Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[Glenn UK]

Cave vs Robinson April 2002

 

Lord Millet said

 

25. In my opinion, section 32 deprives a defendant of a limitation defence in two situations: (i) where he takes active steps to conceal his own breach of duty after he has become aware of it; and (ii) where he is guilty of deliberate wrongdoing and conceals or fails to disclose it in circumstances where it is unlikely to be discovered for some time. But it does not deprive a defendant of a limitation defence where he is charged with negligence if, being unaware of his error or that he has failed to take proper care, there has been nothing for him to disclose.

 

 

FWIW I have already claimed back from 1997 against abbey and ther specifically stated they would not defend the charges pre six years old.

 

Cant say it will always be the same though.

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Laches (equity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

extracted from the above

 

Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine, in an action at law. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,

Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit. Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent (that is, those who sleep on their rights). In most contexts, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party invoking the doctrine have changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is in a worse position now, than the defendant was at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded; or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the meantime; or the property in question may already have been sold; or evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend against the claim.

[Glenn UK]

Unless you have the account number, I would send a SAR and ask for absolutely everything you can think of - no account number on it as the SAR should be for ALL information they hold on you...period. If you want all the info then you need to amend the site template to reflect this imho.

Any copies of information includin telephone call transcripts, any legal action past or present regarding the account, and disclosures to third parties in relation to it, etc.

 

I think it's porbable they do have your info, but are hoping they can dissaude you from pushing it out of them!

 

Did you ever have another account that you may have either transfered to or received a transfer from this account... if so, there may be a record of an account number on that accounts statements.

 

Did you ever make a purchase with a debit card/cheque from this account for anything that you could request statements for?

 

Good luck

 

Perseus

 

when you send a SAR without the account number, make sure you give them suifficient info to indetify you related to when the account was last operated.

 

Its also wise to include a recent utlitiy bill or something similar. the DPA gives them the right to not comply until they have satified themselves that you are who yuo say you are.

 

You should of course ask for it back.

 

HSBC asked me to go to one of their branches with my passport of driving licence to prove who i was.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[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

[Glenn UK]

Good Morning,

 

 

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

[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

[Glenn UK]

Hi All,

So I shall have to file at court as Mcol doesn't allow for that amount.

 

YOu aure about that?

 

Can I use MCOL?

 

You cannot use MCOL if you are:

• a child (a person under 18 years of age);
  
• a patient as described in the Mental Health Act 1983 - click here for details;
  
• a legally assisted person within the meaning of the Legal Aid Act 1988 - click here to view this on the HMSO web-site;
  
• a vexatious litigant (a person who has been forbidden by a high court judge to issue proceedings in any county court in England and Wales without permission).

And you cannot issue a claim using MCOL against:

• a child or patient (as stated above);
  
• the Crown, including Ministers of the Crown in their official capacities and government departments.

Other Conditions:

 

• your claim must be for a fixed amount of money which is less than £100,000 including court fees and any solicitors' costs';
  
• your claim is against no more than two people;
  
• your address for service must be within England and Wales
  
• the address of the person(s) you are suing is within England and Wales; and
  
• you have a valid credit or debit card.

taken from Her Majesty's Courts Service

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Aoife

 

Have you checked out the POC in my thread? Glenn Vs Abbey?

 

You need to include terms to cover Sec 32 of the limitations act at least in principle because the bank are likely to defend using Sec 5.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

I see people are waiting for new templates for pre six year claims, has anyone mod or site helper that is, said there will be any?

 

FWIW I don't see there is any reason not to use the existing prelim and LBAs from the site for any claim irrespective of its age, unless of course its for something other than reclaiming bank charges.

 

It is of course a matter for each individual whether they feel the need to add or alter bits of the templates but all i can say is i can seen no reason to alter them just because a charge or charges are over 6 years old.

 

I would go further and say I would not even raise that matter with them other than by the inclusion of the info in the schedule of charges.

 

It is their problem and up to them to raise the issue of the age of the charges, its a DEFENCE, not a critical part of the prelim and LBA.

 

When you issue your claim at court however, you should include some reference either to the relevant Sections of the Limitations Act you wish to rely on or alternatively statement along the lines of:

 

'The claimant paid the charges under the mistaken belief that the Defendant was entitled to levy the charges' &

 

'The defendant has concealed and continues to conceal both the nature of the unlawful charges and the claimants right of action to recover those unlawful charges'

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Hi Glenn,

 

I can see this but if the banks are refusing to part with info in the first place, using the '6 year' rule as a basis for their action, then what form of words would you suggest to get them to supply.

 

The standard words are sufficent as you ask for the data for the whole account history, if they refuse to supply it simply on the basis of age then you send them the follow up letters as set out in the template library.

 

The DPA is quite clear on what you are entitled to and in truth i havent acutally seen any arguments put up by banks saying you cant have data due to limitations act. i have seen them make this assumption though.

 

If they do then take them to court

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Bankfodder in post #1 I beleive Glenn.

 

 

 

Tanz

 

 

There's always one smart arse in the class

 

Thanks Tanz, no offence mate.

[Glenn UK]

hi standingup

 

If they are declaring that the account had an oustanding balance when closed, and that the account was closed in 1999 - they will almost definitely have details there.

Was there ever any legal/default discussions on this account?

Is this in response to a SAR?

 

If so, I would repeat the request, confirming the microfiche data is a relevant filing system, and if the data has been destroyed, you want the method of destruction, by whom, when, and if they are not willing to supply due to s5 of the 1980 limitations act, counter it with a s32 statement that they have concealed that their charges are disproportionate to their actual costs, and therefore the 6 year statute is not relevant. The Limitations Act doesnt apply to data retention so if they quote it, then the best reply is to point out their failings and re dicrect them to the DPA. Trying to use Sec 32 only shows them your limited knowledge i think. I doubt they will use that argument anyway they may just supply only six wirths presuming thats what you want, but that is a different argument.

BTW if they only provide data for six years then you might like to remind them that they have supplied data to others, me and at least two others with data over six years old in the past.

You could also support this by submitting a cca request.

As part of the SAR, you could ask for ALL information held, on any form of media, along with transcripts of any telephone calls made or received regarding you, any disclosures to or from 3rd parties in relation to any business regarding you, any legal action past or present, and if there was an outstanding amount in 1999, surely they must have information to support how and why it was outstanding?

I'm sure others on here would add to the above re wording?!

 

Pers

 

 

HTh

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

I would advise writing a letter to the person you spoke to, something along these lines..

 

..further to our conversation today, wherein you confirmed that for a payment of £15 per year you would forward copies of statements back to the account opening in 1989, please send me written confirmation that this information is available so that I can arrange to send the correct payment in advance.

 

I'm not advising that you pay them this money because if they come back with the confirmation you've asked for you can then return a copy of their letter with an S.A.R and a cheque for £10.

 

Can i suggest another approach?

 

My feeling is if you right the letter Bong has suggested you wont get anything they will withdraw the offer when they get the letter.

 

I would ring and ask for a year signficnatlly pre six years and pay for it, when you get it you write back with your SAR and ask for the rest.

 

If they refuse citing destruction of data then you have grounds to take them to court.

 

If they dont send out the letter that Bong has suggested then you have no evidence and wil effectively have no claim for non complaince.

 

JMHO

 

GLenn

[Glenn UK]

 

If I go ahead with my current claim for the last 6 years (£991 including interest) would that jeopardize my chances of claiming for more than that at a later date?

 

Not in theory although imho it is best to claim for all charges in one claim, if not you may end up in court fighitng simply over the limitations act and unless you are confident this is not the preferred route.

 

There are strategies to avoid this by keeping the claim together for both pre and post six year charges which makes life potentially easier for you.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Glenn,

what are the strategies? I'm thinking it's too difficult to get my other statements unless I fly back (which I can't afford right now) and it seems there is no way Abbey will come up with more than 6 years worth, so I think I have to go ahead with the one claim now. Then whenever I go back (hopefully in the next 12 months) I will try a claim for the pre 6 years worth. Did you just mean keep it as one claim is the best solution? Or is there a strategy as you mentioned?

 

Primarily keep the claim intact ie chsarges both pre and post six years, any defaults and interest so that after allocaiton if they want to argue about anyhting then its all or nothing.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

I like that Zootscoot, would it be worth adding this into POC or waiting to a later stage of developments:

 

"If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken.The mistake reffered to in Sec 32 is your mistake in paying the charge not theirs in levying it. As I only became aware during March 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period." The date you became aware of the unlawfulness is not the issue, its the fact they had concealed the unlawfulness of the charges and the fact you had made a mistake which gives rise to the use of Sec 32. It is the date you knew about this that is the effective date from which your 6 year peiord starts running.

 

 

Or is this repeating the above a bit?

 

Tanz

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Zoot,

 

You advise us that the limitations act does not apply in Scotland.So if bank/credit card company has office in England(whether head or not) can you request those data about your account prior ro the six year period? The limitations Act and the six year period have nothing to do with data protection act. If you ask for all your data then they have to send it under the Data Protection Act.

Another aspect is that when we send off S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and comply with our requirements, doesnt the bank be bound to send all detaila that they have on you to you. No, you can elect to ask for limited data and this is what i believe the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) template from the site does. The 1st paragraph asks for transaction and charge data, the second paragraph supports the 1st paragraph and asks for details of manual intervention. Some have said that the site template entitles you to all your data, I disagree and think a court would take the same view, if you want it all change the SAR to make it clear and then you wont have a problem. I am thinking that most take notes wen you phone and send them letters. Within an organisation thye allocate information about you to an employee. The item that has caused your request is given a number, and officer who deals with it, and his report on that matter. So it would be helpful to have all the inofrmation that the bank has on oneself.

Views?

 

If you want the bank to supply ALL the data they hold on you then i suggest you amend the template to make that clear.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

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

 

If you used the SAR template from this site you have already asked for the info for the while account history not that last six years.

 

If you used somoene elses SAR and it stated six years, you copy it and change it to say from the opening of the account up until six years ago from when you submitted your SAR.

 

HTH

 

GLenn

[Glenn UK]

Just received my statements from Lloyds and had originally requested statements for past 6 years from the date of my letter.

 

The letter they have sent with the statements states:

 

"Please find enclosed details of charges going back to the date you opened your account, or 1st September 2001, whichever date is most recent.If you do feel you need further statements, this will take longer to access our archived data. Please let me know by returning this letter in the attached pre-paid envelope and I will order them for you.

 

*Please send any remaining statements prior to 1st September 2001."

 

Looks like they are expecting people to claim further back than 6 years doesn't it. Anyway sounds too good to be true.....but will have to wait and see!!!

 

YOu could use the templates from the library reminding them they have xx days left for complaince of your origianl SAR, if you used the template from the site then you have already asked for all your info and you are entitled to it. This letter they send allows them to argue you didnt want your data if you dont send it back sharply.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

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

 

Personally i don't see Whistleblower as the crux of claims for use in sec 32. read the case law thats been quoted and make your own mind up. Certainly its good for claims against Barclays but other banks will simply say it wasn't me guv.

 

There are three parts to sec 32, and they can all be bought into play.

 

Bong, myself and loads of others have reclaimed charges significantly older than 6 years already before Whistleblower.

 

With a well prepared claim and claimant it should be no bar.

 

Having said all that there are tactics for us to use to make sure we get what we want.

 

Glenn