Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[andrew1]

I'm sorry, I personally just don't have the time just now to go over them all again I am up to my eyes in work both during the day and evenings. Maybe someone can come to your assistance, but I really can't at the moment, sorry.

[photoman]

Hi guys,

 

Theyrcriminals, although your welcome to use any or all of the POC's that I have previously posted up, you do need to bear in mind that I have previously posted them up only as a general suggestion with regards Business POC's.

 

Each and every case is slightly different, and everyone needs to take care not to just copy, paste and print out anothers' POC without actually reading and understanding the content of it, and so ensuring it's relevance to their own specific case.

 

My own original POC's were adapted from the CAG personal account ones, (so followed much of the same format, and then just adapted to exclude anything that was specific to personal account claimants, whilst include some extra bits specific to Business account claims).

Although the CAG POC's for personal account claimants have now changed, I do still think that the Business account POC's I have previously posted on this thread are perfectly good for sole traders, non limited companies etc.

 

With regards your own case, if you wish to use the POCs mentioned, then I do believe that with some modification they will do the job. You will just need to research any threads and cases similar and relevant to your own, then add to and modify them.

If you then wish to post up what you intend to use, then I and I'm sure several others would be happy to take a look over them and give you our opinions.

 

In your own case, I personally do not see it being an issue that the company is no longer trading. Many people (including myself) have claimed for Business' that have ceased trading.

In your own case, if I'm right in believing from your posts that the company has now changed ownership, then the only issue you may have, is just who exactly the extra interest accrued upon the account due to the bank charges are now owed to?

If those that took on the business also took on it's creditors (including any liabilities to the Bank), then you may even have a situation whereby the current owners could claim that a proportion of the overdraft or loan interest that they are currently paying has arisen due to bank charges accrued whilst the business was under your ownership. So the extra overdraft or loan interest due to the past charges (but not the actual reclaim of the charges) that they have been put to since the handover is rightfully theirs?

 

Also, as andrew1 has suggested, you need to add some background regards how when you owned the company, the company was financed from your own personal funds. Regardless of the status of the company, what type of account was it? Was it in the companies name, or just your own?

 

Take a look at the link in my sig that will take you to the excellent A-Z thread compiled by MichaelBrowne. You might find some useful stuff in there, and some good starting points.

Also use the sites search facility and look up any threads and posts that bear any relevance to your own.

 

Good luck

 

 

PM

[photoman]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

Here's the link to the A-Z thread.

[andrew1]

Actually Photoman, I'm glad you have said this, IT IS IMPERATIVE, that people understand EXACTLY what they are putting forward into the courts. The people that lose in the Courts are the one's who cut and paste as Photoman points out and do not understand what they are asking the court for. You really need to know what you expect the court to do-an exit plan, a game plan and what you expect as a result of the claim.

 

These POC's are fairly simple to understand once you read through them carefully. Anything referred to in Case law or Acts can be googled and it's amazing what you find , read through the relevance of what's written and it all begins to make sense according to your own circumstances. As PM says, everyones case is slightly different, post what you do up on the forum taking out the names etc, but someone will then pull it to bits if necessary and ask you for more info so that you get it right. It's just the donkey-work that takes all the time and that is something, if one is contemplating a court battle, you have to undertake yourself so you understand what you are doing. Well done PM.

[photoman]

Logged in this morning, and nearly choked on my cornflakes when I saw this heading at the top of the site........

 

 

"Attention!

 

 

As at 12:00 today, the Consumer Action Group will become the property of a consortium of banks.

 

An offer was made, and the owners made the decision to sell the site and associated domain names this morning.

We would like to thank you for your support and hope you will extend this support and goodwill to the new owners.

We will still be popping in from time to time to say hello though, we won't be gone completely."

 

 

 

.......Then I remembered the date !!!

 

 

 

Good one !!!

 

 

 

PM

[TheyrCriminals]

LOL @Photoman,

 

I was shocked reading it, now at 2.25am on PM's post. That made me laugh though imagine that, you never know stranger things have happened. It sort of begs the question really I wonder if the owner/s of CAG would be prepared to accept a price from the banks!!

 

Anyway regarding my PoC for a business account in relation to a company now dissolved, thank you very much for the above posts they have given me more than enough to consider and I am very grateful to you guys. As soon as I have pieced together something I will post it up for analysis.

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Hi all,

 

Just to say that I once more ventured into the dark realms of my attic, and found more goodies.

 

Potentially the most useful of these could be a very detailed Terms and conditions agreement for Lloyds Business accounts' dating from around 1995.

 

It is not your usual flyer/ insert, it is a very formal double sided generic printed letter/ agreement that applied to all Lloyds TSB Business accounts from such time.

 

I will get round sometime soon to copying it and posting on photobucket or something for anyone to use.

 

As I say, it is from 1995, so very useful to anyone who also opened Business accounts with LTSB around this time.

.......but also, if used in conjunction with more recent T&C's, it could perhaps aid anyone who is pleading sec32 of SOL ?

 

If in the meantime anyone is in desperate need of it please post a request on this thread, or PM me, and I'll sort out getting it over to them somehow.

 

Please note, this is for Business accounts only !!

 

PM

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

I read (from a link on CAG) that the test case judgement has been delayed by three months. However I can not find any official authority on this, can someone please tell me who has said there is a three month delay.

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Parkvale]

This is quite helpful. Bank Charges Reclaiming News: All the latest developments...

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Parkvale,

 

Thank you for that.

 

TheyrCriminals

[dhoom]

I'd appreciate any help or comments on my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/132425-business-account-chasing-me-3.html

Thanks

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Off topic but could anyone please tell me if Payment Protection Insurance is subject to the Statute of Limitations (1982), i.e can we only go back 6 years for reclaiming PPI?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Hi Guys,

 

Off topic but could anyone please tell me if Payment Protection Insurance is subject to the Statute of Limitations (1982), i.e can we only go back 6 years for reclaiming PPI?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

IMHO

I've not personally claimed for this (not yet anyway, but I do plan to), and I presume your claiming for a refund of PPI due to the fact that it was mis-sold to you, or that you paid it out in the belief that it was a valid worthwhile policy.

So, I believe that this either means that the Bank misled you or concealed from you key terms and features of the policy, or that you were paying it under a mistaken belief that it was worthwhile and valid necessity.

In this case, as your cause of action for the claim s based upon the Banks concealment, or paid by you by mistake, then under either cause this would also allow you to invoke either or both part of section 32 of the Statute of limitations act. Thus no 6 year bar to the claim.

 

That's my view, learnt from and shared by many others on site, some of whom may also comment on this.

 

PM

[zootscoot]

It may be covered by s.32(2) deliberate commission of a breach of duty.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks Photoman and Zootscoot. I had heard so many things about the 'concealment' issue but finally I'm beginning to understand it more. More research for me to do!!

 

Thanks Again,

 

TheyrCriminals

[jb07]

My partner had a £1k overdraft with HSBC 2001, Total interest of £4k.

Also a business loan of £10k, they made us remortgage the house to clear the business loan and overdraft, Can I claim charges back on this?.

Have read all the posts re business accounts but am just confusing myself (which isnt hard).. Cheers

Jill

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Jill,

 

It would be helpful if you could clarify some of the figures you mentioned and what they relate to exactly. Firstly you should note that most people are simply reclaiming for the last 6 years because the Statute of Limitations applies which means legally you can only go back for the last 6 years. However some are reclaiming back further than the 6 years and some have been successful. Secondly you say you have incurred 4k in interest alone, can you explain where the 4k of interest has come from? Thirdly yes you can reclaim charges (late or missed payment charges) on a loan account. Lastly can you tell us the capacity in which you were trading, i.e limited company, partnership or sole trader.

 

TheyrCriminals

[jb07]

Hi,

Am just digging out all my paperwork so have proper figures and agreements...

My partner was a sole trader and we basically got bullied into remortgage after HSBC put the frighteners on us by threatening us with consequences if we didnt clear the overdraft and loan as the business wasnt doing so great with cash flow due to customers not paying on time and one customer going bust on my partner.

I have statements for the £10k loan and the interest was added onto this every quarter.

So digging out paperwork to see where its all come from, cause were still paying it off and it doesnt seem to be coming down.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Jill,

 

When did you close your business bank account with HSBC? And are you still paying this off as a debt? Also when did you take the 10k loan out?

 

TheyrCriminals

[jb07]

Hi

they closed the account Nov 07 and yes were still paying £40 per month for something? Do you know what? I dont exactly know what for come to think of it !!

Gonna ask my partner and find all paperwork, kept it all since 1990..

cheers

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Jill,

 

It's impossible for me to know what your paying money to the bank for. If you have all the statements/paperwork which shows all the activity on both your accounts (personal account and loan account) then thats your starting point with all this. If you don't have them to hand however it is not a problem. You can write to the bank making a data subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 requesting your statements for the last 6 years. As both your accounts are with the same financial institution you can request for both accounts and pay only one charge of £10. The bank is legally allowed to charge this under the Act. They will then have 40 days to supply you with the information.

 

Once you have all your statements go through them extracting all of the penalty charges. Add them up and work out your statutory interest entitlement (and any debit interest you may think your entitled to). Then write to the bank requesting it refunds the money. As I know you are claiming on at least one business account you may get an offer. If not don't be disheartened. You can then put in a court claim and await the result of the OFT test case which we are all waiting extemely patiently for!

 

Hope this helps (if it does please click my scales at the bottom left).

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

I just wanted to post this in regards to my opinion on the recent OFT case judgement.

 

For Business claimants concerned as to how and if this may have any influence upon claiming upon a Business account at common law.

 

This is the statement in the judgement that may have raised some concerns:

 

From the judgement:

"As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above)."

 

However, I do not see this as being the end for Business claims at Common law (or indeed those with personal accounts set up pre UTCR99):

 

Firstly, this is only the judges opinion, and I do not believe it sets any precedent. I think such issues would still need to be decided separately.

 

Secondly, this view only refers to "personal" accounts, and does not cite anything regards other type of (such as Business) accounts.

 

Thirdly apart from some Clydesdale and RBSG terms, this view is only taken with regards current terms (and even then only personal account terms), and ignores historical terms.

 

Lastly, it is also somewhat curios that during the period of the stays many Business claimants had stays lifted, due to their contention that their claims were not subject to the outcome of this case, and were instead based upon common law. In most circumstances they then quite quickly received offers and full refunds (often for very large sums).

 

This would all indicate that the Banks are really not very confident about winning a case brought upon the grounds of common law, particularly one with regards historical terms.

 

(This is why they they all so swiftly changed their T&C's prior to having them subjected to the scrutiny of this case).

 

PM

[photoman]

On balance, I feel I ought to add that any decision to now continue or pursue a Business account claim (ie; one not reliant upon UTCCR99, but instead purely upon common law grounds), must be taken carefully and with much thought.

 

Although I personally am still of the opinion that contesting such claims on common law grounds for Business claims is achievable (in line with my earlier post), that is perhaps an easy stance for me to take having settled my own Business account claims.

 

The way forward for Business claims could now be more difficult, and should only continued or be entered into after due consideration and with full preparation. One should make sure that any claim is watertight, and you have read and researched all applicable law. And be aware of the potential risks involved, particularly in fast or multi track.

 

I would suggest that for now before making any decision, you watch developments, watch the various discussions and news sites, and and speak to those in the know for advice.

 

Here is Zootscoots posting on the matter generally, which at the end suggests that Business claimants should hold back.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/139971-oft-abbey-others-april.html

 

This is perhaps good advice, as we are in unsure territory at the moment here.

 

There is speculation that the OFT may apply to have those sections of todays judgment referring to Common law revised, and this would change matters (hopefully more to our benefit) yet again. Although this is just speculation at the moment, and if it does turn out to be the case, who knows how long that could take ?

 

 

PM

[welshwizzard]

Good Post Photoman !

Remember this case is all about UTCCR 1999 and OFT’s right to make rulings on the validity of it and thus suggest a "fair rate", which should be

"The actual cost of administrating the alleged breach... oops sorry "service".

Anything more is cow tailing to the banks.

Let’s get some transparency OFT

If BARKINGS BANK charge £11.99 for an individual application for an extension to my overdraft because "that’s genuinely what it costs them to administer it"

I may well think twice about banking with them if FLOYDS TNT BANK manages to pull the same trick for 98 pence!

 

Coming back to my main point:

 

Why is it banks have been "as keen as us" to settle business claims despite what’s happening in the Courts?

This is a very important question as in some ways the case for business claims has been weakened by the fact that the UTCCR can not be chucked in to the mix!

 

Yet they are settling almost on demand!

 

If any one can answer the above question there may be a way forward for ALL claims regardless of the test case.

[elsinore]

 

Why is it banks have been "as keen as us" to settle business claims despite what’s happening in the Courts?

 

 

Well, it depends which banks you mean. Some banks have been more ready to settle than others, which suggests to me that the answer to your question lies somewhere in the T&Cs.

 

Els