un1boy's dad vs NatWest - pre 6 years and CI

[un1boy]

Hi Guys,

 

My Dad has a few grand of charges, all previous to 6 years.

 

I have found this little gem in the limitations act:

 

32.--

• (1) .... 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. ....

  [*](2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. . . . (5) Sections 14A and 14B of this Act shall not apply to any action to which subsection (1)(b) above applies (and accordingly the period of limitation referred to in that sub-section, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act).

  [*]

So, I am goigng to see if we can claim back further than 6 years on the basis that the bank have concealed information when they we in a position of trust, in order to make money (fraud) out of us.

 

I'll keep you posted.

[hellhasnofury]

Hi Guys,

 

My Dad has a few grand of charges, all previous to 6 years.

 

I have found this little gem in the limitations act:

 

So, I am goigng to see if we can claim back further than 6 years on the basis that the bank have concealed information when they we in a position of trust, in order to make money (fraud) out of us.

 

I'll keep you posted.

 

Yes I have read this act. and it seems about their non disclosure to the fact that they have not disclosed their charges. I have used this with a mis-sold pi

 

I wish you luck with your claim

[katesage]

[url=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54166-taylors-nationwide-3rd-time-4.html#post629559][/url]

 

Your on the right track with that part of the Limitation Act, quite a few people (inc myself!) have been using S.32 as an argument.

 

Obviously some claims pre 6yrs have been settled out of court, but this claim made it to court based on its reliance on the SOL.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54166-taylors-nationwide-3rd-time-4.html#post629559

 

As you can see it didnt go well........

 

All because we need some decided case law on bank charges before we can claim that these charges are fraudulent and have therefore been deliberately concealed.

 

But, for the time being S.32(b) is the best we have on SOL cases, maybe the judge was just in a bad mood??:-?

[un1boy]

Yes I have read this act. and it seems about their non disclosure to the fact that they have not disclosed their charges. I have used this with a mis-sold pi

 

I wish you luck with your claim

 

Alrite mate? Thanks for the support - how did ur claim(s) go?

[un1boy]

 

Your on the right track with that part of the Limitation Act, quite a few people (inc myself!) have been using S.32 as an argument.

 

Obviously some claims pre 6yrs have been settled out of court, but this claim made it to court based on its reliance on the SOL.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54166-taylors-nationwide-3rd-time-4.html#post629559

 

As you can see it didnt go well........

 

All because we need some decided case law on bank charges before we can claim that these charges are fraudulent and have therefore been deliberately concealed.

 

But, for the time being S.32(b) is the best we have on SOL cases, maybe the judge was just in a bad mood??:-?

 

 

Hi Kate,

 

What is SOL?

 

I will go for it anyway - not much to lose apart from court costs plus my dad could REALLY do with the dosh if they pay out.

 

He's not bothered about attending court either - he works in the police force so he's ok with it!

 

I'll this updated....

[katesage]

SOL= Statute of Limitations

 

just shorthand for the statute:D

[un1boy]

Thanks Kate.

 

I'm just reading over Paul's thread and I will post back here asap - I hope you'll be stickinhg around?

[katesage]

I'll be sticking around! I'm fighting several SOL cases for family and friends at the moment. I've done quite a bit of research and I'm interested to see how these claims pan out.

[un1boy]

Brilliant Kate, thanks!

 

I'll keep you updated....

[un1boy]

Ok, we have decided to add Contractural interest to the claim too - I am going to prepare the Prelim tomorrow as I have to go to bed now.

 

I will post the prelim tomorrow.....

[hedgey06]

Good luck un1boy!!! Best wishes, hedgey xxx

[un1boy]

Good luck un1boy!!! Best wishes, hedgey xxx

 

Thanks Hedgey!!

[un1boy]

Ok, so prelim done:

 

 

[edit]

 

 

Now, am I right in thinking that I can claim only Contractural Interest (CI) OR the 8%?

 

All comments etc very welcome!

[Micky the Hippo]

no 8% if you've claimed CI, you mihgt be able to claim 8% in the variance (plan b) at the court stage

 

and claims over £5k are different, fast track or something like that, best check that out, especially if you're claiming CI, sorry to be vague, I;n new myself

 

I'm going for CI myself

[un1boy]

no 8% if you've claimed CI, you mihgt be able to claim 8% in the variance (plan b) at the court stage

 

and claims over £5k are different, fast track or something like that, best check that out, especially if you're claiming CI, sorry to be vague, I;n new myself

 

I'm going for CI myself

 

 

Hey Micky, thanks for your post!

 

I don't care if it goes fast track or not -they won't want it to get to court, so hopefuly it will put pressure on them to pay out!!

 

PS, good luck with your claim(s)!

[Micky the Hippo]

check this because I'm really not sure but if your total is over £5k and you go fast track, you might be liable for costs if you lose, and CI is apparently a dodgy one to prove in court, I think people have tried and failed

 

there's loads on here that think CI shouldn't be claimed because it can't be justified

 

as ever, read up and base your decisions on knowledge etc etc

 

sorry to be vague, I'm a bit new to it all