Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[Celicaman]

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

 

is it also worth putting in the law case

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council as a reference

 

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Im Happy too, thank you Zootscoot. There is so much to learn and easy to mix some facts up, and/or miss interprete, especially those which can mean 2 things, but can have different consequences if the wrong route is followed

Thanks again

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Could you post the address of where to buy the rockets :D

 

CM

[Celicaman]

emmaf01

What you choose to enjoy whist not working or CAGing is entirely your own business

 

Dusary - let's hope the Information Commissioner's Office comes up with the goods

 

CM - Not sure, but I wouldn't recommend these for the purpose!

 

 

ROFLOL, good choice

 

CM

[Celicaman]

Good Luck AQ, his is going to be fun LOL

 

Dont forget to start your own thread in the nasty west forum, and post all the things you do on there, then peeps can read and advise where required, then if you have any topic related questions, you can post them on there

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Hi - have notice of transfer to my local court. Now need to send a nudge to bank's solicitors DG.

 

How do I work in the fact that the WHOLE of my claim is to be considered? When I started the claim, all entries were within the six year limit. But when the bank made me an ex-gratia offer, they struck out a couple of the entries, as they were 'outside' the six years....

 

HELP!!

 

TIA

 

You need to add into your argument,part of the S32 limitations act

 

32.--

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  [*]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. ....

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. . . . (5) Sections 14A and 14B of this Act shall not apply to any action to which subsection (1)(b) above applies (and accordingly the period of limitation referred to in that sub-section, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act).

This following part you would add into your witness statement or statement of evidence

9. The claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, on the grounds that the claimant would not reasonably have discovered the defendant’s deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action before the report of the OFT was published on 05/04/2006.

The facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action are that the defendant is unjustly enriched by exercising the contractual terms in respect of default charges with a view to profit.

If the defendant has elected to present its charges as if they were a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is in actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges, the defendant can be seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers, and to have consciously concealed the facts.

The defendant is clearly in a privileged position to have a direct means of withdrawing monies from the claimant’s bank account.

The claimant is entitled to know whether the charges paid represent a justifiably incurred cost to the defendant’s business, or whether they are in fact a penalty, and to expect that the defendant will always conduct itself with integrity.

10. Alternatively, the claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1)© of the Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the payments were conceded on the mistaken presumption that the said charges and interest thereon, did not amount to penalties - Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council - and that the claimant Would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 05/04/2006.

 

Hope that expalins it enough, but read up a little on it first.

You could reply to the bank on the lines of due to the banks deliberate concealment as to the lawfullness of their charges, you willl be relying on the s32 limitations to argue that the 6 yr bar be waived etc

 

Have a read of bongs thread for some of the argument

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/33005-bong-hsbc-contractual-interest-4.html

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Great thread very informative!.....I have just initiated a claim against Co-Op Bank for 'COMMISSION' charges taken from my account from Jan 1989 to Nov 1999 which amounted to approx £1,500.....The interest is actually more than the charges at over £1,700 calculated on the provided spreadsheet from 1989 to present day!

 

I found consectutive old statements in my loft from '89 to '99, it will be very interesting to see how the Co-Op reacts to these dates and the prospect of paying up charges and interest going back 18 YEARS!

 

Wish me luck!.......Will keep this thread informed of all developments.

 

Regards,

 

 

Jendoc

 

Hi Jendoc, can i just question your wording for the above, you say 'commision' charges. If they are commision charges, they sound like they are legitimate charges, its charges for going over overdrafts, recall charges, returned cheque charges etc that can be claimed.

Is it a business account ?

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Hi...Yeah on my statements the charges are called 'COMMISSION' it is not a business account only a current account, but at that time all charges with the Co-Op were known as COMMISSION.

 

The three main charges on all of my statements are called:

Debit Interest,

Service Charge,

Commission, and all for varing amounts everytime i've gone overdrawn! or missed a direct debit payment.

 

Jendoc

 

Just thought had better clarify in case, most other banks commision is legit. Bet you get a letter soon saying you cant claim as over 6 years ! Oh yes you can LOL

 

Good luck

 

CM

[Celicaman]

First charges claimed Jan/feb 2001 filed court march 2001 paid in full no quibble and also offer inc interest @8% up to date of offer, ok 2 claims in jan & feb only £55 but they paid it no argument about outside 6 years.

Next claim back to 1990 on same account plus charges after last claim, this should be a laugh, i think they may squirm a little

 

CM

[Celicaman]

I hope it goes as well for me against Halifax. A ggod majority of my claim amounts to charges outside the limitation. Heres hoping;)

Hi Muggins how many of your charges are outside of the 6 yr period

Depending on what stage you are at, you can still add parts of the S32 limitations act to nullify any defence the bank throw at you if they dispute charges outside

 

CM

[Celicaman]

KennyH, its your claim, if you feel you need to get the current claim underway, then thats your choice as the post 6yr claim would prob go through faster yes.

Non of your claim would probably see an actual court anyway, its just arguing with the banlk as to its legality that could drag it out longer.

Good luck

CM

[Celicaman]

I have just won a claim consisting of 12 years of charges, this was the most recent 6 years, plus the 6 years prior to that.

 

My next claims will consist of charges that are ALL pre 6 years, some as far back as 1984.

 

I will not let up and let them get away with this !

 

This is an interesting post by Bankfodder.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-727697.html

 

 

PM

 

 

Well Done PM You deserve it, keep up the good work

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Help.

 

Ive just been reading this thread, (slap my wrist ive not read it before) and now I am worried.

 

Been on the phone today to Halifax re claim over 6 yrs, I was offered less than I claimed for ,(money put in bank infact)

 

Cut a long story short Ive told them I know theyhavent gon to 1999 wit charges only reimbursing me from 2001. Told them to take money back and Ill carry on with claim.

They said not their policy to pay over 6 yrs, Me and my big mouth said Ive seen cases on here that have been paid out.

 

Have I just dropped a big fat WHOOPSIE

 

Think general concensus of opinion is carry on with your pre 6 years claim, they will just have to up their ex gratia offer by £300, as long as its not for CI but charges over 6 years charges only.

They will be hoping that you just give up as they tell you they dont pay up on old charges, I think you already sent a rejection letter, so you could always follow up with a second one stating that whilst you accept the figure of £**** as part payment, you are still going to court for the balance, you should probably quote some of the s32 limitations arguments, just to show you are serious and know your stuff

They will cave in eventually if you do it right, Im sure PM can advise as he just won 12 years worth.

 

CM

[Celicaman]

Oh and no whoopsee lol, why should it be, let them know you know that it is claimable

CM

[Celicaman]

Hayes, in you offer letter it usually says in relation to claim from (date) to (Date) and as long as you sent the acceptance form this forum, there is no problem in putting a second claim in.

Worth checking on your copy of offer letter & what you signed, if different, just as double check, but should not pose problem

 

CM

[Celicaman]

Hi, you can use the limitations act s32 part 1 (B) & © to argue your case for pre 6 years, carry on with your claim, they will have to pay up.

 

32.--

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  [*]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. ....

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. . . . (5) Sections 14A and 14B of this Act shall not apply to any action to which subsection (1)(b) above applies (and accordingly the period of limitation referred to in that sub-section, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act).

 

 

Try the link below for more info

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/3598-do-you-have-charges.html

 

Halifax seem to think that by paying into your account, that its a closed matter, use a rejection letter from the templates library (see blue link in my signature below) to say that you accept as part payment only and you will continue to court for the rest. You will need to add into the template, why & how you invoke the limitations act, not as easy as cut & paste, you need to understand how it applies to your claim, so read up & learn.

Use the search box 'limitations' act to find other threads relating to that & you may even find a template 'paragraph' to add to your rejection letter.

 

As a point © is the stronger argument, as it was a mistake on your part that you believed that they ( the bank) had the right to levy the charges, so you allowed it to continue, and that it was not brought to your attention until either april 2006 or march 2007, depending on whether you use the OFT report or i think it was the BBC whistleblower program.

Research both & understand all putting in your claim.

 

Good luck

 

Celicaman

[Celicaman]

Also, i bet their offer was marked 'without predjudice' which means they cant show the offer to the court.

 

CM

[Celicaman]

I didnt mention S32 when I filed my claim or in my AQ just the template POC but they are going to use it apparently, but it is not mentioned in their defence either, can they do this?

 

As far as i understand, The banks also use the s32 limitations act to say that claims older than 6 years are outside the limitations act, your argument against this is s32 the act of concealment and that you were mistaken in allowing them to charge you the penalties. If they have stated somewhere that your claim is time barred you say it is not for those reasons.

 

CM