Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[zootscoot]

Hi Hank

 

Do I do this in a rejection of offer letter?

 

 

 

Yes

 

Also when you mention witness statement is this part of the allocation questionaire?

 

 

No this is not until you do your bundle.

 

Will pm you photoman

[emmaf01]

Isn't the witness statement part of your court bundle?

 

I've just done my AQ, so it isn't in there. Is it part of the info on the draft directions?

[SPROUTY]

Here's a letter which may need tweaking (be my guests) but should be forwarded to every mp and newspaper editor in the country or should we start a fund to serve orders on every bank to prevent them doing what "I would do if I were them!"

[SPROUTY]

Dear Mr George,

 

Regarding Bank Charges.

 

AN IMMEDIATE ORDER NEEDS TO BE MADE AGAINST THE UK BANKS TO PREVENT THEM DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF [edit] GOTTEN GAINS IN THE FORM OF BANK CHARGES (FROM 6 YEARS BACK AND BEFORE)

 

It strikes me that the UK banks have been involved in a deliberate act of Concealment of [edit] in so far as they all knew that they were making huge [edit] profits from the proceeds of Bank Charges on the basis that a "reasonable person" paid these charges in the belief that they were legal and represented "legitimate cost of application" (most banks swear this is still the case despite insurmountable evidence against this fact).

 

My point is that Banks owe the clients money going back as long as they have been applying and concealing these facts (not just six years) and they will try and miss-quote the statutory time limitation as a reason why they only need to go back 6 years (when in fact it is the client who has six years (From when they discovered that they were being abused in this fashion) to do something about it.

 

A "Reasonable person could not have been aware of the penalty charge scenario until Feb of last year (when the OFT announced its concerns) So they have until Feb. 2012 to do something about it before they are time barred by the six year ruling.

 

Put it another way. If a bank discovered undeniable proof TODAY that a member of staff had [edit] £1 a day, 5 days a week for 20 years (£5200) would the bank then say "give us back the money you [edit] for the last six years (£1562)" OR "you owe us the money that we have just discovered you [edit] plus the interest we would have earned on that money had you left it where it belonged" ???

 

Banks only need to keep 6 years of records by law, and whilst they will claim that they are acting lawfully in shredding and burning everything older then six years old many of the banks hold longer records if not ALL records and would now benefit from destroying them (conveniently) so as not to provide claimants with the evidence they require to pursue monies [edit] obtained from six years ago and before.

 

What do we need to do to prevent this possible travesty of justice?

[zootscoot]

Cor blimey thats a little strong Sprouty!

[SPROUTY]

Thanks for taking care of the legal bits zoot !

 

I feel quite strongly about this and I dont want to be saying I warned you the [edits] (save you the trouble) would do this in six months time.

 

PS

dont you think the word [edit]can be a little vulgar at times ? why couldnt we use more colloquial words such as:

Illegal, crime , theft or steal etc

 

.....just a thought

[noomill060]

Because doing so lowers the [edit] tone.

[noomill060]

"Illegal, crime, theft or steal" have specific legal meanings, which arent applicable in civil cases.

 

If you believe a crime has been committed you should contact the Police and let them deal with it.

[noomill060]

But we all share your frustration, sprouty.

[Micheboo]

Hi, everyone this my first time on this site, I think its great. My head is spinning with all this information. You guys have answered my question, of can I go back more than six years. This is great news. Thanks everybody. I'm about to write my first letter to Nationwide. I'll keep you posted.

[SPROUTY]

Food for thought its a bit white collar though, and

by the time my local coppers respond to a crime it is likely to be time statute barred !

[TANZARELLI]

Food for thought its a bit white collar though, and

by the time my local coppers respond to a crime it is likely to be time statute barred !

 

LOL. I know exactly what you mean there sprouty. PMSL

[Glenn UK]

Dear Mr George,

 

Regarding Bank Charges.

 

AN IMMEDIATE ORDER NEEDS TO BE MADE AGAINST THE UK BANKS TO PREVENT THEM DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF [edit] GOTTEN GAINS IN THE FORM OF BANK CHARGES (FROM 6 YEARS BACK AND BEFORE)

 

It strikes me that the UK banks have been involved in a deliberate act of Concealment of [edit] in so far as they all knew that they were making huge [edit] profits from the proceeds of Bank Charges on the basis that a "reasonable person" paid these charges in the belief that they were legal and represented "legitimate cost of application" (most banks swear this is still the case despite insurmountable evidence against this fact).

 

My point is that Banks owe the clients money going back as long as they have been applying and concealing these facts (not just six years) and they will try and miss-quote the statutory time limitation as a reason why they only need to go back 6 years (when in fact it is the client who has six years (From when they discovered that they were being abused in this fashion) to do something about it.

 

A "Reasonable person could not have been aware of the penalty charge scenario until Feb of last year (when the OFT announced its concerns) So they have until Feb. 2012 to do something about it before they are time barred by the six year ruling.

 

Put it another way. If a bank discovered undeniable proof TODAY that a member of staff had [edit] £1 a day, 5 days a week for 20 years (£5200) would the bank then say "give us back the money you [edit] for the last six years (£1562)" OR "you owe us the money that we have just discovered you [edit] plus the interest we would have earned on that money had you left it where it belonged" ???

 

Banks only need to keep 6 years of records by law, This is not correct, as far as i can make out there is nothing to prevent them keeping records for as long as they deem necessary. The six year 'rule' is a myth perpetuated by the banks, the companies act requires public companies to hold account data for 6 years (private companies 3, thanks to Zooman for pointing this out). The DPA does not specify any max or min retention period and the often quoted money laundering regs only apply to suspicious account activities if i have understood them correctly. and whilst they will claim that they are acting lawfully in shredding and burning everything older then six years old many of the banks hold longer records if not ALL records and would now benefit from destroying them (conveniently) so as not to provide claimants with the evidence they require to pursue monies [edit] obtained from six years ago and before. if they have a policy of data destruction which says they destroy data beyond a certain date then they are allowed to do this and arguably must do this once the data is no longer of any use. the time periods are determined by the data controller and no one else.

 

If an organisation destroys data outside of this policy after data has been requested i am sure there is some redress although I'm not sure which bit of the DPA would be applied since i haven't looked for this specifically.

 

What do we need to do to prevent this possible travesty of justice?

 

If you want to generate a letter for people to send to MPs on this subject can i suggest you start a thread in the campign forum with a draft, possibly this one and we can all chip in and try to put something together with you.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[SPROUTY]

Looks good,Ill address this later (got to work for now to pay some charges for the guys!)

Thanks for the input glenn

[wannagethelp]

BBA - British Bankers' Association - Dormant accounts

Have a look on this page Wanna... it has all sorts on there.

 

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

here's the template for the standard SAR.

You could amend it slightly to cover any logs on computer, any disclosures to third parties, and legal action past or present between you, and confirm that you want information on any account held by you with them.

Give them some copy ID, confirm previous addresses and your D.O.B. and yes I'm afraid it will cost £10, plus recorded delivery.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Good Morning,

 

To update,,,,,,I called BBA this moring on 020 7216 8909, and spoke to a lady there and asked about my closed a/c with Natwest and if I filled in a doormant form online,,,,,,,,,then she said because my account was closed and not doormant it wouldn't apply/work,,,,,I asked how then could I get my old account number or details and she said "you cant,,,bank will only go back 6 years!!!!" ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,Please, please tell me she is wrong.......thennnnnnn,,,,straight after and during this posting, got a call back from the company who used to pay my money into my Natwest account all those years ago and a very, very nice man gave me the account no. and sort code they paid into....... , so, now I have the account no....what do I do,,,,,,shall I go back into the bank this morning and ask when account was opened and closed so I know what charges or statements to ask for,,,,,the SAR I was very kindly shown does not say anything about 'certificate of destruction, etc etc',,,,,,,

 

Any advice?

[Glenn UK]

Good Morning,

 

 

To update,,,,,,I called BBA this moring on

[wannagethelp]

Hello again,

 

Think Glenuk was trying to reply to my posting and it got lost,,,,,,any advice anyone?

[anth699]

hi,could i have a link to the over 6 years template page thank you.

[Glenn UK]

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Good Morning,

 

 

To update,,,,,,I called BBA this moring on

[Glenn UK]

This is weird ive tried to reply twice now and each time nothing happens.

 

I said start your own thread and send me a pm ill try to help. all my claims have been on closed accounts and half have been where i didnt have the account number.

 

Glenn

[anth699]

cant seem to start a new thread,maybe its because im new on here.

 

i have an account with barclays which was closed 2005,i have asked for and got my statements on micro fiche for the last 6 years,i was just looking for the link so i can template a letter to try and get the 10 years before that.

thanks anth.

[wannagethelp]

Hi glenuk,

 

can't seem to find how to start a new thread and then don't know how to link all my posting into it......I'll pm you,,,,,,

[tumble]

Hi just came back from court , Natwest application to strike out the claim under section 5 of limitation act has been denied and a full hearing has been allocated by the judge. Can a mod please pm me.

[zootscoot]

That is good news tumble!

[anth699]

Hi just came back from court , Natwest application to strike out the claim under section 5 of limitation act has been denied and a full hearing has been allocated by the judge. Can a mod please pm me.

well done mate 1 nil at half time good luck