Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
    • Paying DCA's one penny, never mind £50 per month is a mugs game, they have really been milking him as a cash cow   See where received a claim form is underlined in your post, you need to click, on that and read carefully, then answer the questions, then copy and paste into a post on this thread Forget the CAB ,  their advice is sometimes weird. Is it worth defending? Lowell brought these debts for 10 p in the pound , years ago, because they are flawed. Think about it! if it was such an easy win, Capital one could have taken it to court and crushed him.  It could be an invalid agreement, default notice, or many other things. In a nutshell , yes, and we can help you.
    • Origin moved to EA App... I know this all too well.  Reach out to Customer Services I would to see what they can do. 
  • 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 5705 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

i am in the process of claiming back 6 years of bank charges, i recieved all my statements yesterday, after adding all the charges up i find this amounts too £1,190 can anyone please advise me of the next step to take

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi sally,

 

Your next step is to work out how much interest you have also paid.

 

Start a thread in the relevant section, let me know where it is and I'll show you how. You will be amazed how much they really owe you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which are you claiming against? Barclays- use the Barclays section, Abbey, Abbey's section etc.

 

This site can be a bit confusing!

 

Go here, scroll down and click on your bank. If you cant see it, use the "Other Institutions" bit.

 

Scroll down to the bottom then click on the "New Thread" button and away you go!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BF et al,

Back again in 'thick' mode. Like many others I want to pursue the 'pre 6 years' stratagem BUT, I'm sure, unlike many others I don't quite grasp the tactics. Following the advice of the early runners in the main bank campaign as a whole, I need to understand this in case the wheels come off at court.

I have read that "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. ....". If, therefore the 'period' in question runs from a current date then I'm still only going 6 years back - or am I? Just HOW do I justify claiming 12 or 15 years back so far as s32 is concerned? remember I DID say thick mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years does not start counting until you become aware of the unlawful act.

 

In many cases, people cite 6th April 2006 as the day they become aware of the unlawful act of the banks. That date is the date the OFT released their report on penalty charges on credit cards and made reference to other bank agreements like current account, mortgages, etc.

 

As far as the limitation period is concerned, it should only begin to count from 6th April 2006 when the claimant (plaintiff) became aware of the concealment. That means that the limitation period should only apply if you do not pursue your claim before 5th April 2012. That is six years after you became aware of the unlawful act against you.

 

I hope I have tried to explain enough. Please ask more questions if you are unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have 6 years from the 6th of april to go back as far as you can on the 6th April2012 no one will be able to go back more than 6 years before that time all is ok but the later people leave it the more difficultto do and when i say latter Im talking years well thats how I understand it

Link to post
Share on other sites

many thanks Benny and Bona. So I wasn't miles out - this talk of going back into the last century is a non-starter then? Unless, of course, you were some kind of 'clever dick' and knew before 2006 of the banks' perfidy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BF et al,

Back again in 'thick' mode. Like many others I want to pursue the 'pre 6 years' stratagem BUT, I'm sure, unlike many others I don't quite grasp the tactics. Following the advice of the early runners in the main bank campaign as a whole, I need to understand this in case the wheels come off at court.

I have read that "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. ....". If, therefore the 'period' in question runs from a current date then I'm still only going 6 years back - or am I? Just HOW do I justify claiming 12 or 15 years back so far as s32 is concerned? remember I DID say thick mode.

 

Hi Kenny,

 

s.32 (1)(b) provides that where there has been concealment of any fact relevant to the claimant's right of action the time does not start to run until the discovery of the concealment. So if a charge was incurred say March 1996 and there was concealment of a fact relevant to the cause of action for the purposes of the Limitation Act the time will start to run from discovery. So if you discover the concealment in March 2006 you have 6 years from 2006 to bring your claim ie March 2012 for ANY charges incurred under the concealment.

 

So the question then becomes what have the banks concealed. It has to be a concealment of facts as oppose to law. You can not assert that the concealed the fact that the charges were unlawful as this is concealment of the law and is bound to fail.

 

What the banks have concealed is how much it costs them to bounce a cheque or deal with other transgressions. This is a fact which is relevant to the cause of action. Without this knowledge the customer is in no position to determine whether or not they have a right of action.

 

Next question is when did the customer discover this concealment. That would be 21st March 2007... the date of Whistleblower. This revealed that Yorkshire Bank had a costing system which showed that it could not cost the bank more than 2.00 to deal with the various breaches. By implication its likely that this would be the same costing for other banks give or take a little.

 

The time then begins to run for any charges ever incurred from the date of discovery. This means that you have until 21st March 2013 to bring a claim for any charges incurred prior to 21st March 2007.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently started my own thread, Dr hunter vs clydesdale bank. I am still waiting for statements for my current account, sent letter asking for statements at the end of january, recieved the sorry will be more than 40 days blah blah letter on the 07/03/07. I am keen to send a letter saying that i still have not recieved 6 years statements and could i increase this to 12 years statements plus include 90's closed accounts. could someone help me with this letter? my original request letter was specific to certain accounts and asked for 6 years(standard money saving expert). my thread is Dr Hunter vs Clydes(over 6 yrs using eng crt) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

VM Thanks for the affirmation Zoot - do we have any idea when the new templates might be up; and now to pay CONSIDERABLY more interest to the threads dealing with CI etc; d'you know, perhaps I'm not too old for this **** after all!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise this is probably asked in the thread somewhere, but

As the data will be held manually after the 6yrs [more than likely] do we allow them more time to process the SAR?

 

Is there a new SAR template to be used or just alter the existing one?

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise this is probably asked in the thread somewhere, but

As the data will be held manually after the 6yrs [more than likely] do we allow them more time to process the SAR?

 

 

No the 40 days is set out in statute.

 

Is there a new SAR template to be used or just alter the existing one?

 

The existing one does not specify a time limit so they are obliged to send all info they hold on you irrespective of date. Although you could alter the wording to make it explicit that you wish data prior to 6yrs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...