Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, all I can add is that I was a victim of a Backdoor CCJ from Capquest, my fault for moving and not writing to them with my new address.  It sounds counter intuitive but the Best and most important thing to stay protected is to let your creditors know you are moving. Always in writing too, good old fashioned Royal Mail.
    • Sorry to pile more of the brown stuff onto your head – but I think that this speaks volumes. You are not an "ex customer" of Currys. To suggest that you are is effectively accepting that Currys' responsibilities to you ended the moment that they took your money and you walked away with the cooker. Currys' responsibilities are ongoing for the reasonably expected lifespan of the item which you bought and this means that you continue to be their customer for at least that period of time.   If you can start to adopt this mindset, you will start to find yourself pointing in the right direction. We will help to keep you focused
    • In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100. These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.  
    • I think I have to add some clarification to the advice which has been given by my site team colleague above. Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act does not replace the existing law of contract. It simply supplements it and adds some additional solutions such as the short-term right to reject – and the right to reject within six months after giving a single opportunity to repair. These remedies are meant to be solutions but in fact we are finding – especially with car dealers – that the law is simply being ignored and frankly from that point of view the Consumer Rights Act is not a great success. There really ought to be in place a punitive measure for retailers who don't respect the 30 day rule and the six-month rule. But there aren't. So what is left is that even after six months, the item which has been sold to you must be of satisfactory quality and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period of time depends on the reasonable expectations of a reasonable consumer. If the item starts to develop problems early on in its life then I think it can be generally taken beyond doubt that the item has failed the test of "satisfactory quality" because it has not remained that way for a reasonable period of time. Where an item starts to fail towards the end of its reasonable life expectancy, then you have a more difficult problem and that is where as my site team colleague has suggested, that you would ideally have to find some expert evidence to show that the item had failed because there was an existing defect. You could do this by getting an independent inspection or else by finding other examples over the Internet to show that this was a known problem. My site team colleague is right that you would have to demonstrate a defect even if the item fails at an early stage in its life – but I think that if you are taking a cooker with a reasonable life expectancy of probably, say, eight years – then I think the fact that it has developed a serious defect in the first 12 months would be taken by any County Court judge as clear evidence that it had failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act – that it was not satisfactory quality. If the judge accepted that failure as evidence, then it would be up to the retailer to counter the presumption with evidence that there was nothing wrong with it. So what I'm saying is that in the first instance, I think that the defect speaks for itself and the question now is how to proceed. I'm sure that we can help you and I'm sure that we can help you get a result. I have to say now that you've been here since 2015 and I'm extremely disappointed to find that you seem to be unaware of the fact that you enjoy ample statutory rights to deal with this and that you seem to be lamenting the fact that you didn't take out an extended warranty and that furthermore you seem to be prepared to rely on a so-called 12 month guarantee provided by the manufacturer. You are asking how these companies can get away ripping off "innocent people" and I suppose that you are referring to "innocence" in the sense that people don't deserve it. Frankly I tend to see "innocence" in the sense of a certain naïveté – especially when people know about this forum. I don't particularly understand why you have put up with this for a pretty well five months instead of coming here. If you want to take that as a slapped wrist – then please do. Also it's a message to other people who visit this thread. Can you please tell us about the price you paid and any exchange you had with Currys. I understand that they have simply knocked you back to the manufacturer? Are you surprised? You're dealing with Currys. Another example of innocence. Blesséd are the meek. I don't fully understand the fault. Maybe you could put up a picture of the fault – in PDF format please. It will help us get a better idea what we are doing. Also, have you had anybody coming to have a look and see if it is actually repairable?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4600 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

subscribing

NatWest

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

Statements rec'd 14/9/2006

Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06

LBA - 18/10/06

Claim with Court - 31/10/2006

Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.

7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus

interest + court costs

12/11/06 - Rejection sent

17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged

4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)

5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)

THE WOOLWICH

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006

Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006

Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006

Claim with Court - 20/10/06

Acknowledged - 20/10/2006

Defence by 17/11/2006

AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006

Court Date - 14/02/2007

**SETTLED IN FULL**

CAPITAL ONE

**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

my claim against LloydsTSB doe include about £100 worth of "statute barred charges,

It is in court tomrrow and I am advised by Setcari Clarke & Mitchell today that they have instructed counsell.

 

It should be interesting

 

J

You may think that but . . ......

____________________________________

Total repaid to date £1947.58

 

Lloyds Currrent a/c £745.27

Moneyclaim filed 17th June

Defence and AQ 25th July. Case struck out 11 Aug

reinstated and hearing 15th Jan 2007

 

Lloyds loan a/c D A request expired 19th June

Proceedings under S7 Data Protection Act issued 29th June defence and counterclaim 27 July

Hearing Jan 3 2007

Listed final hearing April 2007-

Judge declared an interest and disqualified himself

new date to be set

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with tomorrow, crusty git.

 

May the force be with you??!!

Nationwide-A&L-Halifax 1-Student Loans Company-NatWest-Virgin Media-Link-Capital One ALL WON!

Thames Credit -statute barred sent 13/11/08

BCW- prove debt letter- 14/08/08

Apex- CCA 14/08/08

Redcats UK- SAR 14/04/09

Call Serve- CCA 14/08/08

Littlewoods- no CCA letter 03/09/08- Lowells now

Wescot- CCA 19/9/08

Capital One/Debitas- now with Lowells

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All information has been obtained from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck which court?

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to write to Abbey today requesting old statements. Presumably I will change the wording on the SAR requesting statements back to 1993 (for example) and in the same letter requesting certificate of destruction if they cannot conform to this request? Does that sound right?

I won against MBNA, Nat West , Barclays, Barclaycard and PPI payments from Barclaycard

Abbey National still to go.... what will I do with my spare time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hello to the Consumer Action Group, what a great site.

 

Why cant the banks just pay everything they owe.. This should be made compulsory as everything they have done is illegal.

 

If only it was that easy - it would be like Tescos and sainsbury donating all their clubcard and nectar points that aren't used to charity. What isn't claimed is money in their pockets!!!!!!

Welcome Maggie...

 

 

I am going to write to Abbey today requesting old statements. Presumably I will change the wording on the SAR requesting statements back to 1993 (for example) and in the same letter requesting certificate of destruction if they cannot conform to this request? Does that sound right?

Or any other method of destruction - yes that should be fine.

Good luck standing!!!!!!

 

Perseus

If my advice has helped, please click on my scales. Thank you!

MBNA - CRA file to be cleared then finished!

__________________________________________

Abbey Personal - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court

__________________________________________

Capital One - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court

__________________________________________

GMAC - Sent DCA SAR 9th March 07 - confirmed not legally assigned.

Waiting for GMAC to provide breakdown of charges and CCA under s79

__________________________________________

Alliance & Leicester - Final LBA 28/5/7 - then Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hello to the Consumer Action Group, what a great site.

 

Why cant the banks just pay everything they owe.. This should be made compulsory as everything they have done is illegal.

 

Hi maggie and welcome.

 

It is not illegal it is unlawfull.

 

Tanz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would NatWest still hold records back to 1992 on closed accounts? Can we do anything for years prior to 1992 I have closed business account opened 1980 closed 1999 which I know we paid thousands in charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, i am at the claim stage (sent my LBA off 2 weeks ago tomorrow)

am I able to add the moneys from before the 6 years cut-off point, or is it too late for me at this stage? I have been using the complex spreadsheet, it has the space at the top to enter the charges from before the 6 year period... can this count towards the final total now, or must I stick with the 6 years bit?

Any advice'd be greatly appreciated. MsBanana :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankfodder - this is excellent reading!! Can I be cheeky enough to give you details of a claim I have going thru with Co-op at the mo.

Basically, I closed my account with them 2005. It was not until December 2006 that I was made aware that Bank charges are unlawful and can be claimed back. Now my position - I wanted to go back the last 6 years I held my account - 1999!

However, they stated that due to the 6 year limitation, I could only go back to 2001 - 6 years from the date I contacted them!

What would you advise - I have reserached and am aware of Sec 32 and the Latent Damages Act, 1986 etc.

In their reply they quoted ..... The statement you make referring to Latent Damages Act 1986 does not refer to default charges but to goods which have been purchased. Therefore, is not applicable in this case. As previously advised charges are only refunded for a 6 year period, as agreed by the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Services.

Thanks for your continued support etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would NatWest still hold records back to 1992 on closed accounts? Can we do anything for years prior to 1992 I have closed business account opened 1980 closed 1999 which I know we paid thousands in charges.

 

shouldn't make any difference if the account is closed. If you can only get statements back to 92 I wouldn't have thought there's anything you can do about earlier charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all, i am at the claim stage (sent my LBA off 2 weeks ago tomorrow)

am I able to add the moneys from before the 6 years cut-off point, or is it too late for me at this stage? I have been using the complex spreadsheet, it has the space at the top to enter the charges from before the 6 year period... can this count towards the final total now, or must I stick with the 6 years bit?

Any advice'd be greatly appreciated. MsBanana :D

 

Send a revised LBA, pointing out that you are now adding in older charges. Don't use the estimate of previous charges box at the top of the spreadsheet -this only affects the overdraft interest reclaimable column - input details of all the charges separately as you have done for the 6 year charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bankfodder - this is excellent reading!! Can I be cheeky enough to give you details of a claim I have going thru with Co-op at the mo.

Basically, I closed my account with them 2005. It was not until December 2006 that I was made aware that Bank charges are unlawful and can be claimed back. Now my position - I wanted to go back the last 6 years I held my account - 1999!

However, they stated that due to the 6 year limitation, I could only go back to 2001 - 6 years from the date I contacted them!

What would you advise - I have reserached and am aware of Sec 32 and the Latent Damages Act, 1986 etc.

In their reply they quoted ..... The statement you make referring to Latent Damages Act 1986 does not refer to default charges but to goods which have been purchased. Therefore, is not applicable in this case. As previously advised charges are only refunded for a 6 year period, as agreed by the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Services.

Thanks for your continued support etc

 

Go back as far as the statements you have. They would say that you can only claim back to 2001 because they are trying to get out of paying you more! Trouble is - do you have the statements? Haven't heard yet how far back Co-op is issuing statements, but I do know that Co-op credit card are able to provide them back to 1997.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, it is highly likely that the banks have all statements on microfiche, going back at least to the 1970s.

 

We simply have to put them in a position where they have no option but to provide them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To one and all a very big thank you for this information and all the hard work you have put in. I have had very rude and negative feed back from NatWest and HFC. However Barclays opened a business account and claimed £500 as the fee for setting up. This changed to £1000 taken from the account. They denied the agreed £500 fee but repaid as a good will gesture £500 of the £1000. When I asked for a breakdown of the cost involved in the setting up of the account, I suddely got a further goodwill gesture of £500 repaid, Its amazing when you push them they backdown. I am now chasing NatWest for old Businness account charges. Again thanks to one and aLL

Link to post
Share on other sites

HELP NEEDED

 

 

Hi, I am about to send a letter to the bank, its a combined lba and offer rejection

I have just noticed that you can claim for more than 6 years now and dont know what to do because of the stage i am at. If i send my lba now then after 14 days i will be starting court proceedings and this wont be enough time to get the extra years charges breakdown from the bank,so i will not be able to include that in my court papers.

 

I have been offered £1770 out of £2425 requested, was going to accept as a partial payment but this has stumped me as i want to wring thier necks as they do to us.

 

I wonder if i should proceed with the claim for the £2425 as i was and start over for the rest (beyond 6 years) but this will give me a lot more work to do , ie two sets of court papers, or offest my claim and do it all at once which means waiting for probably 40 days for further statments to claim all i can.

 

I am a bit dubious about this as sooner or later some kind of cap will be put on things

 

What should i do

 

Thanks

 

Delphi

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always amend your claim once it has started to add the old charges on. If they pay out before you have your statements start a new claim. The second claim is unlikely to be classed as an abuse because they failed to fully comply with your SAR in the first instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

although zootscoot, its potentially harder to claim only +6 year charges because there is the risk the judge will strike out the claim without hearing the charges issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...