Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well as you're implying, UB, you're going to sign a better trade deal with a large economic bloc than with a small one, aren't you?   I don't think there's any chance of any deal based on a 'special relationship' while Biden's in the White House, but as I said I think Trump would have stitched us up in the end anyway.
    • Atleast 7 years, but they have already done some of the work. I think Liam Fox started this a few years ago.   My guess is that it will take 3 to 4 years before a proper trade deal is signed. There might be a mini trade deal before then limited to a few sectors.   The issue for the Brexit supporters might be when the EU and US sign a trade deal, before there is a UK/US deal. And when this finally happens UK only obtains same deal as EU. There is no reason for US to agree better terms with the UK and they would not do so  because US sees UK as part of Europe.
    • English school leaders despair over new rules on Covid tests and  masks   https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/25/english-school-leaders-despair-at-soft-line-on-covid-tests-and-masks
    • They've estimated 10 years to agree a trade deal haven't they, UB? I think the Tories believed Trump when he said the UK would be at the front of the queue and have a quick trade deal and thought it would look good as an announcement after Brexit happened. It didn't dawn on them until quite late on that Donald might lose the election.   Why they ever thought US negotiators would do any favours is beyond me and now you see how other countries have asserted themselves over trade deals, the Tories global ambitions are starting to look naive.
    • It takes a long time to agree trade deals because there are so many aspects to consider.    UK companies trade with US consumers including US Government every day of the year, with the previous trade arrangements still in place.   There is no hurry to agree a new trade deal. It takes thousands of civil servants in both Governments to go into every aspect and they just don't have the people available to do this work.    
  • 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

FORGET s.32 Limitations Act - there's a better way...


Guest bong

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5013 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

Following on from a discussion in someone else's bank thread, I thought this deserved a more public airing. Wastn't sure whether to post this here or in General forum where it might get more of a viewing..anyway if the mods think it appropriate perhaps it could be moved or copied in both.

 

I believe "dad" has stumbled upon a new way of successfully claiming back charges beyond 6 years... This is based on the nature of the bank-customer relationship being contractual and their obligation to repay money we have deposited in our account upon receiving formal demand from us. So we send them our preliminary request for the repayment of our money (our formal demand) and when they refuse they breach the contract. This event becomes our cause of action. Up until now we have been treating the charges as the cause of action and if they are older than 6 years, seeking relief from the limitation period under s.32 LA. The charges are not the relevant date or cause of action because we did not demand repayment of our money at that time, they did not refuse at that time and therefore no breach occured and we had no cause to start an action at court.

 

As long as we raise our court claim within 6 years of sending our prelim letter, we are within the limitation period. I don't think this would apply to credit cards, because the contractual relationship is completely different from the banking relationship.

 

here is the original post by dad on 8 Feb which cites the relevant case (NOTE - his bank dropped their limitation defence)

 

Well hearing was a bit of a mixed bag.

 

Anyway the bank had intended to claim limitation but did not raise the issue at the hearing having received my counter argument. The judge even asked if they wanted to claim limitation and his eyebrows went up when the bank's barrister said that they did not. So this line has not been tried but appears strong.

 

The argument is based on the following Court of Appeal case:

 

Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110

 

The court held that for time to start running for limitation there needed to be a demand for payment from the customer. In his judgement Atkin LJ pointed out:

 

‘The practical bearing of this decision [as to the necessity for a demand] is on the question of the Statute of Limitations … The result of this decision will be that for the future bankers may have to face legal claims for balances on accounts that have remained dormant for more than six years.’

 

As a result of this judgement time only starts to run against you from your demand for repayment ie your first letter asking for repayment. You then have six years to claim.

 

Hope this helps

 

Dad

 

Unfortunately he doesn't appear to have a dedicated thread to his claim, this was posted in someone elses thread.

 

and my discussion with the phoenix in his thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/6956-my-6-year-claim-6.html#post556791

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just reading it now Bong and passing it around to the interested parties. Good find Bong.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wondering whether it would necessitate changing the basis of our claims to maybe damages for breach of contract? just a thought..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something similar here a while ago, possibly from someone who knew a barrister? they said the limitations applied in the same way, as in you have 6 years from when you discover the charges are unlawful in which to make your claim.

 

This thread seems to add more reasoning to why this is so, I definitely think it is a strong argument.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've got a claim in against A&L for 7 yrs and i am lucking forward to using this argument, seems so straightforward. I've been trying to get my head round the limitations act...not that the bank has mentioned it YET...cant wait.

Jenny

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Battleaxe

I was told by the AMICUS solicitor that is six years to make the claim, not you can only claim six years.

 

I was always of this understanding and when it was clarified for me, I knew I was rtight in law and the six years back dated was not correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is a very very interesting approach, Bong!

I think I need to revisit this at the weekend to think longer about it.....certainly has my appetite whetted though :)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told by the AMICUS solicitor that is six years to make the claim, not you can only claim six years.

 

I was always of this understanding and when it was clarified for me, I knew I was rtight in law and the six years back dated was not correct.

 

I'm of the same thoughts, that we have 6 years to claim, not you can only claim 6 for years worth.

 

Take a mortgage situation. Your still owe on your mortage after you thought you had paid it off. The mortgage company would then have up to 12 years to claim the money from you. They are aware of the breach (none payment of account), them they allowed upto 12 years to claim this back under the limitations act.

Same as our situation, we are aware of the charges now and they refuse to pay upon first request, we then have 6 years to claim our charges.

There does not seem to be any reference to how far back you can claim.

 

Although the mortgage situation is for a fixed amount, in one time frame not penalty charges over a period of time.

 

Any more thoughts on this, as I'm about to put in a further 7 claims and theres a positive legal angle on this, I would like to claim for more than the 6 years. :D

 

Great site by the way. :) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the miners, the asbestos claims and the tobacco claims, you will see that the limitation date commences from the date of discovery. Where you have been wrongued, you may claim from the limitation of the date you first realised you had incurred a loss or damage.

 

I got all of my data including computer logs via my dpa request. If they fail to provide this info, you need to request a confirmation of destruction, the method of destruction, and an assurance that they have retracted your personal information from all sources to whom it has been communicated, particularly the CRA's.

 

My claim started from the date I discovered it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tide, I think you are missing the point of my post. This is providing an alternative route to s.32 - assuming I have understood correctly the effect of the case cited by dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the same thoughts, that we have 6 years to claim, not you can only claim 6 for years worth.

 

I think these two are the same thing.

 

"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 accrued." (Limitations Act 1980 s5)

 

If the cause of action was the placing of a charge by the bank then we have six years after the charge was made to bring an action (in court). So, today, the oldest charge I can claim for is one placed 6 years ago: the older ones are barred by the Act.

 

However, the Act also allows for the situation where the cause of action happened but you didn't know because the perpetrator hid it or you made a mistake in thinking they were allowed to do what they were doing (charging you) then the 6 years starts from the day you discover the truth (s32).

 

(NOTE - his bank dropped their limitation defence)

 

Being cynical, I'm not sure you can read too much into this. Perhaps the banks are so desperate not to go to court they will ultimately drop ANY defence.

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Bong,

 

Are you saying that the limitation date runs from the first point of contact? Could this apply to your first complaint / prelim? This would be the only proof they would have that you were aware that a wrong had taken place, if they were to provide any documents to back up their defence in Court.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a breach of contract on the part of the bank is appealing as long as there is a contract to breach. If the account from which one is claiming repayment of charges no longer exists, because it has been closed by either party, then surely there is no contract to breach.

 

Because all such charges being claimed are more than six years old, otherwise they would not be contentious, that will mean that many of the accounts (like one of mine) will have been closed.

 

There is a new approach here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66227-limitation-act-1980-s32.html which relies on a breach of duty rather than a breach of contract, which I find very appealing.

 

Elsinore

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites
Following on from a discussion in someone else's bank thread, I thought this deserved a more public airing. Wastn't sure whether to post this here or in General forum where it might get more of a viewing..anyway if the mods think it appropriate perhaps it could be moved or copied in both.

 

I believe "dad" has stumbled upon a new way of successfully claiming back charges beyond 6 years... This is based on the nature of the bank-customer relationship being contractual and their obligation to repay money we have deposited in our account upon receiving formal demand from us. So we send them our preliminary request for the repayment of our money (our formal demand) and when they refuse they breach the contract. This event becomes our cause of action. Up until now we have been treating the charges as the cause of action and if they are older than 6 years, seeking relief from the limitation period under s.32 LA. The charges are not the relevant date or cause of action because we did not demand repayment of our money at that time, they did not refuse at that time and therefore no breach occured and we had no cause to start an action at court.

 

As long as we raise our court claim within 6 years of sending our prelim letter, we are within the limitation period. I don't think this would apply to credit cards, because the contractual relationship is completely different from the banking relationship.

 

here is the original post by dad on 8 Feb which cites the relevant case (NOTE - his bank dropped their limitation defence)

 

 

 

Unfortunately he doesn't appear to have a dedicated thread to his claim, this was posted in someone elses thread.

 

and my discussion with the phoenix in his thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/6956-my-6-year-claim-6.html#post556791

 

thats great and is exactly what my claim is based on, my cause of action being when I first wrote to halifax and stated their charges were unfair and asked for them back, I am up to warrant of execution with them and still waiting.

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think these two are the same thing.

 

"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 accrued." (Limitations Act 1980 s5)

 

If the cause of action was the placing of a charge by the bank then we have six years after the charge was made to bring an action (in court). So, today, the oldest charge I can claim for is one placed 6 years ago: the older ones are barred by the Act.

 

I agree

 

 

However, the Act also allows for the situation where the cause of action happened but you didn't know because the perpetrator hid it or you made a mistake in thinking they were allowed to do what they were doing (charging you) then the 6 years starts from the day you discover the truth (s32).

 

yes, that has been very well debated in many other threads, but this one was set up specifically to discuss the merits or otherwise of pursuing it from a completely new angle.

 

Being cynical, I'm not sure you can read too much into this.

 

The banks have been into court to fight claims purely on the limitation issue and won.

 

Why do you think this, based on the case that was presented?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you saying that the limitation date runs from the first point of contact? Could this apply to your first complaint / prelim?

 

 

Using the ruling in this case you would have 6 years from the date of your first letter demanding the return of your money to bring it to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be wary,

 

All telephone calls are logged with the banks, and you should request a copy of this log in your SAR. After the 40 days to receive it, you are entitled to an update of any further information they hold on you, providing you are not requesting this at 'unreasonable' stages, so you should request a copy of all information monthly from their Data Controller (with any third parties, Data Processor).

 

They may produce their computer logs as evidence that you were aware of the damage, including date and name of user who logged the call. Therefore, make sure a request for all computer logs is in your SAR, as you will be able to show that they did not comply to your SAR request, and therefore your case could have been resolved without the need for Court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The concept of a breach of contract on the part of the bank is appealing as long as there is a contract to breach. If the account from which one is claiming repayment of charges no longer exists, because it has been closed by either party, then surely there is no contract to breach.

 

I don't know the answer to this but my gut feeling is that if there was a contract in existence within 6 years of bringing the claim to court, then you would be ok. but I'm no expert and I'm only basing this on the fact that people with closed accounts are successfully bringing non-statute-barred claims. Would there be a difference with this approach? We really need the advice of zootscoot because contract law is her area of expertise.

 

There is a new approach here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66227-limitation-act-1980-s32.html which relies on a breach of duty rather than a breach of contract, which I find very appealing.

 

Elsinore

 

yes, but I think that depends on showing the bank owed us a duty to reveal the actual costs. again, this goes back to the s.32 line of attack, which I'm not saying we should ignore, just that this might provide the answer we have been searching for to get around that approach. lets hope we can get some expert opinion on all of this, soon...:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Be wary,

 

All telephone calls are logged with the banks, and you should request a copy of this log in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). After the 40 days to receive it, you are entitled to an update of any further information they hold on you, providing you are not requesting this at 'unreasonable' stages, so you should request a copy of all information monthly from their Data Controller (with any third parties, Data Processor).

 

They may produce their computer logs as evidence that you were aware of the damage, including date and name of user who logged the call. Therefore, make sure a request for all computer logs is in your SAR, as you will be able to show that they did not comply to your SAR request, and therefore your case could have been resolved without the need for Court action.

 

Sorry Tide, how do you mean the case could have been resolved without the need for court action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong,

 

Unsure, but I have read in the past that if an account is settled, then the contract is terminated and both parties have no recourse unless there is a specific clause (like a warranty), or other term which provides for an extended period.

 

This must be superceded by discovery though.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bong,

 

Unsure, but I have read in the past that if an account is settled, then the contract is terminated and both parties have no recourse unless there is a specific clause (like a warranty), or other term which provides for an extended period.

 

This must be superceded by discovery though.

 

Tide

 

If that was the case, then people with closed accounts wouldn't be bringing claims at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...