20 year claim limit in Scotland & other ramblings

[Advocate]

The levels of sanctimony are rising in the west. Once again vital spark, you suggest I "tar everyone with the same brush". One person on this forum has recently stated that they wish to be paid by cheque as they still owe money to the bank and if the cash is paid into their account it will merely go to repay their debt. Deary me, what a disgraceful way for the bank to act. How dare they think they have a right to be repaid the money they have allowed this person to spend. Money that, had this person been in control of their finances, they would not have spent. People seeking charges back only to allow them to go on holiday or spend spend spend on luxuries, not, as should be the case, to allow them to gain control of their finances to prevent them having to worry about bank charges in the future. This is the level of irresponsibility that leads these people into this situation and they are incapable of changing their ways.

 

People get into difficult situations through a change in circumstances, but then have to face the fact that they have to adapt their lives to accord for the changed situation they now face. Not easy perhaps, as we are very much creatures of habit, but necessary all the same.

 

You really need to be a little more objective people. I do not tar everyone with the same brush and have recognised time and again here that for some the current system is exploitative. That does not mean that everyone here is in a virtuous position. Quite the contrary.

 

Of course, we "freeloaders" do pay and always have paid for our banking, in the rules which allow banks to retain a small fraction of our deposits and invest the rest. The point is that the profits which the banks now make on charges will, if lost in this form, be found from another. Not a defence of their action, but rather a practical consequence of the reclaiming of bank charges.

 

I cannot help wondering why people who feel this way do not simply go back to holding their cash under the mattress and pay for things in cash. Bank charges will be a thing of the past, but perhaps then you will realise that the banks are providing a service, and to do so employ a large number of people, who need paid. Their wages come from the profits made.

 

Boookworm, 7 differnt claims and you shout from the rafters about the conduct of others. How did you manage to get yourself into such a mess? Perhaps you should reflect on your own level of financial indiscipline. And by the way, I am into people, and do and will continue to eat animals smaller and more vulnerable then me.

[JonCris]

Oh dear as I suspected another money lenders troll. Don't take much to provoke them does it

[Bookworm]

Boookworm, 7 differnt claims and you shout from the rafters about the conduct of others. How did you manage to get yourself into such a mess? Perhaps you should reflect on your own level of financial indiscipline.

 

Ah. I was wondering how long it would take you to jump on that one.

 

Beginning of 2000, my husband's employers decided it would be cheaper to force him to leave than make him redundant. They submitted him to 9 months of hell before he couldn't take it any more. September 2000, he left and I started a claim for constructive dismissal.

We had insurance on our mortgage, PPI on our credit card, car loan, etc... All of them had up to them never been late once. We duly notified them.

Every single one of them refused to pay until the decision of the Employment Tribunal, as my husband had left voluntarily.

 

Meanwhile, we were in that short time where the Inland Revenue had restructured the Tax Credit system so that it would all go through the employers. My husband's employers neglected to tell the IR that he wasn't there anymore, so the IR held that they were still paying us (even though they weren't) and the JSA was deducting the amount of Tax Credit we should have been getting from them.

 

As a result, we were getting £45 a week, for a family of 5, with a mortgage.

 

Now, irresponsible person that I am, I have always believed that the most important thing is to keep the roof over your head, no matter what. So while DH looked for another job, and I pulled minicabbing night shifts to make ends meet, we maintained our mortgage payments. Everything else had to slide. And I mean everything.

 

DH found a job in December (no mean feat, considering his background and age), we won the ET in March. The compensation DH got got instantly swallowed up in paying off some of the heavier load. By the time the insurances and PPI came through, most of it disappeared in penalty charges. Yes, I have a lot of claims, but not one of them is over £500. It reflects the very short time in our lives where things went terribly wrong.

 

We did treat the kids to a day off to Hever Castle at Easter when the compensation came through. (DH works for the railway, so no train fare to pay to get there). I put my hands up to that one. Well, they hadn't had a Christmas that year.

[JonCris]

Oh dear BW you feckless person stop with the excuses.

 

Don't you know it's you fault & you should pull yourself up by your boot straps, put your nose to the grindstone and shoulder to the wheel.

 

Having said that....................

 

This site is not for those who wish to moralise about the rest of us but to help each other at a time of need no matter how that need has arisen. Unless a person comes here to help & only wants to moralise they should perhaps spend more time in church & leave the rest of us alone to get on with our undisciplined & irresponsible lives.

 

I for one don't want to know how someone got into debt unless its to help them. If I can I just want to help & bolster their moral when possible

 

PS I have about 20 claims so hows about that Tonto

[Advocate]

Well Bookworm, I do indeed sympathise with your situation and perhaps was harsh in my final paragraph, the result of a bad mood I am afraid. Apologies for that.

 

My general point remains as stated though and I look forward to JonCris' story from high ground.

 

Church is a place for those with faith in the ethereal; I prefer humanity.

[Bigmac versus]

This site is so everyone can air their views and i for one respect that, yes i disagree with some peeps views but thats what makes it interesting for me, however i dont believe you advo as you are so against the claiming of these charges due to you being charged for the use of your account, so by catapulting your somewhat alarming views over this thread you will hopefully see where the fault lies, not with the general consumer but the financial institutions that have acted illegally over these charges for years, you cant seriously blame the individual consumer regardless how they chose or had to through no choice ran their bank accounts, it is the big boys who have been caught with their hand in our pockets and the sooner you realise this the better your replies may become, just as a matter of interest advo do you have a financial interest in any banks etc.(shares) because i cant see why you would defend them more than you would the victims, strange one.

[JonCris]

Well Bookworm, I do indeed sympathise with your situation and perhaps was harsh in my final paragraph, the result of a bad mood I am afraid. Apologies for that.

 

My general point remains as stated though and I look forward to JonCris' story from high ground.

 

Church is a place for those with faith in the ethereal; I prefer humanity.

 

Only yours I suspect

[JonCris]

George as I have said & I'm sure/hope most will agree this site is not for those who want to pontificate about the rights or wrongs of our situation but about helping each other. As I also said those who want us to see the error of our ways need to take up another means of espousing their views. Perhaps a soap box? They have no place here

[Robertxc]

George as I have said & I'm sure/hope most will agree this site is not for those who want to pontificate about the rights or wrongs of our situation but about helping each other. As I also said those who want us to see the error of our ways need to take up another means of espousing their views. Perhaps a soap box? They have no place here

I disagree. Advocate proposes a point of view which is not as unussual as you might think. You may not agree with him (or is it her?), but you can't condemn him for sticking to his guns. This forum has almost 100,000 members now, and as far as we're concerned, everyone is welcome to post here and put their point of view. All we ask is that members don't abuse each other, and maintain a level of respect for other people. Regardless of what you might think of Advocate's views, you cannot accuse him of being abusive or otherwise intemperate in his posts.

 

To continue with the spiritual theme, CAG is a broad church, and we tolerate a very wide range of views here. If you disagree with Advocate, put your arguments down and have a debate. Don't gang up on him or get all personal, because that will be considered abusive...

[Bookworm]

And thus spake Robert the Scot Apostle.

 

 

 

[Advocate]

George,

 

My original intention was to come on for a legal debate, because the law is a fascinating beast. I try to be dispassionate about it, this should not be interpreted as meaning that I agree at all times with its consequences.

 

I have never said that I agree with the Banks' methods of operating or the levels of profit that are made, but do recognise the service they provide and value it.

 

The main point I have made in many posts is that some people have a clear difficulty in managing their finances. This is not a novel view, but one recognised in this country for many years. There are indeed many people who find themselves in a difficult situation, but it is difficult to deny that there are many who have been reckless with their own situation and are merely grabbing at an opportunity to gain some "free cash". I think it is fair to say that they will not use this cash to help themselves out of the situation and regain a bit of self-respect, the most important commodity for getting through our short lives.

 

Listening to contrary views helps us to refine our own and take a step back from our emotional attachment to them. I believe this is very important, espcially when we have a legal system in which objectivity is an important interpretative tool. Judges may try to interpret the law to arrive at a sensible and fair result, but that is not always possible. Where an interpretation provides a result deemed unfair by the many, then it is our legislators job to correct it, if that is what the majority (itself controversial) in our democracy desires. It does not mean that our judges themselves agree with the result they arrive at, rather that they are acting objectively to interpret what our elected representatives have decided to put into law. At times they expressly disagree with the result that our law provides, but it is not their job to change it.

 

I have a pension fund and so no doubt have an interest in the performance of the banks, as they will to some extent provide for my future, and perhaps yours and many others on this site.

[Bigmac versus]

Advo your comment FREE MONEY says it all, your jealous arent you, go on admit it you wish you had some to claim but you never did get any illegal penalties did you, thats a pity because then you would know how far one simple charge can accumulate over a short period of time and would quite rightly so claim back YOUR MONEY not FREE MONEY. If you know who is getting FREE MONEY then please point me in that direction. It is easy to pick on the poorer members of society as the financial institutions have done especially when you are on a comfortable salary. They target low income families offering credit cards/overdrafts way beyond what their income should reflect. Youve said it is your view that many are to blame for the mess they are in and if they hadnt bought the latest attention distraction for their kids etc etc then they would be better off, I would suggest that peeps who get THEIR money back do whatever they wish with it as it is THEIR right to do so not yours or the banks and maybe just maybe people with views such as yours who see peeps with charges as self inflicted will educate themselves through reading some posts. After reading some of the very sad stories on this site about the actions of these so called regulated institutions who hound people day and night for more credit, loans and top ups to their od. This goverment caused the problem we now have with debt per head, when i buy anything and i mean anything i pay cash nothing else and you Always see the sales assistant look dissapointed then start offering credit even after saying no thx they still go on about it, they dont want cash these days its a credit society we live in. I run a business and in my early days I paid cash every week for material until the supplier manager said he was under pressure to reduce his weekly cash takings. I changed supplier and he has had my business ever since. Businesses push you for credit at every opportunity even some charities now want you to sign up for direct debit payments rather than a cash donation there and then, cash is out of fashion and thats whats caused all the debt to pile up, its all wrong but hey thats my view.;

[Advocate]

They target low income families (perhaps, as these are the ones most likely to go use it, but are they to be absolved of all responsibility for their voluntary decisions?)

 

So lets go back to a cash society you appear to suggest (be sensible, electronic payments are here to stay and have made life for the majority far easier)

 

Direct debits are to blame (people incapable of keep track of what they have arranged on DD are they?)

 

It all this government's fault (why the government at all and indeed why this government that has just introduced, and parliament passed, greater controls on credit in the new Consumer Credit Act?)

[Bigmac versus]

They target low income families (perhaps, as these are the ones most likely to go use it, but are they to be absolved of all responsibility for their voluntary decisions?)

 

So you are asking me that question, obviuosly you are out of touch here, yes they are most likely to use it, WHY, because they are on low income and often have to borrow to make ends meet,(this you just will never get so dont even try to) so would you say it is fair to target these families due to their low income often with higher than average interest rates. YES/NO. Should they be absolved of their responsibility for their voluntary decisions, no i dont believe so but i do believe that to target them with higher than average interest rates is wrong, legislation here allows that unlike in France where politicians will speak out against such institutions and stop them from doing so when they are only there to target these low income families/peeps, example Bright house.

So let me ask you the same question for the banks as i dont hear you mention their actions too often: Are they to be absolved of all responsibility for their voluntary decisions? YES/NO

 

So lets go back to a cash society you appear to suggest (be sensible, electronic payments are here to stay and have made life for the majority far easier)

 

Be sensible i never did say lets go back to a cash society or sugest it, or that electronic payments werent here to stay, i was simply addressing your earlier question of why we have so much debt per head here, because you answered it with your question it is EASIER FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE to get into debt now, again due to our legislation of the so called regulated institutions.

 

 

Direct debits are to blame (people incapable of keep track of what they have arranged on DD are they?)

 

Again please read before replying, I never said D/Debits were to blame nor did i say peeps are incapable of tracking their D/Debits i was simply refering to how cash is now out of fashion.

 

It all this government's fault (why the government at all and indeed why this government that has just introduced, and parliament passed, greater controls on credit in the new Consumer Credit Act?)

 

 

This goverment caused the problem we now have with debt per head, That is what i said not ALL as you say but the DEBT PER HEAD but you are getting the hang of it at last advo.

 

Yes i do believe that and as i said earlier This goverment have the power to change legislation so to say WHY this goverment advo i say WHY NOT you cant blame previous goverments because this goverment YES this goverment have the power to change legislation if it was seen to be unfair or even if they just felt like it, allbeit parliament would need to pass the bill first, Yes i take on board that parliament have passed greater controls on credit in the new Consumer Credit Act, but is it right that legislation allows a company the size of fairpack to fold leaving thousands of families out of pocket,(again many will be low income or single parents who save all year so as to get through xmas) then to announce they will look at new legislation to stop it happening again, Bit late Tony, Or that financial instituitions are allowed to operate at extremely high interest rates that quite openly only attract the more vulnerable members of the society who can not get credit at banks etc because of low income or maybe adverse information which is stored by the cras which some will undoubtedly have been caused by the taking of illegal penalties.

 

I

[JonCris]

Hear hear George

 

Robert I totally disagree with your comments.

 

I have always understood this site is not one for expressing our views about others, except to the money lenders, but to help each other. Also I believe that some who come here will be put off seeking our help if they feel they are going to be admonished by some self proclaimed superior being who has by their own admission never had to suffer the terrible indignity of not being able to pay their way only to find the banks making matters much worse.

 

Furthermore to remark that many are responsible for the own problems helps no one & does not move the argument forward one jot.

 

Contrary to what Advocate expouses some of us are aware that there will be those who spend money they don't have & are banks thankful for that! but that doesn't detract from the problem in that the banks by their penalty charges make matters much worse.

 

I also would remind you that contrary to Advocates latest claims that he wants to argue the law he actually stated originaly that we the victims where to blame because WE the consumer should have known from the outset that the banks charges where unlawful.

 

That statement is frankly utter nonsense & if the law is to be argued it has to be from a point of reality

[HRB]

Which is the legislation applying to claiming back bank penalty charges applied to business accounts in Scotland .. does the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 apply .

The business account in question is for a "trading as " business (and is therefore very personal) and not a Ltd Co.

I have been totally successful in claiming back charges applied to a personal account but need to know the correct format to use in courtfor the business account.

Anybody out there with this info ??

[mackie68]

hi all,

i am at court on thursday for proof hearing, RBS have posted defence that half my claim is time barred, i will endeavour to prove otherwise using the argument (in short) that since charges are unlawful, they are a breach of contract. and therefore i have 20 years from date of last breach to claim and also can go back last 20 years since date of "enlightenment" to their breach. i have researched some documentary evidence to support my position, but any more would be more than helpful, such as prior cases where such an argument was proven etc, otherwise its on a wing and a prayer and i hope they dont turn up.

[mackie68]

RBS BOTTLE IT!!

After stating my case before court, rbs agree to settle

before submittion of evidence ( of which i had very little)

my opening argument seemed to be enough to rattle their feathers

Obviously not prepared to argue that 20 year limit doesn't apply.

i advise everyone to go for it, nothing to lose and lots to reclaim!!!!!!

[Bookworm]

mackie68, well done you!!!

[Alasdair]

I'm very interested in this 20 year limit.

 

I previously had a business and private account with the RBS from 1989 to 1993 where £thousands was charged in fees. I also had business & personal account with the Clydesdale from 1995 to 1999 again £1000's charged in fee's.

 

I don't have statements with account numbers from the RBS, but if I proved my identity and address at the time would they have to give me the information required to reclaim these charges.

 

The RBS situation ended with a bankruptcy and they received £1000's in fee's and interest when I paid this off after receiving an inheritance.

 

If its possible I would like to try recovering this money.

 

Alasdair

[Vital Spark]

I have just written to my bank to reclaim charges taken from benefits as directed on the relevant thread. In my letter, I stated that the monies immediately reclaimed, from these more recent charges, were in isolation from but not precluding a further claim to be made in the very near future for all other charges taken from my account.

 

I stated that I would be applying my "Scottish 20 year claim right" to the reclaiming and included a print out of the Burness statement/report.

 

In my haste to get the letter off to Lloyds, I omitted to include interest. Would interest apply to charges listed in my letter and can I still request they be returned?

 

Can I have advice on the following: See below:

 

 

XX ##### #####

##########

####

### ###

Tel: ##### ######

Mobile: ###########

E-mail: [email protected]

 

 

 

Lloyds TSB (Scotland) plc

P O Box 6000

123 Colemore Row

Birmingham

B3 3SF

 

24th December 2006

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Unlawful bank charges following an arrestment of welfare benefits - request for refund for Margaret Gardiner, sort code: XX-XX-XX; account numbers: ######## and ########

 

I write with specific respect to the application of the following charges to my account: (########): 2nd August 2004: £20 Overdraft Excess Fee; 1st September 2006: £35 unpaid Direct Debit; 1st December 2006: £30 Overdraft Excess Fee.

 

(Account no: ########) I draw your attention to Lloyds Bank’s intention to take an Overdraft Excess Fee from the above mentioned account on the 1st of January and point out that this would be illegal as fully explained in the body of this letter. Therefore, I understand that, with this knowledge, Lloyds will rethink their aforementioned intention and so desist from taking said charge.

 

I am of the view that your charges are irrecoverable in law. As you know the monies in my account derive from Disability Living Allowance and Income Support benefits paid by DWP, This can be confirmed from my bank statements.

 

2

 

 

Both the Scottish Law Commission and Scottish Executive concede that social security benefits are exempt from arrestment in terms of section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (see Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland, Scottish Executive report, at paragraph 5.245). Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act.

 

It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance or social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account, those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can be clearly identified within an account.

 

 

Accordingly, you have erred in law in arresting exempt monies in my account. You cannot impose administrative or penalty charges for your legal error. I would therefore ask you to refund said charges of £85 to my account numbered ########, within the next 7 (seven) days, failing which I will commence an action for payment and wrongful diligence without any further notice.

 

This request is specifically and only for the monies mentioned herein and does not preclude my intention, of which this is advance notice, to reclaim, in the near future, all charges taken form my account in accordance with the 20 year claim limit in Scotland (see attached).

 

Lloyds TSB (Scotland) plc are in breach of contract regarding my account from the point of view of bank penalty charges in general and of taking charges from welfare benefits, specifically.

3

 

 

However, should Lloyds TSB wish to be helpful with this matter, display an eagerness to work within the Law and comply with the directions of the Chief Executive of the banking ombudsman body (as recorded on BBC2:The Money Programme: 22:00hrs: 11th December 2006) , to refund all charges in full at the request of their customers, Lloyds TSB, Scotland plc are welcome to calculate and refund, before receiving my official request for reclaim, all charges taken from my account over the entire period with which I have been banking with them.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

(### ######## ########)

 

 

Scottish law articles in association with Burness

 

Prescription and limitation in contract

The terms prescription and limitation are often used synonymously but do in fact refer to two distinct principles, explains senior projects solicitor Adrian Huett. Prescription is a rule of substantive law whereby certain rights and obligations are created (positive prescription) or extinguished (negative prescription) after a specified period of time. Limitation is a rule of procedure – and so must therefore be raised by the defendant in proceedings – whereby certain rights and obligations (while remaining in existence) become legally unenforceable after a specified period of time.

 

Scottish law

The current law is found in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as amended). The provisions on negative prescription set out when contractual rights and obligations are extinguished. There are two time periods: the short five-year period and the 20-year long-stop period. Both run from the date on which the obligation became enforceable and this will vary depending upon the nature of the obligation.

[JonCris]

Hi Vital Yes you can add interest at whatever rate they charged you for your 'unauthorised borrowing' usually called a "purchase rate"

 

The reason you can charge them what they charged you is reciprocity of contract they took your money unlawfuly so you charge them for it.

 

Also don't forget to compound the interest............After all this time it should come to a bob or two

[Vital Spark]

Hi Vital Yes you can add interest at whatever rate they charged you for your 'unauthorised borrowing' usually called a "purchase rate"

 

The reason you can charge them what they charged you is reciprocity of contract they took your money unlawfuly so you charge them for it.

 

Also don't forget to compound the interest............After all this time it should come to a bob or two

 

Hmmm, now I have worked out the charges Lloyds have taken from my account while my source of income was/is benefits. The internet banking doesn't allow me to go further back than 2003 so I will need to refer to the data Lloyds sent to me then insist that they send on the data going back to my first dealings with them in accordance with my initial Data Protection Act letter and the 20 year claim limit in Scotland.

 

I am lost as to how I calculate interest (what do you mean "compound"?). And, I have no idea of how far back any one claim goes before interest comes into play.

 

I presume interest can/should be applied from when the bank applied it to my account because of the charge but how, on Earth, do I work that out? Do I claim interest on charges taken on 1st December this year, for instance?

 

YAAAARRRRGH!

[Robertxc]

Compound basically means interest on interest.

 

For the sake of simplicity, let's say the compound rate is 10% per day, and the original sum is £100:

 

On day 1 you will have £100

On day 2 you will have your original £100 plus 10%. = £110

On day 3 you will have the £110 from day 2 plus 10%. = £121

On day 4 you will have the £121 from ay 3 plus 10%. = £133.10

 

Total after 4 days = £131.10

 

Compare this to normal interest, where you only get to apply it to the original sum:

 

On day 1 you will have £100

On day 2 you will have your original £100 plus 10%. = £110

On day 3 you again apply 10% to your original £100, giving you another £10 = £120

On day 3 you again apply 10%. to your original £100, giving you another £10. = £130

 

Total after 4 days = £130

 

You can see that even after just 4 days, the compund rate is already accumulating much quicker than the normal rate. If you scale this up to a thousand pounds over several years, it can make a huge difference to your claim.

 

The good news is that there are spreadsheets which work all of this out for you in the library section! Enjoy.

[7givenchy]

RBS BOTTLE IT!!

 

After stating my case before court, rbs agree to settle

before submittion of evidence ( of which i had very little)

my opening argument seemed to be enough to rattle their feathers

 

Obviously not prepared to argue that 20 year limit doesn't apply.

 

i advise everyone to go for it, nothing to lose and lots to reclaim!!!!!!

 

 

Well done, I am due to have my case against HBOS heard on 4th Feb.

At the Preliminary hearing they lodged a defense that my case was time barred.