Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[noomill060]

Absolutely! If the money was paid as a "goodwill gesture" and nothing else, without any admission of liability from the bank, its yours to do with as you wish.

[MacBoy]

Absolutely! If the money was paid as a "goodwill gesture" and nothing else, without any admission of liability from the bank, its yours to do with as you wish.

I think the more responsible option at this stage would be to accept it in part payment and, as previously advised to nthe questioner; raise a rejection letter.

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

 

Either way!

 

But certainly do not return it!!!

 

 

Jeff.

[lizzydripping1]

I spoke to the Halifax today and they are asking me to return the payment, but as you say they did "specify" that it was a goodwill gesture and not a refund of unlawful charges so I do not see there is any need to send it back. When I spoke to them they said this test case could take up to twelve months to get resolved - is this right?

[noomill060]

Its your money, they took it from you unlawfully. Rather than giving it to them again, you should be demanding when they intend returning the rest of YOUR money that they took without your consent.

[noomill060]

By 'eck, I always said them buggers in Halifax had a brass neck.

 

(Oh dear, I think I'm turning into my Dad.)

 

From Hell, Hull and Halifax, may the good Lord deliver us.

[groovycaz]

Its your money, they took it from you unlawfully. Rather than giving it to them again, you should be demanding when they intend returning the rest of YOUR money that they took without your consent.

 

Hi Lizzy,

I fully agree with moonmill, there is now way I would pay back any goodwill payment, or any part refund of charges to any bank, under any circumstances where Im claiming refund of charges, get it out your account quickly and under the bed before they have a chance to take it out your account, IMO:o ..GC

[oneintheneck]

Have received payment for my claim going back 6yrs to 2001 without court action and did not sign away my right to issue further claims against the bank. Have statements going back to 1998 can I issue another claim for these earlier yrs on the same business account? Have all the statements.

[lizzydripping1]

By 'eck, I always said them buggers in Halifax had a brass neck.

 

(Oh dear, I think I'm turning into my Dad.)

 

From Hell, Hull and Halifax, may the good Lord deliver us.

 

 

think your dad may have have had more sense than us! certainly to keep the halifax right.

[lizzydripping1]

Two things came in the mail this morning, another two whole sets of charges, thats six sets in all - it was was over the 40 days in the data protection act and I had nothing, then suddenly I keep getting them - they obviously do not keep records very well, have to much time and too much money(the money is obvious). It is ridiculous when some people cannot get theirs at all.

[lizzydripping1]

When I contacted them regarding the refund they wanted returned, I told them that - as you said it was a goodwill offer (no mention of a refund of unlawful charges) they believed their charges were lawful, they were suspending all payouts until after this test case - so would I.

[Jeff2000]

When I contacted them regarding the refund they wanted returned, I told them that - as you said it was a goodwill offer (no mention of a refund of unlawful charges) they believed their charges were lawful, they were suspending all payouts until after this test case - so would I.

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Well done! Dead right as well!

 

 

Jeff.

[groovycaz]

When I contacted them regarding the refund they wanted returned, I told them that - as you said it was a goodwill offer (no mention of a refund of unlawful charges) they believed their charges were lawful, they were suspending all payouts until after this test case - so would I.

 

Well done lizzy, better in your pocket, the rest will come..Gc

[noomill060]

I sent a SAR to Northern Bank for transactional data from 1987-93 which they ignored, stating "disproportionate effort" as a reason why they wouldn't comply.

 

Complaint was sent to the ICO who instructed them to comply.

 

I started samll claim action to enforce compliance and have now recieved their defence:

 

"The Bank denies that the Applicant has an account with the bank.

 

(Never claimed that I did)

 

The bank believes that the Applicant had an account or accounts that were closed in or about 1993 .

 

The Bank recieved a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from the Applicant on or about 13 April 2007 together with the statutory fee of £10. The SAR requested, inter alia, a complete list of of all transactions and charges relating to the Applicant's banking history with the Bank. the bank advised the Applicant that it could not comply with the request.

 

The bank recieved a letter from the Information Commissioners Office dated 3 July 2007 and will respond to same.

 

The Bank submits that it has acted lawfully in relation to the Applicant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) since bank records of transactions for the period 1987 to 1993 are held on microfiche records. Such records do not constitute a relavent filing system within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 since they are filed by date od statement and not be customer name, address or account number. Customer statements were issued after every 30 transactions (page full).

 

In the alternative, if the Court finds that the microfiche records are a relavent filing system, which is denied, the bank submits that recovery of the Applicant's records would require disproportionate effort within the meaning of the Act and the Bank is not obliged to provide the data requested.

 

The Bank denies that the Applicant has established any claim for return of alleged "penalty charges unlawfully debited" which in any event would be statute barred under the Statute of Limitations.

 

The Bank denies that any award for damages should be made to the Applicant.

[PeterAnderson]

Now THAT's VERY interesting

 

Such records do not constitute a relavent filing system within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 since they are filed by date od statement and not be customer name, address or account number.

 

Any comments

[noomill060]

Isnt it just?

 

And as we all know, the ICO DOES consider microfiche as a relevant filing system....

[elsinore]

There's tons of stuff on the Abbey forum about microfiche, all positive.

 

Here's one interesting case which will spur you on

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-cahoot-successes/43925-garyhs-oh-abbey-non.html?highlight=microfiche

 

Els

[meatloaf43154]

Hey Guys

 

Has anyone got the corrrect details for what i need to put in and to use in filling in the court claim form for claiming over 6 years.

 

All help appreciated.

 

43154

[TANZARELLI]

Has anyone got the corrrect details for what i need to put in and to use in filling in the court claim form for claiming over 6 years.

 

All help appreciated.

 

43154

 

First I suggest you do some reading around various threads also have a look at the limitation act section 32.

 

You need to prove they have deliberately concealed the unlawful charges or knowingly witheld information form you.

 

LIMITATION ACT 1980

1980 CHAPTER 58

PART II EXTENSION OR EXCLUSION OF ORDINARY TIME LIMITS

Fraud, concealment and mistake

Royal Assent [13 November 1980]

Limitation Act 1980, Ch. 58, s. 32 (Eng.)

32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake

 

(1) Subject to [subsections (3) and (4A)] below, 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.

References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant's agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.

(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.

(3) Nothing in this section shall enable any action--

(a) to recover, or recover the value of, any property; or

(b) to enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property;

to be brought against the purchaser of the property or any person claiming through him in any case where the property has been purchased for valuable consideration by an innocent third party since the fraud or concealment or (as the case may be) the transaction in which the mistake was made took place.

(4) A purchaser is an innocent third party for the purposes of this section--

(a) in the case of fraud or concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action, if he was not a party to the fraud or (as the case may be) to the concealment of that fact and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the fraud or concealment had taken place; and

(b) in the case of mistake, if he did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the mistake had been made.

[(4A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to the time limit prescribed by section 11A(3) of this Act or in relation to that time limit as applied by virtue of section 12(1) of this Act].

[(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 subsection, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act).]

 

[lizzydripping1]

Got what I expected from the FOS, it said that the banks were suspending any payouts until the test case was resolved - they went on to explain about the test case and what it was. They asked me to put my signature on a form just to give them permission to take up the case again as soon as the test case is over (They could not give me any idea how long that may be).

 

So as far as I can see, there is nothing more I can do until the bank gets back to me about the letter I sent them refusing to give them back their offer of "Goodwill" - and I'm sure they will.

[TANZARELLI]

Got what I expected from the FOS, it said that the banks were suspending any payouts until the test case was resolved - they went on to explain about the test case and what it was. They asked me to put my signature on a form just to give them permission to take up the case again as soon as the test case is over (They could not give me any idea how long that may be).

 

So as far as I can see, there is nothing more I can do until the bank gets back to me about the letter I sent them refusing to give them back their offer of "Goodwill" - and I'm sure they will.

 

You need to forget the FOS and file a claim with the local county court, then when the stay is ordered make an application to have it removed.

 

Tanz

[lizzydripping1]

This would be in the Scottish Courts and would be less than the charges unlawfully charged by the halifax, I've never done this type of thing before is a "stay" used in Scotland.

[TANZARELLI]

Not sure about that lizzy you'll have to ask a mod, maybe not though.

[patrickq1]

if you are in scotland you have some good support their from the govan law centre so it may be worth trying your queries their see how you stand as you know their are some differences in scots law and english

[MacBoy]

Update cross-posted from my thread for relevance

 

 

It just clicked. The latest letters I got from them, may have been in 'response' to the ICO's intervention.

 

There is no way of determining this precisely, because of the Halifax's habit (deliberate in my view) of obstructing complaints by using such tactics as correspondence that can neither be traced nor reconciled and standard template letters; thus making it extremely difficult to check their progress.

 

If this is the case, it would appear that HFX's idea of compliance is to send me not one, but four sets of documents with the same information about charges to my current account for the past six years. Nothing for the credit card account, so there remains tons of information missing about that, from both pre-6 years and later.

 

So I called the ICO this morning and told them of my suspicions. They advised that they had written to them on 17th July so their 28-day period with them was up; and that I should send in a chase-up letter and they would in turn approach Howard & Chums again.

 

Letter done. I'll post it in a separate post for ease of reference. I also enclosed a copy of the 'Account Holdings Summary' document I got from the branch last month, which indicates that they still retain data about me going back to the very beginning of my relationship with them in 1987. As always, I'll keep you posted

 

Halifax Plc are currently 97 days beyond my original 40-day SAR period.

 

(will cross-post to 'Claiming Beyond 6 years' thread as I think it is relevant)