Statue of Limitation

[closey]

I am still unclear why we are only claiming back six year. The statute of limitation is a law which limits the length of time within which a suit must be commenced before the right to sue is lost. So in other words once we know about unlawful bank charges we have six years in which to act upon that knowledge.

 

Could one of the MODs shed light on why we advising about this the wrong way round. Surely we are lettting the banks get away with thousands more pounds they have unlawfully taken.

[caro]

There are a number of threads on this issue, and lots of people testing the boundaries eg Spiceskull and AlanfromDerby. If you do a few searches there has been a lot of discussion on this. Under the DPA banks are only required to keep financial information for 6 years, so supposedly you can't get information further back, but plenty of people are claiming further back, although I couldn't comment on success rates. Keep searching and you will find the threads.

[Movingon]

Ahhh - you're confused.

 

We have six years from "The Cause" to submit an "Action". "The Cause" is the first unlawful charge being levied. If this was anything more than 6 years ago, then it's effectively statute barred as you only have 6 years to claim, from "The Cause". So we at the moment can only go back six years.

 

HOWEVER

 

Section 32 says that if there was concealment of something then the six years begins from the day that the concealment is discovered, or could reasonably be discovered. So - if the Banks kowingly concealed the punitive nature of their charges (DUH!!) then we can go back as long as we like because the six years begins TODAY, when you found out about the concealment. This is the untested part; we're still waiting for the results of some actions going back further.

[closey]

I understand it to be six years 'from the date of knowledge' in other words the six years starts from the date we became aware that the charges were unlawful.

[Movingon]

I understand it to be six years 'from the date of knowledge' in other words the six years starts from the date we became aware that the charges were unlawful.

 

That's what I said; but it's untested and we're waiting for Seminole to use this argument in court. Thing is, you will have to convince a court that the Defendant knew about the unlawfullness of the charges and actively concealed it - as opposed to some other thing getting in the way of it. In order to prove this, the banks would have to show the court their costs (which we're certain are tiny) and they would have to be far outstripped by the charges.

[caro]

Which is why the advice is 6 years as it is tried and tested.

[caro]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3598&page=6

 

Take a look at this link.

[pmhread]

I clicked on this thread hoping to see another Labour government white elephant and find a serious debate instead....

 

The Statue of Limitation would look good by the side of the Thames!

[caro]

I clicked on this thread hoping to see another Labour government white elephant and find a serious debate instead....

 

The Statue of Limitation would look good by the side of the Thames!

I thought you had lost the plot at first but I see what you mean now!

[closey]

I am a dunderhead!

[pmhread]

plot and lost are two words that are often associated with me