Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[brownie24]

In light of the new views being taken on the limitation act 1980 I am thinking about going back after the NastyWest for some charges that I lost out on last time. Here's what happened last time, what do you reckon?

 

In Feb 07 after submitting their AQ i received a letter from Cobbetts with a cheque enlcosed. However this cheque was not for the full amount of my claim and they argued in their letter that I could not bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the action accrued, and as I issued my claim on 8 jan 07 i was only legally entitled to claim between the periods 8th jan 2001 and 8 Jan 2007.

 

Initially I disputed this fact and returned the chque to them and wrote back to them stating that my claim should be eligible for relief from the effects of the limitations act 1980 under sections 14a and 15b. I also pointed out that my litigation with them had actually begun when I submitted my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in October 2006 and my claim was based upon the info they had furnished me with subsequently.

 

However in response to this argument they just sent me back the same cheque again with a letter reiterating their case under the limitation act 1980.

 

At that time I was pretty skint and the money was too tempting so I caved in and banked their cheque.

 

Does anyone think if I were to put in a new claim for the initial early charges that weren't paid last time this would be viable? I did write to the court stating that the claim was settled by agreement!

 

Also I have since accrued new charges which I am going to try claiming.

 

Brownie24:confused:

[Gez]

I would say claim the new charges with the old ones. That way you can still invoke the UTCCR and they will still have the burden of having to reveal their costs before they can even begin to argue about old charges being statute barred.

 

The fact that they told you that the old charges from your previous claim were statute barred means they were admitting that they owed you the money. A gesture of goodwill cannot be time barred..

[brownie24]

Hi Gez

 

So do you think I should go after the ones that they bullied me out of getting last time these were for the peroiod Oct 2000 to Jan 2001 and amounted to about £600 ish? I am just concerened that these were initially included in my previous claim which I did accept to a settlement of as the money was useful at the time although I kicked myself afterwards for backing down. I had also informed the court that this claim was settled, so I am not sure about how I could lawfully incorporate these amounts again into a new claim where I would also be claiming for new recent charges and charges pre this period when I get the info from a new SAR i will submit?

 

Brownie24:)

[Gez]

You accepted as settlement for that particular claim. This will be a whole new claim, so yes go for it!

[TUTTSI]

Hi, I have statements going back to 1997 with Halifax - does anyone here claimed from Halifax on over 6 years. Any help would be appreciated, and OH BOY loads of charges in the earlier years!!!

Regards

DS

[muggins73]

Hi, I have statements going back to 1997 with Halifax - does anyone here claimed from Halifax on over 6 years. Any help would be appreciated, and OH BOY loads of charges in the earlier years!!!

Regards

DS

 

Hi DS,

I'm just piecing together my POCs against halifax for charges dating back to Dec 1993:eek: I'm going the whole hog and claiming for CCI, too, which should be fun. I'm both excited and peeing myself at the same time, but after my bout with natwest it's all part of the game.

My motto is if you don't ask you dont get:cool:

[TUTTSI]

Hi DS,

I'm just piecing together my POCs against halifax for charges dating back to Dec 1993:eek: I'm going the whole hog and claiming for CCI, too, which should be fun. I'm both excited and peeing myself at the same time, but after my bout with NatWest it's all part of the game.

My motto is if you don't ask you dont get:cool:

 

Hi

I have just been sent statements going back to 1997 from CAPQUEST who have apparently bought the debt from Halifax. The good thing is we did not know that there were so many charges and with Interest at 8% we are up to £2.5K or thereabouts and the debt was arround £1K. Do you know the rate of interest on a cardcash account! as there is no mention on any of the statements.

 

1993, is even further back! what is CC1 ! anyway, I will now start a thread and perhaps you can give me your thread details so we can help each other. I have been successful on many other charges claims but none as yet over the 6 year period.

 

Keep in touch

Regards

DS

[muggins73]

Hi

I have just been sent statements going back to 1997 from CAPQUEST who have apparently bought the debt from Halifax. The good thing is we did not know that there were so many charges and with Interest at 8% we are up to £2.5K or thereabouts and the debt was arround £1K. Do you know the rate of interest on a cardcash account! as there is no mention on any of the statements.

 

1993, is even further back! what is CC1 ! anyway, I will now start a thread and perhaps you can give me your thread details so we can help each other. I have been successful on many other charges claims but none as yet over the 6 year period.

 

Keep in touch

Regards

DS

 

Responded in your thread, so I'll be seeing you there:)

[brownie24]

You accepted as settlement for that particular claim. This will be a whole new claim, so yes go for it!

 

Hi Gez

 

So although these charges were incorporated into my old claim but were not paid I could reincorporate them in to my new claim in view of my new understanding of the Limitations Act?

 

Just want to get my head around this properly as I wouldn't want to put myself in a position where the judge could throw my case out!

 

Thanks

 

Brownie24

[icantlogin]

I am considering doing a claim against Woolwich for an old account my Husband had back in September 1990. I have statements dating from Sept 1990 to March 1992. Total charges taken was £440.00. Does anyone now what rate of CI interest I can claim?

[zootscoot]

Is the rate of interest not stated on the statements?

[Celicaman]

i thought we just used the current bank rate for CI.

I have claims going back to 1990 as well and was using 18.3% HSBC current OD interest rate

1990 rates would be high as mortgage rates then were something like 15% hate or actually love to think what that would do to the amount claimed on CI

Could you clarify Zootscoot

[icantlogin]

No the interest rate is not on the statements.

 

Any ideas on what rate I could use?

[TUTTSI]

Have you tried the the web site for Woolwich or is Barclays who own them now!

DS

[TANZARELLI]

No the interest rate is not on the statements.

 

Any ideas on what rate I could use?

 

See here: Woolwich - Rates and Charges

 

27.5% is Woolwich/Barclays current unauthorised rate I would use that.

 

JMHO

 

Tanz

[TUTTSI]

Good job you were arround, Tanz!

DS

[TANZARELLI]

Just had a squis on their website like you suggested. lol

[TUTTSI]

Sneaky, pleased to see you here.

[sansho]

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

[Mendipman1]

sansho e-mail today requires a definitive response, notwithstanding Bank Fodder posting 7 April with reliance on Zootscott, incidentally, can't locate sansho posting on this thread?

 

"I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later. I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001

2".

[muggins73]

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

 

Fair point, but the fact of the matter is that until recently none of us knew that these charges were unfair, unreasonable and not to mention unlawful. We are meerly asking the judge to make the banks justify them.

[debs01]

Hi,

I sent off a 14 day letter to Natwest yesterday and have now discovered this news!! I only claimed for the last 6 years charges although I have statements showing charges back to 2000, so I have not claimed for approx £350.00. Is it too late to claim? Should I send a revised letter or another letter? Please advise.

 

Thanks

 

debs

[photoman]

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

 

In short,

What they have been concealing is the true nature of the charges.

They have always presented them as just being a recouping of their own legitimate costs involved in dealing with such matters, whilst in fact they have actually been profiting unlawfully from them. This means they have in actual fact been penalties all along.

The fact also, that despite all the publicity, The OFT's report, the countless cases they are choosing to settle, and the fact that they employ legal counsel to advise in such matters..... yet still will not provide disclosure of how the charges are calculated, and still persist in presenting them as a recouping of legitimate expenses (yet everything else indicates otherwise) means that the concealment is ongoing, and so our claims of such are uncontestable.

Any rights to protection under the limitation act are voided by this concealment.

[oneofakind]

Debs,

your claim amount is not 'set in stone' until you file in court. Maybe you should send them another letter, informing them of 'new information has come to light...' or similar, and add your earlier charges.

 

[debs01]

Thanks oneofakind will do.

 

Debs