Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[Catlover64]

Just came across this forum. I'm in the process of claiming back bank charges. I've already had an offer of £3.5k from HSBC, but they've struck out a couple of the entries as they claim they're over 6 years old. They weren't when I started the claim though!

 

I've written back to decline the offer as it's now in the court system anyway, but have a question:

 

How do I get these entries kept within my original claim?

 

Any help or advice welcome....

 

TIA

[oneofakind]

Your claim is YOUR claim. If you're willing to take HSBC's offer, then fine, but if you want to get your full claimed amount back, just continue with your claim as it is... it's not up to the bank to decide what's valid and what's not!!!!

 

[Celicaman]

Just came across this forum. I'm in the process of claiming back bank charges. I've already had an offer of £3.5k from HSBC, but they've struck out a couple of the entries as they claim they're over 6 years old. They weren't when I started the claim though!

 

I've written back to decline the offer as it's now in the court system anyway, but have a question:

 

How do I get these entries kept within my original claim?

 

Any help or advice welcome....

 

TIA

 

You will need to use S32 part 2 (B) & © of the limitations act, to prove your claim.

Basically the bank levied unlawfull charges and either concealed them on purpose or applied them not knowing they were unlawfull ( we all have our own opinions on that one LOL) it was not until the oft report in april 2006 that the charges were highlighted as unlawfull, so it was only then that you and i could act and claim them back as they were unlawfull. Because of the concealment, you could not act on it earlier, therefore the 6 year limitations act does not apply.

 

thats my basic understanding.

Read up on it more, it is acheivable, let the bank get on with its arguments, throw in about the above ,

as oneofakind says , 'just continue with your claim as it is... it's not up to the bank to decide what's valid and what's not!!!!'

They are not going to step foot in a court to argue the point, but you need to know and understand enough on the off chance you end up in front of a judge for a hearing etc.

 

My own claim, i expected them to knock 2 charges off as jan/feb 01 but they paid them, prob not worth the time to not pay them. was only £57 worth of the claim.

 

If ive been of help, please click on freakyleakys scales, hes welsh, so he thinks we should feel sorry for him and he needs the numbers LOL

 

Celicaman

[oneofakind]

catlover, Maybe I should have said, my claim included six which were outside the 6-year 'limit'. As Celicaman so rightly says, they don't want to stand up in court for such a small amount, and take the risk of losing!

 

Pay no attention to their nitpicking, and carry on with your claim as it is!

 

Hey CM, just realised you're in my area!

 

[groovycaz]

Hey oneofakind

am i in your area aswell? Ive been following Celicaman around forever!

 

my own claim with the cooperative, most of my charges are pre 2000 and even the charges thay have offered a refund on date back to jan 2000 which is still longer than 6 years, still the fight goes on..GC

[oneofakind]

Could be.... i'm North of the Wear, South of the Tyne....

 

Does CM know you're following? He might call it Stalking!

 

[groovycaz]

It may be that im from the north east and its not a term that ive ever used but could some one please tell me what LOL means, even my neighbours on the site are using it:confused: GC

[groovycaz]

oneofakind

of course he does just following his progress... man..ha ha ha GC

[Catlover64]

Thanks to Celicaman & Oneofakind for helping out a Southern softie

 

Next quesion: Where can I find the said info??

 

TIA

[MacBoy]

could some one please tell me what LOL means

Groovycaz - it stands for 'Laughing Out Loud' It dates back to the days before graphical computer systems when people had to express emotions with acronyms (ROFL=Rolling On Floor Laughing) or by using text - i.e. the original smilies - : - )

 

Hope that helped!

 

Mac

[oneofakind]

Catlover (is that a hobby or a perversion? )

 

Go to the first page of this thread - you should be able to find everything you need!

 

And... nobody oop North here mentioned southern softies, but if the cap fits....

 

Seriously... hope you find what you need. If not, post again.

[electric lemon]

Hi there,

 

I have a court date for my claim against Barclays (what was Woolwich) in August. This is for the 6 years.

 

I would have liked to have requested statements further back than this but as this was my first claim didnt have the courage to do so, & I guess needed to see how I got on with this one.

 

CAG has given me so much confidence its wonderful!

 

I am now wondering whether I should attempt to claim further back than the 6 years now, as I had a very harsh couple of years from 1999-2001, & would so like to claim the horrific amount of charges they took from me at this time.

 

Where do I stand?

 

Many, many thanks.

Electric

[Celicaman]

Hi there,

 

I have a court date for my claim against Barclays (what was Woolwich) in August. This is for the 6 years.

 

I would have liked to have requested statements further back than this but as this was my first claim didnt have the courage to do so, & I guess needed to see how I got on with this one.

 

CAG has given me so much confidence its wonderful!

 

I am now wondering whether I should attempt to claim further back than the 6 years now, as I had a very harsh couple of years from 1999-2001, & would so like to claim the horrific amount of charges they took from me at this time.

 

Where do I stand?

 

Many, many thanks.

Electric

 

if you can get the statements , go for it

 

CM

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks for the click chez Not sure if this post will make it to the big screen, but thanks anyway.

 

Tanz

[phatram]

Could anyone please tell me what this paragraph is from?

 

 

c) 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 the Claimant contends that the Defendant is mistaken. As the Claimant only became aware during February 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1 Xb), or section 32(1 )©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

Thanks

[lizzydripping1]

The time has arrived and I am almost ready to re-sumit the claim to the FOS after eight weeks since I submitted it to him on the 12th May. The last letters I wrote were to the Halifax, and to the ICO telling them that the Halifax were contraveing the Data Protection Act, then when Halifax got ICO's letter, they telephoned me, I told them what I was expecting and would accept nothing less than that. I will be re-submitting the complaint form to the FOS on 12th July 2007, if the banking history has not been made available to me and corrected, no further contact will be made by me, all must be done through the FOS unless otherwise stated and unless I receive further instructions.

[zootscoot]

Could anyone please tell me what this paragraph is from?

 

 

c) 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 the Claimant contends that the Defendant is mistaken. As the Claimant only became aware during February 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1 Xb), or section 32(1 )©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

Thanks

 

I don't know where its from but it is misconceived in that the mistake must be that of the claimant's and not the defendant's and therefore it is unsafe to rely on it.

[phatram]

Any idea what I should use instead?

Thank you.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cooperative-bank/104039-help-o-e.html#post987223

[Celicaman]

Zootscoot, As i understood it, in the alternative to s32 pt1 (b) actual concealment, then © it could be a mistaken concealment on behalf of the banks unknowingly levying charges to our accounts for charges they believed to be lawfull,

and

it could be that we mistakingly allowed the banks to take unlawfull charges from our accounts as we belived them to be lawfull.

and that because either or both parties where mistaken, then the limitations bar did not come into force as neither party would be able to reasonably uncover this until the oFT report 2006

:-?

 

Zoot scoot, Please clarify as to what we should be using.

 

Celicaman

[zootscoot]

a). In so far as any charges relating to the period before xx/xx/xxxx, the Claimant wishes to invoke s.32 (1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 in that the Defendant deliberately concealed the true cost of administering the contractual breaches committed by the Claimant and thus essential facts relevant to the Claimant's right of action have been concealed and continue to be concealed by the Defendant.

 

b). Alternatively, the Claimant seeks to rely upon s.32(1)© of the Limitation Act. 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 much lower 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 the Claimant’s reasonable discovery. This was the 21st March 2007 when the revelations were made public.

[Celicaman]

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

 

is it also worth putting in the law case

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council as a reference

 

 

Celicaman

[Hank Bukowski]

Hi Zootscoot,

 

Thanks for that info. I have just sent in my allocation questionairre. My claim is mixed some beyond 6 years, some not. Where do I put the info you quote in the court bundle

I have not mentioned this previously as it came to light after I had filed my claim.

 

Cheers,

 

HBukowski

[MacBoy]

Zootscoot

 

This argument cites 21st March 2007 (i.e. the 'Whistleblower' programme), as the date of discovery. Has it been your experience that the argument is diminished in any way (or at any rate more easily challenged) if the litigant's account is not with one of the banks featured in the programme?

 

Thanks

Mac

[zootscoot]

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

 

is it also worth putting in the law case

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council as a reference

 

 

Celicaman

 

Yes there is some further case law in the case law library forum near the templates.

Hi Zootscoot,

 

Thanks for that info. I have just sent in my allocation questionairre. My claim is mixed some beyond 6 years, some not. Where do I put the info you quote in the court bundle

I have not mentioned this previously as it came to light after I had filed my claim.

 

Cheers,

 

HBukowski

 

Include the case law in the bundle and add the bits above to the witness statement.

 

This argument cites 21st March 2007 (i.e. the 'Whistleblower' programme), as the date of discovery. Has it been your experience that the argument is diminished in any way (or at any rate more easily challenged) if the litigant's account is not with one of the banks featured in the programme?

 

Thanks

Mac

 

Whilst the Whistleblower featured Yorkshire, Clydesdale and Northern banks the costing system for other banks is unlikely to vary greatly when you consider the wide mark up value added to the actual costs.

[Hank Bukowski]

Hi Zootscoot,

 

Thanks so much.

 

Hank