Jump to content


Cobbetts Payout & Advice


SilkySmooth
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5279 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hey,

 

I have been pursuing NatWest and subsequently Cobbetts since way back in November. I have dealt with the partial offers and CPR18 request and all that baloney and finally got a court date sorted for March.

 

Today, I received a cheque from Cobbetts in full and final settlement with the usual 2 letters to send to the court and back to them.

 

All the excitement soon died off when I put the cheque down and read the letter. They have stated in the letter:

 

"as previously stated under the limitation act 1980 you cannot bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued."

 

So they have taken off 6 months worth of charges, around £200 off of my claim and then sent the cheque for the remaining amount plus court costs.

 

Now it is my understanding from reading and discussing on this forum that the above limitations act ONLY applies when you are requesting statements from your bank. I have kept every single statement from NatWest and therefore never had to make any such request. So if I have taken them to court for 6 years and 6 months worth of charges this is what I should get. Please correct me if you know different.

 

So do I decline the offer and politely remind them that interest is accruing on the debt and tell them for the millionth time that I will only accept the full amount, explaining that the limitations act does not apply?

 

Do I cash the cheque or send it back when I decline the settlement?

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

---------------

- SilkySmooth -

---------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 5 of the Limtations Act 1980 says "

Time limit for actions founded on simple contract

 

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."

 

This doesn't apply when you request statements from the bank: you can request all your statement for ever. It applies when you begin your action.

 

Section 38 says "

 

Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--

"action" includes any proceeding in a court of law, including an ecclesiastical court;

 

So far Cobbetts are correct.

 

However, section 32 says "

Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake

 

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either--

 

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

 

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant;or

 

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

 

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it."

 

For many people this means the 6 years started on 10 June 2006, the date of BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Bank Charges because that was the time they discovered the facts that had been deliberately concealed from them by the banks. So, as long as they start court proceedings before 10 June 2012, they should (in theory) be able to claim back all the unlawful charges levied on their accounts.

 

Is that a reasonable understanding of the Limitations Act 1980? What does anyone else think?

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

Have a read around for claiming over 6 year arguement - there are a few threads on it.

As to the cheques only cash then if you are prepared to settle - thye are sent in full and final settlement and any outstanding amounts on your claim cannot be challenged once they are banked.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I had the same situation, they argued in a previous letter to me about the 6 year deadline (when they sent the letter it made around 1 month over the 6years)but I replied with the template letter saying...it was within the 6 year limit when I first contacted your client... blah.. blah... will let the court decide.....

I received my cheque yesterday for the FULL amount, including the month which they disputed with me, bearing in mind that month in question is only £60 of the total claim.

Perhaps, reply saying thank you but no thank you unless it is the FULL amount requested originally, otherwise you would be happy to let the court decide.

 

you could read round & see what other people have done.

 

hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to stop Cobbetts procrastinating for six years so there is nothing left for you to claim, then?

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

Can;t help but reply to this. The charges are unlawful, therefore, they should never have been imposed at all, unless they were a justly estimate of the Bank's true costs. There has to be a loophole for the six year thing somewhere. I've been lamenting on this for weeks now, because the bank stripped me when I was 17, (ten years ago) and although I've not received teh statements yet, I'll be hunting for that same loophole when I eventually get them. Everything is arguable surely, and there has to be some reasoning which would find in our favour for unlawful penalties over 6yrs of age?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that any claim above the 6 year time scale cannot be claimed for.

 

I think there is something in the County Court Act saying something similar...

 

This is incorrect if you believe you made a mistake in paying those charges beliveing the bank were entitled to levy those charges or you believe and can prove they concelaed the unlawfulness of their charges.

 

As set out in post above.

 

Edit forgot to say Abbey just settled part of my claim with charges back to apr 1997.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to stop Corbett's procrastinating for six years so there is nothing left for you to claim, then?

 

Your cause of action is as set out in either Sec 32 or is the date of the charge.

 

If you wait longer than six years then thats your problem cobbets wont have to do anything.

 

Incidentally if you submit a claim at court within the six year period thats all that is required, if it then takes another ten years to get to court it doesn't matter.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can;t help but reply to this. The charges are unlawful, therefore, they should never have been imposed at all, unless they were a justly estimate of the Bank's true costs. There has to be a loophole for the six year thing somewhere. I've been lamenting on this for weeks now, because the bank stripped me when I was 17, (ten years ago) and although I've not received teh statements yet, I'll be hunting for that same loophole when I eventually get them. Everything is arguable surely, and there has to be some reasoning which would find in our favour for unlawful penalties over 6yrs of age?

 

A loophole implies some sort of defect or crack which you can illegitimately use to somehow sidestep the law.

 

Section 32 is all you need and its no loophole.

 

Incidentally i don't think there is any such thing as a loophole in the law, its a fiction created by people who don't get what they want because someone read the law better and used it against them.

 

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

A loophole implies some sort of defect or crack which you can illegitimately use to somehow sidestep the law.

 

Section 32 is all you need and its no loophole.

 

Incidentally i don't thin there is any such thing as a loophole in the law, its a fiction created by people who don't get what they want because someone read the law better and used it against them.

 

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

When I say loophole, ,my interpretation obviously differs from yours, although I daresay your reasoning is more politically correct/sound than mine. I simply meant, there must be an argument there somewhere which gives no ground to the six yr rule' And obviously there is, because you've backdated yours! (which I didn't know btw, congratulations)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Petra

 

Point taken, i wasnt trying to be argumentative, its often the the word 'loophole' is used in a negative context and i was just trying to express a view that we dont need to rely on something that has negative connotations.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a great response, thanks everyone.

 

I have read through the responses here and read some other threads over the past day or two.

 

Due to the amount in question in this particular case I have decided to accept the cheque (albiet I had to call them and request a new cheque because they put 'Paid into Account XXXXX' on it and the account is closed!)

 

I have read the letter which they sent out over and over again and whilst the payment is in full and final settlement it does not state any terms and I am not asked to agree to any terms other than write to the court and cancel the case against them.

 

I have found even more charges in my statements which date back further than 6 years, so when this case is cleared through the system I am going to start the process again with the new charges which are in excess of the 6 year period and see how I get on.

 

Thanks again

---------------

- SilkySmooth -

---------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...