Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

[noomill060]

I think quite a lot of people have had the same idea...

[noomill060]

Way to go photoman!

 

Did the court say anything about the Limitations Act, or did the bank not raise the issue?

[noomill060]

Charges + Interest levied thereon+ court fee= principal of claim

 

County Court interest is at the discretion of the Court.

[noomill060]

Absolutely! If the money was paid as a "goodwill gesture" and nothing else, without any admission of liability from the bank, its yours to do with as you wish.

[noomill060]

Its your money, they took it from you unlawfully. Rather than giving it to them again, you should be demanding when they intend returning the rest of YOUR money that they took without your consent.

[noomill060]

By 'eck, I always said them buggers in Halifax had a brass neck.

 

(Oh dear, I think I'm turning into my Dad.)

 

From Hell, Hull and Halifax, may the good Lord deliver us.

[noomill060]

I sent a SAR to Northern Bank for transactional data from 1987-93 which they ignored, stating "disproportionate effort" as a reason why they wouldn't comply.

 

Complaint was sent to the ICO who instructed them to comply.

 

I started samll claim action to enforce compliance and have now recieved their defence:

 

"The Bank denies that the Applicant has an account with the bank.

 

(Never claimed that I did)

 

The bank believes that the Applicant had an account or accounts that were closed in or about 1993 .

 

The Bank recieved a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from the Applicant on or about 13 April 2007 together with the statutory fee of £10. The SAR requested, inter alia, a complete list of of all transactions and charges relating to the Applicant's banking history with the Bank. the bank advised the Applicant that it could not comply with the request.

 

The bank recieved a letter from the Information Commissioners Office dated 3 July 2007 and will respond to same.

 

The Bank submits that it has acted lawfully in relation to the Applicant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) since bank records of transactions for the period 1987 to 1993 are held on microfiche records. Such records do not constitute a relavent filing system within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 since they are filed by date od statement and not be customer name, address or account number. Customer statements were issued after every 30 transactions (page full).

 

In the alternative, if the Court finds that the microfiche records are a relavent filing system, which is denied, the bank submits that recovery of the Applicant's records would require disproportionate effort within the meaning of the Act and the Bank is not obliged to provide the data requested.

 

The Bank denies that the Applicant has established any claim for return of alleged "penalty charges unlawfully debited" which in any event would be statute barred under the Statute of Limitations.

 

The Bank denies that any award for damages should be made to the Applicant.

[noomill060]

Isnt it just?

 

And as we all know, the ICO DOES consider microfiche as a relevant filing system....

[noomill060]

Has ANYONE succesfully gone to court, invoked s.32 of the Limitations Act to claim charges pre-6 years and ACTUALLY won?

 

If not, this thread needs to be removed (or at least retitled), as its giving bad information in its first pages and raising false hopes which will end in frustration and extra cost.

[noomill060]

Wow! Thanks for posting Dad! A bit of good news.

[noomill060]

After a complaint to the ICO and starting small claim, I recieved all my Northern Bank statements 1987-93 last week.

 

Their covering letter still bleats that they intend to use the Limitation Act in any action I may take against them.

 

We shall see.

 

My small claim will continue, for damages, as they failed to comply within the 40 days. Trial date 25 October.

 

Then I go for charges plus 19 or so years compound interest.