Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!


BankFodder
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5729 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

superclio- do you have a friend or family living in England or Wales whose address you could give as a forwarding address?

 

If so, you could use www.moneyclaimonline.gov.uk , courtesy of Her Majesty's Government.

 

Yes, I could possibly use a friend's address. It wouldn't make any difference then that the address for MCOL was different to that on my bank statements? (Which is my US address.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Disgruntled

Could you please post the wording of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non compliance court claim.

I am looking to file one too, and looking for help with the wording.

thanks

I used the template from the templates library, virtually word for word, just changed a few points of grammar to suit my style of writing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I go ahead with my current claim for the last 6 years (£991 including interest) would that jeopardize my chances of claiming for more than that at a later date?

 

Not in theory although imho it is best to claim for all charges in one claim, if not you may end up in court fighitng simply over the limitations act and unless you are confident this is not the preferred route.

 

There are strategies to avoid this by keeping the claim together for both pre and post six year charges which makes life potentially easier for you.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having already sent off the SAR I used a template from another site but only asked for the last six years.........can I now sent a covering letter asking for them to disregard the first and I now want all my info from the date the account was opened,as I haven't yet received anything?

Thx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Is this the wording i need to add for my POC for pre six years? Do you think its worth mentioning s32 or not and if so where can i find some wording on it....

c) The defendant concealed the nature of their charges and lead the claimant to mistakenly continue to pay the unlawful charges believing that they were lawful.

 

d) The claimants right of action has been deliberately concealed from her by the defendant.

 

e) The defendant continues to conceal both the nature of their unlawful charges and account holders rights to recover unlawful charges.

Regards

Aoife

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi can anyone tell me if this applies to the Northern as well? I know we can claim as far back as 1999, and I only found that out after claiming from 2000 in November 2006. If so, it would be brill, but at the moment I am still pursuing my 2nd claim and this time my court date is 25th May.

nervous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in theory although imho it is best to claim for all charges in one claim, if not you may end up in court fighitng simply over the limitations act and unless you are confident this is not the preferred route.

 

There are strategies to avoid this by keeping the claim together for both pre and post six year charges which makes life potentially easier for you.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

Glenn,

what are the strategies? I'm thinking it's too difficult to get my other statements unless I fly back (which I can't afford right now) and it seems there is no way Abbey will come up with more than 6 years worth, so I think I have to go ahead with the one claim now. Then whenever I go back (hopefully in the next 12 months) I will try a claim for the pre 6 years worth. Did you just mean keep it as one claim is the best solution? Or is there a strategy as you mentioned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Is this the wording i need to add for my POC for pre six years? Do you think its worth mentioning s32 or not and if so where can i find some wording on it....

 

c) The defendant concealed the nature of their charges and lead the claimant to mistakenly continue to pay the unlawful charges believing that they were lawful.

 

d) The claimants right of action has been deliberately concealed from her by the defendant.

 

e) The defendant continues to conceal both the nature of their unlawful charges and account holders rights to recover unlawful charges.

 

Regards

Aoife

 

No you need to state that they concealed the cost of dealing with your breaches of contract. There is no need to show the concealment lead to the mistake thay are alternative arguments and not linked. The concealment must relate to facts and not law.

 

Perhaps something on the lines of:

 

In so far as any charges relating to the period before xx/xx/xxxx, the claimant wishes to invoke s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

The Defendant deliberately concealed the true cost of adminstering the contractual breaches committed by the Claimant and thus an essential fact relevant to the Claimant's right of action was concealed.

 

Alternatively the Claimant paid the charges in the belief that they reflected the true cost of administering the contractual breaches.

 

The Claimant has now discovered, following revelations relating to a similar organisation, that the true costs are likely to be much lower and have thus been concealed and continue to be concealed by the Defendant and that the belief held by Claimant was in fact mistaken.

 

It is thus submitted that in accordance with s.32(1)(b), s32(1)© and s.32(2) that the time period for the purposes of the Limitation Act does not begin to run until my reasonable discovery. This was the 21st March 2007 when the revelations were made public.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

what are the strategies? I'm thinking it's too difficult to get my other statements unless I fly back (which I can't afford right now) and it seems there is no way Abbey will come up with more than 6 years worth, so I think I have to go ahead with the one claim now. Then whenever I go back (hopefully in the next 12 months) I will try a claim for the pre 6 years worth. Did you just mean keep it as one claim is the best solution? Or is there a strategy as you mentioned?

 

Primarily keep the claim intact ie chsarges both pre and post six years, any defaults and interest so that after allocaiton if they want to argue about anyhting then its all or nothing.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No you need to state that they concealed the cost of dealing with your breaches of contract. There is no need to show the concealment lead to the mistake thay are alternative arguments and not linked. The concealment must relate to facts and not law.

 

Perhaps something on the lines of:

 

In so far as any charges relating to the period before xx/xx/xxxx, the claimant wishes to invoke s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

The Defendant deliberately concealed the true cost of adminstering the contractual breaches committed by the Claimant and thus an essential fact relevant to the Claimant's right of action was concealed.

 

Alternatively the Claimant paid the charges in the belief that they reflected the true cost of administering the contractual breaches.

 

The Claimant has now discovered, following revelations relating to a similar organisation, that the true costs are likely to be much lower and have thus been concealed and continue to be concealed by the Defendant and that the belief held by Claimant was in fact mistaken.

 

It is thus submitted that in accordance with s.32(1)(b), s32(1)© and s.32(2) that the time period for the purposes of the Limitation Act does not begin to run until my reasonable discovery. This was the 21st March 2007 when the revelations were made public.

 

I like that Zootscoot, would it be worth adding this into POC or waiting to a later stage of developments:

 

"If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken. As I only became aware during March 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period."

 

 

Or is this repeating the above a bit?

 

Tanz

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoot,

 

You advise us that the limitations act does not apply in Scotland.So if bank/credit card company has office in England(whether head or not) can you request those data about your account prior ro the six year period?

Another aspect is that when we send off SAR and comply with our requirements, doesnt the bank be bound to send all detaila that they have on you to you. I am thinking that most take notes wen you phone and send them letters. Within an organisation thye allocate information about you to an employee. The item that has caused your request is given a number, and officer who deals with it, and his report on that matter. So it would be helpful to have all the inofrmation that the bank has on oneself.

Views?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lewt

 

Here's the link for the SAR letter.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html

You might want to adjust/edit to suit your personal circumstances, or include phrases like ' Further, I wish to receive copies of any/all logs/transcripts/copy letters you hold regarding me. I require disclosure of all information for the entire history of my financial relationship with you.'

 

etc etc

You could change what would suit you, any queries - just ask.

 

Regards

Perseus

If my advice has helped, please click on my scales. Thank you!

MBNA - CRA file to be cleared then finished!

__________________________________________

Abbey Personal - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court

__________________________________________

Capital One - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court

__________________________________________

GMAC - Sent DCA SAR 9th March 07 - confirmed not legally assigned.

Waiting for GMAC to provide breakdown of charges and CCA under s79

__________________________________________

Alliance & Leicester - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Zootscoot, would it be worth adding this into POC or waiting to a later stage of developments:

 

"If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken.The mistake reffered to in Sec 32 is your mistake in paying the charge not theirs in levying it. As I only became aware during March 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period." The date you became aware of the unlawfulness is not the issue, its the fact they had concealed the unlawfulness of the charges and the fact you had made a mistake which gives rise to the use of Sec 32. It is the date you knew about this that is the effective date from which your 6 year peiord starts running.

 

 

Or is this repeating the above a bit?

 

Tanz

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zoot, thanks so much for your help. Sorry to be a bit slow - but what document are you reffering to dated 21 March 2006?????

 

Aoife

 

Aoife that should be 21 March 2007 and I think that was the date of Whistleblower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoot,

 

You advise us that the limitations act does not apply in Scotland.So if bank/credit card company has office in England(whether head or not) can you request those data about your account prior ro the six year period? The limitations Act and the six year period have nothing to do with data protection act. If you ask for all your data then they have to send it under the Data Protection Act.

Another aspect is that when we send off S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and comply with our requirements, doesnt the bank be bound to send all detaila that they have on you to you. No, you can elect to ask for limited data and this is what i believe the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) template from the site does. The 1st paragraph asks for transaction and charge data, the second paragraph supports the 1st paragraph and asks for details of manual intervention. Some have said that the site template entitles you to all your data, I disagree and think a court would take the same view, if you want it all change the SAR to make it clear and then you wont have a problem. I am thinking that most take notes wen you phone and send them letters. Within an organisation thye allocate information about you to an employee. The item that has caused your request is given a number, and officer who deals with it, and his report on that matter. So it would be helpful to have all the inofrmation that the bank has on oneself.

Views?

 

If you want the bank to supply ALL the data they hold on you then i suggest you amend the template to make that clear.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Zootscoot, would it be worth adding this into POC or waiting to a later stage of developments:

 

"If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken. As I only became aware during March 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period."

 

 

Or is this repeating the above a bit?

 

Tanz

 

The concealment under s.32 (1) (b) must relate to the facts not the law. You can not therefore claim that they concealed that the charges were unlawful.

 

They concealed the cost of administering the account for breaches of contract which prevented you from being able to determine if the charges were lawful. Which is a concealment of a fact relevant to your right of action. They can not conceal the law from you as this is in the public domain.

 

In relation to mistake under s.32(1)©, it must be the claimant who is mistaken not the defendant.

 

You need to make reference to the Limitation Act in your POC otherwise the defendant is likely to go straight for strike out for the charges outside the six year period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have just managed to get back £4110 from Barclays bank and am now interested in challenging them regarding fees that are beyond 6 years ago. Does anyone have any difinitive text I could use firstly in a letter to them secondly when taking them to court.

I understand its relating to the limitations act but am not sure how to word it.....I have already sent for information regarding the amount owed to Barclays but am keen to get my head around the whole thing.

 

Secondly I would just like to say thank you to everyone on here, your posts been an invaluable asset to me both with respect to what I need to do but also giving me confidence in the face of the banks threatening behaviour....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...