Sorry, prob been asked before but can we claim for over 6 years ago?

[wavedealer]

I got £3500 from hsbc recently, but have an abbey national acccount from 97-00 with another couple of K's worth of charges.. wondering if i can get these back?

 

sorry, prob a repost but I cant find a thread with the info I need

 

regards

[chesham]

No you can't. The Limitation Act 1980 bars you from claiming charges from over 6 years ago.

[Guest NATTIE]

well, i will dissent on this but merely add that a few members have and a few members are in the process, however you are up against The limitations Act 1980 as chesham has said. There is a thread about it in the legalities or general section, i believe.

[Gary JAY]

Reading this now - but yes you can!! Sec 32(1)(b) Limitations Act, 1980 was inserted by The Latent Damages Act, 1986.

As long as you have a valid case to 'prove' their concealment, the claim will be valid!!

 

Sorry, this is most probably pointless now.:o

[sequenci]

there has been much debate on this.

 

another argument:

 

the limitation period would start when the payment falls due. this would be from when you first serve a demand for payment therefore theoretically you could go back beyond 6 years as a demand for payment has never been served.

 

thoughts?

[Movingon]

Sequenci - that's shaky at best. The far stronger defence is that (take note Chesham) the bank have deliberately concealed the unlawful nature of their charges from you by continually stating that they are legal and fair, by continually refusing to reveal their costs in cases of contract breach, and by generally preventing access to information about their charging regime. Having concealed "a material fact" in relation to the basis for your claim, the six years begins when you discovered that concealment or the material fact concealed, or could reasonably have discovered it.

 

That's the clause that Gary Jay's on about.

[fatboy88]

has anyone actually got money back over 6 years?

[sequenci]

has anyone actually got money back over 6 years?

 

Have a look at "Bong"s thread

[tiglet]

Interestingly, Mackenzie Hall are used this argument when I spoke to them on wednesday. they claimed that by not supplying a forwarding address, I had committed a criminal offence (wrong) and that stopped the debt being statute barred. I spoke to TS about this and the guy said they had used this argument to him in the past, but to no avail.

 

So, it's a very interesting legal point, isn't it? When is "concealment" actually "concealment". if the DCA's are starting to use this argument (unsuccessfully so far, I believe from my conversation with TS), isn't it only fair that we also use it?