Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[Guest bong]

Has anybody been successful claiming beyond 6 years, NatWest are telling me they only hold records for 7 yeats then they are destroyed. Where do I go from here?

 

We have plenty of reliable evidence that Natwest can provide statements back to at least 1992. Did they state this to you in writing?

[Guest bong]

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....

 

if you read posts above you will find suggested wording for particulars of claim in a post made by zootscoot.

 

The standard prelim and LBA letters will be fine to use without amendment - all you are doing is informing them the amount you are claiming, backed up by a schedule which will give them the dates.

[mancdazuk]

I have statements going back to 1998 wehn I opened my RBOS account. It is not a complete set, and when i sent off my SAR, only 6 years were returned.

[Guest NATTIE]

Bong, i very rarely quote from internal bank manuals but on this occasion i can and will. Ok, i will paraphrase, on the NatWest Archive" statements can be provided 7 years prior to migration". Migration is change of NatWest computer system. so that would make it 1995, however the old NatWest computer system recorded on the notes system charges and what they were for, that goes back to 1991/2 so that information should mean that charges info back to then does and will exist.

[Guest bong]

Thank you Nattie:) .

 

We have to always keep one step ahead!

[Guest bong]

I have statements going back to 1998 wehn I opened my RBOS account. It is not a complete set, and when i sent off my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), only 6 years were returned.

 

RBS records go back 15 years so you will be able to get the missing statements. did you only ask for 6 in your SAR?

[thetenter]

RBS records go back 15 years so you will be able to get the missing statements. did you only ask for 6 in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)?

I did in a post on the previuos page in a question relating to Clydesdale.My question was can I just send a covering letter to ignore the initial letter as I now require all my info?

[Guest bong]

anything's worth a try. If they say no then you'll have to wait a while (is it a month?) and then send another request. but you should be ok I'd say if they haven't actioned it yet.

[thetenter]

anything's worth a try. If they say no then you'll have to wait a while (is it a month?) and then send another request. but you should be ok I'd say if they haven't actioned it yet.

Cheers,like you say its worth a try,they aint gonna have the original info here within the 40 days anyway if alot of other CB posts are anything to go by.........

[debt_mountain]

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.

Is there any way to counter this without having to revise the POC. Respond to the defence, add to the witness statement and court bundle?

[zootscoot]

You would generally get the opportunity to object to the strike out which is generally dealt with at a hearing.

[mancdazuk]

RBS records go back 15 years so you will be able to get the missing statements. did you only ask for 6 in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)?

 

The S.A.R. I sent off was non specific, but only 6 years were returned, as I think just returning the statuatory Limitation ammount will be enough to satisfy most customers. Still undecided, as my total for 6 years is £3800, without statuatory Interest. much more will take my case over the £5k threshold, which is something I am uneasy with. I may consider it as a seperate claim once my current 6 year claim is settled.

[Muffintop]

anyone goned back further with Nationwide? they told me six years only.

[Guest bong]

The S.A.R. I sent off was non specific, but only 6 years were returned, as I think just returning the statuatory Limitation ammount will be enough to satisfy most customers. Still undecided, as my total for 6 years is £3800, without statuatory Interest. much more will take my case over the £5k threshold, which is something I am uneasy with. I may consider it as a seperate claim once my current 6 year claim is settled.

 

Just be aware that there are higher risks of losing with a claim which is fully outside 6 years. I shouldn't worry about the 5K threshold either - and just in case you aren't aware - stat interest isn't counted for track allocation.

[mancdazuk]

I have just been through All of my statements that I have dating back to March 1998. Remarkably I must have been far more organised than I am now, and I am only around 5 pages of statements missing, taking me upto the the time when my SAR took effect, i.e Feb 2001. For the sake of a few missing pages, and waiting for the bank to respond to a 2nd SAR, and possibly still managing to cock things up, I am going to enter all charges that I can find pre 6 years onto my Schedule of charges, and alter my preliminary Letter with the new figure. I still feel uneasy about it, but it has to be less risky than putting in a claim which is 100% outside the limitation period.

 

As a word of general advice, is there anything I should be writing on my Preliminary letter, notifying them that I intend to claim beyond the 6 year period???

 

Also do I have to do anything different if my claim surpasses £5k????

[TANZARELLI]

I have just been through All of my statements that I have dating back to March 1998. Remarkably I must have been far more organised than I am now, and I am only around 5 pages of statements missing, taking me upto the the time when my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) took effect, i.e Feb 2001. For the sake of a few missing pages, and waiting for the bank to respond to a 2nd SAR (why would you need a second SAR? one SAR should cover all personal data they hold about you.), and possibly still managing to cock things up, I am going to enter all charges that I can find pre 6 years onto my Schedule of charges, and alter my preliminary Letter with the new figure. I still feel uneasy about it, but it has to be less risky than putting in a claim which is 100% outside the limitation period.

 

As a word of general advice, is there anything I should be writing on my Preliminary letter, notifying them that I intend to claim beyond the 6 year period??? (just the date of first charge and last chagre perhaps as well as the total amount of charges claimed.)

 

Also do I have to do anything different if my claim surpasses £5k????

 

There is a chance it may not go into small claims but some over 5k have and some under 5k haven't so I beleive.

 

Tanz

[mancdazuk]

Many thanks for the advice Tanz. The reason I thought a 2nd SAR would be required was ,when sent my first SAR 6 years were returned. I dont want to hold things up for upto another 40 days whilst they send the next batch of statements out which are prior to the 6 year limitation. As I said I am only a few missing, not really worth it.

 

I will ammend the dates on my preliminary letter, and also re-print my ammened schedule of charges.

[TANZARELLI]

No probs ta for the click

[kennyh]

Bong,

Just be aware that there are higher risks of losing with a claim which is fully outside 6 years

Why is this - only curious since I've begun a second round with RBS - the first having concluded before we were aware of 'concealment'?

[bennyowen]

kennyh

 

I wouldn't worry about this. The issue on concealment is still a valid argument. Many people who claimed beyond 6 years in the past got their money like anyone else.

 

However, the main crunch of the matter is technicality. The banks may try to argue the statute of limitation by asking for the 6 years bar. As a claimant, you are allowed to present your argument too. The onus is on the bank to come to the open court to defend their argument but they have so far failed to come, except in cases of technicalities where claimants could not present their case correctly.

 

Therefore, if any claim is compiled correctly with the POC and schedule of charges in order, the bank cannot have the case thrown out on technicalities. Then, the bank has to be ready to pursue the case to the full hearing to defend their argument or pay up.

[TANZARELLI]

Bong,

 

Why is this - only curious since I've begun a second round with RBS - the first having concluded before we were aware of 'concealment'?

 

I think Bong may be referring to the fact that there have been cases where the claim has not been able to be kept intact, by this I mean that the charges for the last 6 years have been refunded and then when it got to court the defendants solicitor argued that they had refunded the charges and that they charges element was not now relevant and the judge agreed and wouldn't then discuss them further. If however you can keep all the claim intact by refusing offers of the current charges and keeping them intrisically linked to the older charges, then this give you the ability to argue the unlawfullness of the charges element and you will more likely get a settlement prior to a court appearance as the defendant would not want to risk going in and being forced to disclose their costs, which we all know would be well under £30-£39 and more like 50p.

 

Tanz

[Guest bong]

Bong,

 

Why is this - only curious since I've begun a second round with RBS - the first having concluded before we were aware of 'concealment'?

 

this is because the banks will try and claim that as there has been no court ruling over whether the charges are unlawful, the foundation of your claim of concealment and/or mistake is unproven.

 

check out these threads http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/11427-walton-rbos-9.html#post489156 and http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54166-taylors-nationwide-3rd-time-4.html#post629559

 

That is not to say that your case is bound to fail, I think these judges' decisions were flawed and could have been appealed but the advice has to be that there is a higher risk of losing and you are better off, if you can, keeping some recent charges in the claim and refusing to accept a payment of them, so that you can insist on having the nature of the charges determined in conjunction with the limitation argument, and the bank will be more likely to settle rather than stepping inside the court room. I know in your case it's not possible and even if recent charges are in the claim some banks will still try to have parts of the claim struck out, so it's a risk anyway in bringing these types of claims.

[kennyh]

Fortunately being a squirrel has paid off ('just the once' as the wife might say) and I have all of our statements - it's now a question of rehersing the ci aspect since, f'rinstance a £45 charge from the mid 90s now translates to £700+, so they ain't gonna go quietly! As I mentioned earlier - this will be all old costs since we have already settled the 6 year period pre - concealment.

[kennyh]

If Bong is correct in "Taylors v Nationwide 3rd time"

so it all boils down to the fact that unless we get evidence of actual costs we cannot win claims for unlawful charges in court.

AND If we are now using the Whistleblower information (how solid can we assume that is) as the trigger for s32 based action, AND if the banks have steadfastly refused to justify their costs, and defend themselves in court, since the cases referred to (AND since with due diligence, deep pockets and large legal divisions, the banks COULD have found that their charges were a penalty under common law) does that not give a new degree of credence to our claims of pre 6 years?

[deeks1]

Dear Bankfodder

 

Please!! Please!! Please!! I am really hoping you will be able to advise us.

 

We put in an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for six years at the end of March 2007. Thanks to you and this excellent site we have now found out we can go back further. Can you advise us how to go about making a further request for the remainder nine years??

 

Many thanks and regards

Deeks