Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[photoman]

Similar story here.

At some point, I still plan to take some action over the extra interest upon loans I was forced into taking, which by my calculations were wholly due to aggregated charges !

[hsbcfiddled]

Similar story here.

At some point, I still plan to take some action over the extra interest upon loans I was forced into taking, which by my calculations were wholly due to aggregated charges !

 

Me too.

I have already told DG Solicitors that when Oft case has been solved I am coming for all the loan payments on all the loans whilst I was in business with compounded interest.

 

I can wait ....its mounting up nicely:D

 

fiddled

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

I do think the issue of forced transfer of Overdrafts to Loans could well become as big an issue as bank Charges and mis-sold PPI.

 

No matter how tight their Loan Agreements, if they forced people into these loans without declaring their true motives and hidden conflict of interest, then the validity of the Loans must be questioned.

 

Especially if it can be shown that the Customer would've been far better off with the existing Overdraft.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Barclays Tried To Force Me Into A Loan For 15k. When I Refused They Withdrew The Overdraft And Closed The Account And Defaulted Me. They Then Gave Me One Phonecall To Sort It (garbled Mobile Message Left By Them) And Then Passed Onto A Debt Collecter. I Have Been Giving Them The Run Around Since!!!

[photoman]

Hello Folks!

 

I do think the issue of forced transfer of Overdrafts to Loans could well become as big an issue as bank Charges and mis-sold PPI.

 

No matter how tight their Loan Agreements, if they forced people into these loans without declaring their true motives and hidden conflict of interest, then the validity of the Loans must be questioned.

 

Especially if it can be shown that the Customer would've been far better off with the existing Overdraft.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I agree.

The loans are pretty much forced upon the account holder, and presented as if being by way of some form of helping out.

The reality is, by converting overdrafts into loans, the bank then has a securitised asset which it can use to borrow against cheaply from BoE or at interbank rates.

This bank borrowing is then used to finance other loans etc, and so realise yet more profit for them.

 

It often does not benefit the customer, as it frequently ties them into a repayment plan that is unrealistic, unmanageable and so ultimately headed towards defaults, with yet more charges and interest

[photoman]

There is also of course the issue of how those taking out these loans are pressured into taking out PPI with them (and paying interest upon that PPI premium added to the loan).

Plus the loans also often carry set up arrangement fees etc.

When all things are compared, even if the % rate on a loan is better than that on an O/D then the customer ends up paying more for the borrowing.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello fedupwithbankpwm!

 

Barclays Tried To Force Me Into A Loan For 15k. When I Refused They Withdrew The Overdraft And Closed The Account And Defaulted Me.

 

That's exactly the Threat they use, even if they don't actually come out and say it.

 

That's why most of us ended up taking the Loans, as the alternative was clearly to have the Overdraft pulled and the Account Closed.

 

From hindsight, I'd have had a Parachute Account open and ready, and would've told my bank to go and shove their Loans. But I didn't know then what I know now and, good old hindsight is a wonderful old thing!

 

At least in my case, I made it clear in writing that I really, really, really did not want their nasty Loans.

 

I agree.

 

The loans are pretty much forced upon the account holder, and presented as if being by way of some form of helping out.

 

The reality is, by converting overdrafts into loans, the bank then has a securitised asset which it can use to borrow against cheaply from BoE or at interbank rates.

 

This bank borrowing is then used to finance other loans etc, and so realise yet more profit for them.

 

It often does not benefit the customer, as it frequently ties them into a repayment plan that is unrealistic, unmanageable and so ultimately headed towards defaults, with yet more charges and interest.

 

Exactly.

 

They got what they wanted, and they had no problem making sure they got what they wanted via a microscopically thin veiled Threat to pull the Overdraft and close the Account.

 

In the case of fedupwithbankpwm, it's clear the Threat was genuine, so it's not surprising so many people have reluctantly agreed to having their flexible Overdrafts turned into highly inflexible Loans.

 

There is also of course the issue of how those taking out these loans are pressured into taking out PPI with them (and paying interest upon that PPI premium added to the loan).

 

Plus the loans also often carry set up arrangement fees etc.

When all things are compared, even if the % rate on a loan is better than that on an O/D then the customer ends up paying more for the borrowing.

 

Also, we must not overlook the Working Cash Flow issues, because Payments into a Loan are lost forever, whereas identical Payments into an Overdraft result in an increase in Working Cash.

 

In my case, we've pushed over 30k into Loans we didn't want, and yet we still owe 50% of what we borrowed. To add insult to injury, we never got to enjoy any of the Cash Flow benefits of that 30k.

 

Had we kept an Overdraft, that 30k would've been recycled many times, and the profits from that activity would've pushed the Overdraft down...quite probably into Credit.

 

There is no doubt that turning an Overdraft into a Loan is no use for a Business, but it's both highly profitable and highly useful for a bank.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[andrew1]

 

 

There is no doubt that turning an Overdraft into a Loan is no use for a Business, .

 

BRW

 

Other than, of course, freezing a bad relationship which has occurred due to reaching overdraft limits and consolidating that problem into manageable monthly repayments, which is what a bank feels comfortable with to continue trading with you.

 

I understand this argument being used here fully having run a business myself for 30 yrs which was volatile in cash-flow terms. I turned to factoring/debtor discounting to stabilise the cash-flow peaks and troughs, but I did get stung into loans too, and had two running at the time I went under one of which was paid for by me long after the company closed under the directors guarantee, but going back to when we were all less knowledgeable than now, we made decisions generally which seemed a) available to us, b) what appeared the best option under the circumstances c) to get the bank on 'our side' so we could continue trading leaving them with the security ( 2nd charge/Directors guarantee) they were seeking. All commercial decisions based upon the circumstances at the time.

 

With hindsight?, I'd still have my business either thriving or sold, years of hard work not sent into a liquidator, but funding my retirement. These agreements for me have all gone and been buried in some archive of a liquidator and possibly even shredded by now. How on earth can we go back and get copies of statements, agreements, whatever and then challenge a long dead agreement and what is the liklihood of succeeding without the monies finding it's way into HM treasury rather than in our own pockets? Difficult I'd imagine.

[steven4064]

And you would have the Limitations Act to contend with

[photoman]

Notice this threads been made into a "Sticky"

 

.... so when do I receive the royalties cheque?

 

... Hope it won't bounce !!

 

 

Merry Christmas to all.

 

PM

[andrew1]

And you would have the Limitations Act to contend with

 

Actually, I'd still be okay on that one - 2003, but only just and it's surely 6 yrs from the time you found out about the misdemenour not from when the account closed? Subtle difference?

[steven4064]

If you can demonstrate fraud, concealement or mistake, then you can use s32 and the 6 years begins when the fraud, concealement or mistake was discovered oir could reasonably have been discovered.

[andrew1]

So I can go back now in 2008/9 and say, I have now discovered in 2008 you had concealed that you were taking charges/PPI or whatever back in 2003 and before without telling me and I wish to go back 6yrs from 2003 in my claim?

[photoman]

So I can go back now in 2008/9 and say, I have now discovered in 2008 you had concealed that you were taking charges/PPI or whatever back in 2003 and before without telling me and I wish to go back 6yrs from 2003 in my claim?

 

Not quite.

 

The purpose of the Statute of Limitations was to prevent people from bringing stale claims by failing to act after discovery, or by sitting upon them too long when they should have been taking action.

 

If however, you were not aware that you had a cause of action, due to the other parties concealment, their fraud, or you have good grounds to prove that you were mistaken in not knowing you had a cause of action earlier, then (by citing sec32) you can then start a claim within 6 years of its' discovery.

 

Regardless of when the cause of action occurred.

 

The Statute is a FORWARD looking mechanism.

ie: 6 years to act upon something AFTER your discovery of such.

 

If you did not discover something at the time, due to their concealment, their fraud, or your mistaken presumption that the charges were fair (due to the way they were presented to your at the time), then you have 6 years in which to act AFTER you have made that discovery.

 

The time of the occurrence of the event is immaterial.

If it happened in 1901*, and you can show grounds that your cause of action was concealed from you, or it is reasonable to agree that you were mistaken in not discovering such, and it has only just been brought to your attention, then by using sec 32, (provided you have sufficient evidence of grounds for action), you can then start to act upon it.

 

But, provided you do so within 6 years of discovery of such cause.

 

PM

 

 

*(okay, maybe not quite 1901, you would probably only be able in reality to go back to 1980 at most, ie; when the act came into force)

Edited December 22, 2008 by photoman
start of limitations act clarity

[swayze]

Hi All

 

Just wondering if there is any movement on the new stratergy regarding business claimants ?

 

It is rather urgent as i have now been served with a claim form from Lloyds TSB for repayment of my overdraft which is the equivalent sum of my bank charges

 

As i understand it LJ Smith has yet to rule on Lloyds T&Cs so could i counterclaim under common law ?

 

Any advice appreciated

[steven4064]

You could counter claim under common law. I don't think you will win finally in that basis, but it may cause the claim to be stayed and give you some more time.

[Goldlady]

Is it a sole trader or limited company account? We did an offset on our limited company account on the basis that charges=overdraft and they closed the account.

[steven4064]

When was that GL?

 

Since the testcase, that has to be more unlikely

[Goldlady]

Well it was agreed ages ago on the phone but they didn't actually go ahead and close the account until after the test case:confused:.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi All,

 

We just recently wrote to NatWest in order to obtain bank statements going back after the 6 year limitation period and Natwest have just sent us a letter stating that they only hold statement data for up to 6 years. I don't believe this as I'm sure I have seen people on here obtain statements for periods after 6 years. Can anyone please advise.

 

Thank you.

 

TheyrCriminals.

[andrew1]

Hi All,

 

We just recently wrote to NatWest in order to obtain bank statements going back after the 6 year limitation period and Natwest have just sent us a letter stating that they only hold statement data for up to 6 years. I don't believe this as I'm sure I have seen people on here obtain statements for periods after 6 years. Can anyone please advise.

 

Thank you.

 

TheyrCriminals.

 

Just bear in mind that if it's a business account they'll probably charge you a fiver each statement. SAR don't apply with businesses, if you're self employed you might get away with it, but make sure, could cost you a packet!

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Ok fine, but as I say they are saying that they haven't got records going back that far. This is our current obstacle.

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Again,

 

Also heard that something might be happening about the test case on the 29th January, does anybody know anything?

 

TheyrCriminals

[Goldlady]

Don't you have the statements anyway?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Goldlady,

 

No I don't that's why we made the Subject Access Request. I have been down this road before and even though it is a business account we did rely on one part of the Data Protection Act (1998 )8) to force Barclays to hand over the statements (I forget which part of the Act it was) even though it was for a company. This time it is not a company but a partnership business.

 

TheyrCriminals