I believe the judge would like me to be quoting word for word from section 32 of the act, were in my submission all I quoted was Section 32(1)(b) and(1) © of the 1980 act and hoping he would have checked it, that’s if he did not know in the first place?.

When speaking to the courts they are not able to advice as to what the judge wants.

To try and stop the Halifax from imposing the Latches argument that I’ve “sleep on my rights” I’m going to be adding amendment quoting parts of Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf in that …In such a case the period of the limitation does not run until the plaintiff discovers the concealment or could have with reasonable diligence discover it the rationale for the provision is plain if the defendant is not sued earlier he has only himself to blame. Or is my interpretation of this wrong????

This (with reasonable diligence …. (Diligence)1. persistent effort: persistent and hard-working effort in doing something

2. legal carefulness: the care or attention expected by the law in doing something, such as fulfilling the terms of a contract.

 

Also a section from Photomans post, it was not that ignorance of law that prevented me from taking action, it was the fact that the validity of the original contract clauses under law were initially and then continually mis-represented that there charges were lawful(until the OFT investigation) and that we trusted that their representation of their rights under law were justified ,and this amount to concealment

I used Paul submission as a template letter editing it with my details

 

We would grateful for any input in… what I can add to my amendment?

 

As you can see from my submission and my understanding of the limitation act and section (11) of my submission….. 11 I contented that if I acknowledge the debt and the Defendant has implement these charges on to our account, then this would not be time barred until after the last acknowledgement which was in 2004 and 6 years had elapsed. Or have I got this all wrong ????

 

1 We opened our current account number ******(“the account”) with the Defendant on 27th May 1993 the account comprised of a current account and a debit card. On the 18th July 1994 the first charge was applied to our account at the sum of £10 then increasing to £25, then £28, then £30, over the next proceeding years to the last one being on the 5th July 2004 giving a total true figure of charges at £1047.009.

 

2 The Claimants as lay persons with no legal training or expertise could not be expected to have any legal knowledge to question the validity and the lawfulness of these charges that were applied to our account over the years as shown in the schedule of charges filed.

 

3 The Claimant learned that these charge were unlawful during July 2006 after visiting Internet sites, and then by media publicity, given to a legal claim regarding the legality of these bank charges, we then made further investigations and seeking further advice through the Consumer Action Group website, and other internet based legal sources.

4 The Claimant wrote to the defendant in August 2006 requesting the refund of £1027 (copy attached).The Defendant replied on the 6th September 2006 with an offer of £68.00 (copy attached).

The Claimant wrote back on the 11th September 2006 accepting the defendants offer as part payment (copy attached). The Defendant replied on the 18th September 2006 with seconded offer £204, this was again accepted as part payment (copy attached)

5 The Claimant wrote on the 21st September 2006 accepting the offer as part payment (copy attached). The Defendant wrote back on the 13th October 2006 after small claims court procedure had been implemented by the Claimant with an offer of £232, to which they have deposited in to the Claimants account.

 

6The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on the 18th October 2006 accepting the increased offer as part payment yet again, and pointing out to the Defendant that the total figure presented to the court was slightly wrong, but the Claimant would not be requesting the courts to be amending them, and that the original figure stands.

 

BASIS FOR OUR CLAIM

 

7 The Defendant mentions in there defence that those charge incurred were before October 2000, therefore statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

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

 

9 Section 5 of the Limitation act states that “an action founded on simple contact 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 it there is an acknowledgement or payment of the debt within the six years period.

10 I contented that by myself and wife going into the Defendant branches requesting the waiver of some of these charges from time to time over the last 12 years on the grounds that were causing severe financial hardships, and by paying the last one of these charges of £30 on 5th July 2004.

11 I contented that if I acknowledge the debt and the Defendant has implement these charges on to our account, then this would not be time barred until after the last acknowledgement which was in 2004 and 6 years had elapsed.

 

12 By the Defendant assertion that our claim is time barred implies that that it is possible that one party’s rights under an agreement may be time barred, whereas those of the other party are not.

 

13 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 these charges are 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 July 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

 

 

 

 

14 The 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

 

15 At some point, the Defendant must have made a business decision to apply a charge to a customer account where a breach of contract took place, which was disproportionate to the banks actual losses for that breach. In making this decision, it would reasonably be expected that a company operating in such a position of high trust and fiduciary responsibility would have taken legal counsel when making such a decision.

 

16 The Claimant holds that if the Defendant did take legal counsel on this issue, then it has made a decision in the full knowledge that the said charges were unlawful, and that they have deliberately concealed this fact from their customers, and therefore section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply.

 

17 The Claimant holds that if the Defendant did not take legal counsel on this issue, then they did not operate with the reasonable diligence that would be expected of an experienced fiduciary, and that their failure to seek such legal counsel at the time should have been declared when the bank did eventually seek such legal counsel, and that by not making such a declaration the Defendant has continued to show deliberate concealment and therefore section 32(1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply.

 

18 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.

 

19 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”.

 

20 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.

 

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 24 below.

 

21 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.

 

SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

 

22 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.

 

23 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.

 

24 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.

 

FIDUCIARY

 

Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not for the fiduciary's own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and candor are always required. Fiduciaries must always act in complete fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary.

As fiduciaries, financial planners must make fair and complete disclosure of all material facts and must employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients. The utmost good faith is required in all their dealings. Simply put, fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust, fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the best interest of their clients at all times

I’m debating whether to include Alanfromderbys excellent post on a fiduciary responsibility toward their customers.

Thank you for taking the time in reading this long post… and any help you may give me, or feel free to shoot me down in flames…. if it all falls apart, then we all have learnt from this experience, and I am luck, in the fact that I have got legal aid in bring this action, a bit apprehensive though, if it goes the distance, the judge may award the cost against me?

 

Thanks to Paulwlton for letting me use your submission...GlenUk for your comments so far and to anyone else who responses to this post

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Ron

 

That looks a damn good first effort, i have started to read through it but have copied and pasted it into word and will work on it where i think i can add something and repost soon.

 

Glenn

 

Thanks Glenn for taking the time

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Hi Ron - This is looking good (IMHO) I would only question point 12 (from a mutual view point) and how their assertion implies the argument given there. ie: you may need to state an explanation in regard of this particular statement.

SG x

 

Soldier girl don't think it needs an explanation...to me that means you cannot have it both ways.. Mr Halifax.

 

What do you suggest

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

15 At some point, the Defendant must have made a business decision to apply a charge to a customer account where a breach of contract took place, which was disproportionate to the banks actual losses for that breach. In making this decision, it would reasonably be expected that a company operating in such a position of high trust and fiduciary responsibility would have taken legal counsel when making such a decision.

 

This is going to be one of my amendments(below).... added to section 15 above,....any comments.

 

(The Claimant has put the trust in the Defendant as we would trust priests/lawyers/police officers /solicitors, and the fact they are in the business of offering a broad spectrum of banking services that carry a fiduciary responsibility towards there customers.)

 

 

 

Still debating were to put any defence of Doctrine of Latches and that’s assuming they will present this line of defence.

 

It would appear to me that I cannot mention at this stage Doctrine of Latches until the Halifax Barrister mentions it as part, of there defence.

 

What I find as told unfair…. is that the Halifax have been given copies of my grounds and yet they or the courts haven’t given me no copies of there grounds, as to why it should be statue barred ….and by leaving it until the eleventh hour to present to me and the court, the Doctrine of Latches defence.

 

If I don’t mention anything on Doctrine of Latches and they submit it, then all I would be submitting would be that to sleep on my rights would assumes that I knew what my rights were, and done nothing.

.

And then if it’s mentioned that ignorance is no defence, I will then be stating that it is well known that nobody can know everything and that people overcome ignorance in areas by educating themselves in which they have a lack of knowledge.

 

As we have started to, and this would be a travesty of common justice to impose a Doctrine of Latches, (sleeping on my rights) and that to sleep on my rights would suggest that I knew my rights,…. and have done nothing to address these rights in law

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Yes Glenn

This reference to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is referring to USA law is it not? I doubt you being able us that within your submission m8.

 

Paul cheers m8 paul is your ruling case law now?

 

Any one else have any comments?? on the amendments that going to be put in? Beside the very helpful comments Paul and Glenn have give to this thread.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Taken from Cave v Robinson Jarvis &Rolf

 

 

6. The underlying policy to which they give effect is that a defendant should be spared the injustice of having to face a stale claim, that is to say one with which he never expected to have to deal: see Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472, 479A per Lord Griffiths. As Best CJ observed nearly 200 years ago, long dormant claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in them: see A'Court v Cross (1825) 3 Bing 329, 332-333. With the passage of time cases become more difficult to try and the evidence which might have enabled the defendant to rebut the claim may no longer be available. It is in the public interest that a person with a good cause of action should pursue it within a reasonable period.

 

The above section (that a defendant should be spared the injustice of having to face a stale claim that is to say one with which he never expected to have to deal) could be questionable, on the grounds that banks have to have audits every year… do they not.

 

WHAT ABOUT ARE BLOODY RIGHTS AND THE INJUSTICE... NOW THEY SHOUT DOCTRINE OF LATCHES

 

Therefore they would have knowledge of the true cost to them, and the difference between the true cost and what they actual charges are totally misleading.... and the only conclusion a reasonable person would come to…would be, its all profit motivated implemented by the directors/chairmen of the banks, more so if their salaries are profit performance related, and after seeking legal advice they may have or should have been made aware that this could be challenged in the courts “therefore to say they never expected to deal with it could be challenged.

 

 

I have a theory that if they the (banks) took legal counsel and you would expect they would have,… to make sure that nobody have the grounds to be able to sue them….that these charge didn’t reflect there actual true cost to them then there purpose would be purely profit motivated .

 

Now I wonder what would motivate directors/chairman of these banks…I wonder if profit related salaries would be a motive? to impose these charge to generate more profit (please feel free to correct me if senior management of banks don’t have performance related salaries)

 

Now if the above is true then because they work on percentages… I wonder if they have worked out that, even if they were ever ordered to refund us all, then they would still have made vast profits from these unlawful charges (our money), they would have had to invest, therefore generating income/profit while they have our unlawful gained money.

 

I would love to submit this theory to the courts… as to why the banks and others that have now jumped on this band wagon…. the likes of TeleWest £10 for late payment that its purely working on a percentage and repeat myself have used our money to generate income for themselves and how many (percentage) complain, and when they do there informed…now as a sign of good will (my arse as Jim Royal) would say… then refund it.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

ROn

Ive been doing some reading, have you looked at

House of Lords - Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Lincoln City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Southwark and Others

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Birmingham City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the Lo

 

House of Lords - Cave (Respondent) v. Robinson Jarvis & Rolf (A Firm) (Appellants)

 

House of Lords - Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc (Respondents) v_ Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants).mht

 

If you havent you should have a look for certain at Klienwort vs benson and DMG Vs Inland revenue

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

PS dont have the link for DMG i can email you the doc if you dont have it.

Glenn you can e me the doc

 

 

Glen like a lot of people with no legal training i get bogged down, in trying to decided... i'm unable to concluded if we can recover under mistake after reading that lot? ...confused as what they have decided.. do we... don't we.

 

E mail me as to what you think.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Thanks dad,looks like more amendments to submission....judge is going to like me....just give it up Mr Halifax and all the rest of you BankRobbers.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Hi all,

 

Jonchris i thought maybe you would know the answer to this but anyone can answer if they know it of course

i have seen the defence argue in court that if at the time of receiving the charges (these are pre six year charges btw) if you had used reasonable diligence and sought legal assistance ie seen a solicitor him/her would have known that the charges were unlawful (i prefer the word illegal myself), or indeed if you had gone to the citizens advice they also would have known this, and so then you could have done something at that time. The judge seemed to agree that this was all very common knowledge amongst the legal profession.

 

what are your thoughts about this argument ?

 

in my personal situation i would try and argue that this would have been out of the question as i couldnt afford legal assistance, (though the CAB is free of course)

 

 

The CAB would have adviced you to seek legal advice,they would have mostly likely agreed that these charges would appear to be unfair,therefore advised to contact a solicitor,as they don't give legal advice

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Hi Ron,

 

im not sure i agree with you on that point as the CAB is specifically there for people that cant afford a solicitor surely ? i have been along to the CAB and two occasions and on both occasions they have given me legal advice, or advised me of my legal rights and the legal viewpoint on the subject matter.

Maybe the CAB varies from town to town but in Nottingham they give as much advice as you require. Of course i dont think the CAB could be relied upon in the same way as a solicitor as they are not actually legal experts.

 

Hi Progenic

I work for the CAB and its NACAB policy that all CAB cannot give legal advice. They may identify the unfairness of certain acts, or unlawful acts, and relay to you were there has been unlawful acts...but they should not give legal advice, they will advice you to seek legal advice if they believe you need it, and its most likely to end up in the courts.The reason is they can be sued if they get it wrong.

 

They should give you the options of doing it yourself like ourselves in these case's with the banks, and the support of all its members, or get a legal help.

 

They may give you a list of 3 solicitors who advise on that particular subject as they have to be impartial, that’s NACAB’s policy.

 

Take care

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

It must vary from town to town, as the one I went to here in Devon sent me to "triage", a volunteer asseses your case and then decides what to do. If they think they can't help you they refer you to their legal experts but those experts will only help you if you qualify for legal aid. So you may as well go to a solicitor straight away if you can afford one or also if you qualify for lagal aid. There is no reason to see the CAb here really. I was totally gutted as I waited for a long time with a toddler in tow.

 

They would be specialist advisors that are funded by legal service for the likes of debt management, welfare rights issues, housing issues, employment issues, again they cannot give legal advice.

 

OK guys and dolls lets get back to this topic of claiming back our money beyond 6 years please.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

JonCris Hi m8,

Don't understand that as the Cab’s have to be impartial.

 

But on saying that…. now many years ago the CAB that I work in had a solicitor that came in once a week, but I believe that was stopped because some other solicitors argued that how can you the CAB be "impartial" when you are giving work or favouring one solicitor practise and not others, as they could get work out of these interviews.

That’s the policy in the Cab were I work anyway…. only to give the clients 3 names of solicitors that have a LA franchise on their particular problems

Take care

Ron

[Ron Baker]

hi,

 

a lot of this legal stuff went over my head, just checking to see if Ron won his case going back beyond 6 years. also do the banks keep data beyond 6 years?

 

thanks

 

Waiting for the court date freddyj.... going to submit more case law on the day spring the trap hopefully... i will be giving the Halifax and the judge copies

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Ok Lady’s and Gentlemen, the Main event has been schedule for the 30th May 07@ Liverpool County Court in front of District Judge Fitzgerald... would love to spring a trap on the Halifax with case law... Kleinwort Benson.... plus Cave v Robinson plus.... N Joachimson V Swiss Bank Corporation.

But after speaking with the court today it’s a gamble if the judge will allow it, and the fact that Halifax may cry foul, like I would if at the 11th hour they produced case law to the courts in their defence (that’s if they have any) and like myself... would request that it’s not admissible and the judge not to allow it or to allow an adjournment.

 

Progenc7 m8 can you e mail that information when you have time.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Ron I think you would be interested in this case against Halifax for charges back to 1991, just settled out of court today http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/44416-wilkins-halifax-20.html#post661185

 

Thanks Bong

[Ron Baker]

Ron you will have a handy little hamper about 8pm this evening mate, dont worry i have not forgetten about ya !

 

Johnny

 

Progenic got them, thank you mate, not sure to send snippets of all the caselaw to the Halifax that i now have... and to give them the option to settle before it goes to court,anyone have any comments please.

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

Ok Lady’s and Gentlemen, the Main event has been schedule for the 30th May 07@ Liverpool County Court in front of District Judge Fitzgerald... would love to spring a trap on the Halifax with case law... Kleinwort Benson.... plus Cave v Robinson plus.... N Joachimson V Swiss Bank Corporation.

But after speaking with the court today it’s a gamble if the judge will allow it, and the fact that Halifax may cry foul, like I would if at the 11th hour they produced case law to the courts in their defence (that’s if they have any) and like myself... would request that it’s not admissible and the judge not to allow it or to allow an adjournment.

 

Progenc7 m8 can you e mail that information when you have time.

 

Ron

 

Progenic posted this a while back.... at the final stage now, as i've said... in two minds to spring the trap or again give them little sippets to get them to just give it up ?

 

Ron

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Ron Baker]

Thanks bong for those amendments

 

Ron

[Ron Baker]

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

 

Oh you are being picky

 

Ron