walton v rbos

[Parkvale]

Hi everyone, sorry to butt in, but i have a case against Nat. West for charges between 1999 and 2002 totally over £7k.

They have quoted all the usual "claim is barred by the operation of the limitation act

1980 and /or the doctrine of latches etc." In their defence. I first complained to nat. west in may 2002 about charges and requested a refund of these fees. I have written confirmation of their refusal to refund charges in june 2002. Would the proof of my complaint in 2002 take me out of the limitations argument ?

[Glenn UK]

Park

 

May i suggest you don't post the same question in several places, if you want people contributing to a specific thread to see your question why not post a link to the Post where you put your question, that way everyone can see what everyone else is posting and it will give rise to better answers/debate.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Parkvale]

Sorry Glen, just over excitment on my behalf.

[paulwlton]

Hi everyone, sorry to butt in, but i have a case against Nat. West for charges between 1999 and 2002 totally over £7k.

They have quoted all the usual "claim is barred by the operation of the limitation act

1980 and /or the doctrine of latches etc." In their defence. I first complained to nat. west in may 2002 about charges and requested a refund of these fees. I have written confirmation of their refusal to refund charges in june 2002. Would the proof of my complaint in 2002 take me out of the limitations argument ?

 

In my opinion this would bode well for an argument against Laches.

[Bigmac versus]

Then that would be 6 years prior to that date you first complained.

[paulwlton]

Then that would be 6 years prior to that date you first complained.

 

Totally agree you questioned the charges in 2002 you say you have correspondence, in my opinion this is the cause of action, you will be time barred in 2008.

 

Paul.

[photoman]

Bring it on !!

About time that the people (ie every honest well intentioned citizen in the land) realised that the original aim of devising the whole principle of law was to protect them against bullies, rather than it being manipulated as a means to justify and protect the actions of bullies !!

[Parkvale]

Hi everyone,

The bank and i are at AQ stage in the claim .Both AQ"s have been sent to court. With the new draft order for directions. As i have only just found these letters from the bank.

Should i sit on them until i have to present my court bundle ? Or should i forward copies to the banks solicitors now and blow their doctrine of latches defense out of the water? They are obviously not aware of the existence of my previous complaint in

2002. One of their letters from june 2002 says, "In the circumstances and as the bank has not made a mistake or failed to manage your account properly, it is not appropriate to accede to your request for a refund of these fees, and it is therefore turned aside as unjustified. Neverless, i am happy to offer you my apologies for the inconvenience caused to you by these events, but as i have said i am unable to see the bank has caused or contributed to any of these problems." Concealment of their

charges seems to jump out at you after reading this. Would i also be able to claim back charges 6 years previous to 2002 ? I apologise for taking up so much space on your thread. I will start a thread on this case shortly. This thread has been so useful and extremely interesting , and good luck to you Paul on

whatever cause of action you decide to take.

[paulwlton]

Hi everyone,

The bank and i are at AQ stage in the claim .Both AQ"s have been sent to court. With the new draft order for directions. As i have only just found these letters from the bank.

Should i sit on them until i have to present my court bundle ? Or should i forward copies to the banks solicitors now and blow their doctrine of latches defense out of the water? They are obviously not aware of the existence of my previous complaint in

2002. One of their letters from june 2002 says, "In the circumstances and as the bank has not made a mistake or failed to manage your account properly, it is not appropriate to accede to your request for a refund of these fees, and it is therefore turned aside as unjustified. Neverless, i am happy to offer you my apologies for the inconvenience caused to you by these events, but as i have said i am unable to see the bank has caused or contributed to any of these problems." Concealment of their

charges seems to jump out at you after reading this. Would i also be able to claim back charges 6 years previous to 2002 ? I apologise for taking up so much space on your thread. I will start a thread on this case shortly. This thread has been so useful and extremely interesting , and good luck to you Paul on

whatever cause of action you decide to take.

 

I would add the letters to your court bundle aswell as everything youre relying on, but the descision is up to you.

 

Your claim can extend far beyond 6 years prior to 2002.

 

How far back do yor charges go?

[Parkvale]

Paul.

Charges go back to 1996, but i have not really thought i had much chance with these, and i have taken a bit of a wait and see atitude. Reading all the 6 years+ threads and

following all the debates has certainly encouraged me to file my own claim. I would

dearly love to put a spanner in cobbets works. I am sure you feel the same. I am also wondering if my case can help anyone else in the 6 years + club . By destroying this

doctrine of latches defense they are trying to hide behind. I think i will hold off spilling

the beans at the moment. Just one question Paul . If i did not include the letters in the

court bundle. Could i still produce them in court and scupper them ,like they did to you?

[paulwlton]

Paul.

Charges go back to 1996, but i have not really thought i had much chance with these, and i have taken a bit of a wait and see atitude. Reading all the 6 years+ threads and

following all the debates has certainly encouraged me to file my own claim. I would

dearly love to put a spanner in cobbets works. I am sure you feel the same. I am also wondering if my case can help anyone else in the 6 years + club . By destroying this

doctrine of latches defense they are trying to hide behind. I think i will hold off spilling

the beans at the moment. Just one question Paul . If i did not include the letters in the

court bundle. Could i still produce them in court and scupper them ,like they did to you?

 

Your claim can include all charges back to 96, i think our position is stronger now as we know Cobbetts defence.

 

I wouldnt recommend producing any new Documents at the hearing this may cause an adjournment and you may end up paying costs.

 

I think the way forward is to start a thread and pm with alink persons who you feel could help.

 

Paul

[Parkvale]

Cheers Paul, I was always going to start a thread , but I will wait just until the next directions from the court arrive shortly i hope. Thanks again.

[paulwlton]

I've just attended a court hearing regarding charges that were applied to an account in 1998 the account was then subjected to a court order in 2000.

 

Well the good news is the judge has set-aside the court order allowing a defence to be filed.

 

This bodes well for my intended set-aside against RBS,

 

Paul

[HydraUK]

Nice one Paul, good news. What's your way ahead now?

[paulwlton]

Nice one Paul, good news. What's your way ahead now?

 

The defence argued that i was considerably out of time making the application and that i agreed to the amount in 2000 so i had no right to question the debt. Reference to the doctrine of estoppel was made.

 

I argued that the defendant had misled the court aswell has myself into believing the contractual provision was valid by stating default charges were to cover costs when in fact they were used to generate material profit and by letting the defendant profit from this mistatement would be unjust. I also argued that i'de made the application in a reasonable time and only found out that the charges were penaltys recently due to media attention and the OFT report. The judge agreed.

 

I also made the judge aware that i had been refunded charges going back 12 years on a mortgage account with a number of charges being for £10.00 in 1996, i made the judge aware that the charges levied in 1998 on this account were substantialy more at £30.00 therefore extremely unreasonable.

 

When the outcome of the OFT report is revealed i will have another crack at my friends the RBS.

 

Paul

[HydraUK]

I was reading somewhere here about a claim for pre-six years using the sec32 defence to limitation. As I read it they managed to get the claim thrown out because our sec32 argument is based on the charges being unlawful, and that issue has never been ruled on, so they aren't technically unlawful, yet.

 

I'm wondering if your argument of misrepresenting the charge as 'cost' when actually it's 'profit' is a better line of attack...and for us to be more reliant on the concealment aspect of sec32 before the unlawfulness, which hasn't been proven.

[caro]

Although the Whistleblower programme referred to the method of calculation that Yorkshire Bank employ, which showed that the cost to that bank was not more than £2.00 per breach, it seems reasonable to assume that other banks employ similar methods and incur similar costs. When claiming back more than 6 years it might be worth including that information, as it also implies deliberate concealment which would allow claims to go back more than 6 years.

[paulwlton]

I've just read now the court order is set-aside the defendant can use the Limitation Act or Latches in their defence. Can anyone verify this.

[progenic7]

I was reading somewhere here about a claim for pre-six years using the sec32 defence to limitation. As I read it they managed to get the claim thrown out because our sec32 argument is based on the charges being unlawful, and that issue has never been ruled on, so they aren't technically unlawful, yet.

 

I'm wondering if your argument of misrepresenting the charge as 'cost' when actually it's 'profit' is a better line of attack...and for us to be more reliant on the concealment aspect of sec32 before the unlawfulness, which hasn't been proven.

 

hydra

 

i think you have raised a good point and one we all need to be aware of, as of yet the charges have not had a ruling anywhere in the UK, so as such cannot be said to be unlawful, and cannot be as such in that kind of attack !

We have to look at other ways in here when using this argument, as clearly the other side are right. That doesnt mean we cant get in with the s32 defence, but we have to try and come up with a fantastic rebuttle to that argument.

 

Johnny

[Glenn UK]

Johnny

 

The decisions by any judge to strike out a claim without hearing or allowing the evdince to be heard in its entirety over whether tha chagres are unlawful or not is perverse.

 

Anuy such decision would leave the judge open to appeal and i believe they dont like that.

 

The reason is that using that logic you could never bring a claim against something using sec 32 until it had been declared unlawful irresepctive of any evidence available.

 

THe fact they havent been ruled unlawful only means that the court has to determine if the charges are unlawful based on the evdience before them.

 

Pwalton has just been allowed to have a ccj set aside which was 8 years old for the reason that the charges may be unlawful and that the ccj arose because of charges that may have been unlawful.

 

In practicla terms the issue is not that the court cannot allow claims pre six years yet, its a matter of how the arguments go, obviousely the other side generally has people who are better versed at these things than the claimants are.

 

That will change i have no doubt.

 

JMHO

 

GLenn

[paulwlton]

Glenn what is significant about the judges decision is the court order was for £3200 and only £95.00 of that sum was made up default charges.

 

Paul

[progenic7]

Johnny

 

The decisions by any judge to strike out a claim without hearing or allowing the evdince to be heard in its entirety over whether tha chagres are unlawful or not is perverse.

 

Anuy such decision would leave the judge open to appeal and i believe they dont like that.

 

The reason is that using that logic you could never bring a claim against something using sec 32 until it had been declared unlawful irresepctive of any evidence available.

 

THe fact they havent been ruled unlawful only means that the court has to determine if the charges are unlawful based on the evdience before them.

 

 

 

GLenn

 

Glenn,

 

absolutly agreed on the point of it being perverse that this may happen, though the reason i mentioned it in the first place is simply because it already has happened. Perverse or not, its there and very likely now, anybody that goes up against the same judge will have to answer the same arguments.

Hopefully this is an isolated incident and is not common ground for most judges, but based on the other sides reasoning i feel its something we should be aware of, and bsically be ready to come back with something that over rules the argument. (ok maybe just...lets look at the facts of the case may indeed do the trick)

I just think its odd that the judge went along with this, as you rightly say, all district judges will avoid an error of judgement like the plague, as an appeal is basically somebody saying the judge is wrong, and they dont like to be wrong so rarely risk doing so.

So why did he do that, did he read into the PoC something that wasnt there ?, was the PoC wording slightly off kilter ? hard to say how or why, but clearly he thought the other side had a vlid legal point, nad thought himself correct to go along with that reasoning.

Me myself will be making allowance of this in my own PoC, with a distinct rebuttle already incorporated just incase.

 

Johnny

[Glenn UK]

Glenn what is significant about the judges decision is the court order was for £3200 and only £95.00 of that sum was made up default charges.

 

Paul

 

Its good to see the court understand that this would still make the original decision incorrect.

 

Even if the defendant still tried laches/SOLA it doesn't meant they will win.

 

It would be interesting to see who they think their defence has suffered detriment since the origin case/charges were applied.

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

Glenn,

 

absolutly agreed on the point of it being perverse that this may happen, though the reason i mentioned it in the first place is simply because it already has happened. Perverse or not, its there and very likely now, anybody that goes up against the same judge will have to answer the same arguments.

Hopefully this is an isolated incident and is not common ground for most judges, but based on the other sides reasoning i feel its something we should be aware of, and bsically be ready to come back with something that over rules the argument. (ok maybe just...lets look at the facts of the case may indeed do the trick)

I just think its odd that the judge went along with this, as you rightly say, all district judges will avoid an error of judgement like the plague, as an appeal is basically somebody saying the judge is wrong, and they dont like to be wrong so rarely risk doing so.

So why did he do that, did he read into the PoC something that wasnt there ?, was the PoC wording slightly off kilter ? hard to say how or why, but clearly he thought the other side had a vlid legal point, nad thought himself correct to go along with that reasoning.

Me myself will be making allowance of this in my own PoC, with a distinct rebuttle already incorporated just incase.

 

Johnny

 

It seems the error i made was in the POC which stated that in April 2006 i found out that a breach in contract may be unlawful if the cost to remedy the breach was disproportionate to the actual cost to remedy the breach. In a nutshell i was ignorant of the law.

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

Ive seen you make this comment before and i dont understand why this should prejudice your claim to such and extent.

 

GLenn