Bank Charges Consumer Charter

[adamc6671]

It still suggests that we agree to the limitations act being 6 years I would argue it being not applicable to charges claims as the banks must have known and thats why they refuse to disclose.

 

Hi Tanz

 

That petition doesn't, IMO, agree to the 6 years limitation - it merely argues that the SOL Act makes it very unfair to consumers to wait for the test case to finally finish -

 

Quote from the petition -. . "Finally, the FSA states that the banks will not use the Statute of Limitations to avoid paying claims that were delayed as a result of the FSA's waiver, or as a result of these claims being stayed in the county courts.

 

However, the FSA has no power to disregard the six-year rule in the Statute, nor can it force banks to repay claimants. Therefore, if a claimant is forced to take its bank to court after the OFT's claim is finished, the judge will still be obliged to take the Statute into account. . "

 

Sadly the test case is a totally different issue from the SOL Act - that is a piece of legislation that we are stuck with, at least until a Government decides to change it. 'The Fool' petition, as I understand it, merely says that because of it, consumers are likely to loose out very heavily.

 

What do you think?

 

All the best - Adam

[TANZARELLI]

midge and adam,

 

Having re read it I agree, however my point remains the same the limitations act should not be a problem anyway as we should not be bound by it with bank charges claims. It runs forward from discovery of cause of action and not back. I stand by April 2006 (give or take a few months) when the OFT credit card report was in the media. April 2012 is what I will be argueing as the limitation period for my claims.

[johnnymitch]

April 2012 is what I will be argueing as the limitation period for my claims.

 

Am I mis-reading this - or shouldn't the limitation be going BACK 6 years, not forward ?

[muggyno1]

Hi all,

 

I've just re-read the petition on the charter. Can anyone explain to me what the petition means when it asks the PM to follow the charter?

[muggyno1]

Am I mis-reading this - or shouldn't the limitation be going BACK 6 years, not forward ?

 

My interpretation of the alleged 6 year limitation (which I don't accept applies in the case of bank charges) is that the first charge that can be reclaimed is is the one that is six years before the commencement of legal action to reclaim. Is this right?

[johnnymitch]

the first charge that can be reclaimed is is the one that is six years before the commencement of legal action to reclaim. Is this right?

 

That's right , so if you're starting your claim now you can go back to 2001.

[johnnymitch]

I've just re-read the petition on the charter. Can anyone explain to me what the petition means when it asks the PM to follow the charter?

 

The Bank Charges Petition: Tell the Govt to support the Reclaiming Charter...

 

This is what everyone is asking the PM to follow - be nice if he did - probably a b****y miracle if he did! But we have to try..........

 

I must be going round the twist - post #1 of this thread is the charter!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOH!

[patrickq1]

dont let it drive you mad mugsy lol keep calm ,I think the FSA and the Finance Buddies must have had a cosy little agreement amongst themselves long before the proposal came to all of us,whatever happened to the last investigation in may was it when they were supposed to be looking for calrity then..i need some help later when i come back from my hospital appointment to work out what intrest rate i am being charges on a loan i took out some 8 days agao,they say it is 22.9% we had to borrow this money to clear some floating loan debts where the intrest and the bill never seemed to go down ,,,HFC need i say anymore see ya later all

[TANZARELLI]

Am I mis-reading this - or shouldn't the limitation be going BACK 6 years, not forward ?

 

If six years ago I was aware that the charges were unlawful then I would tend to agree. They will try to use the limitations act and the 6 year rule to minimise the amount of charges they have to pay out. However if argued using section 32 of the limitations act stating they have concealed the charges etc and back it up with other points and caselaw then we should be argueing from the time we realised the charges were unlawful. Not from the initial charge as they lead us to believe as the cause of action is still within the primary limitation period (therefore 6 years runs from the time you were aware the charges were unlawful)

 

Tanz

[johnnymitch]

Gotcha Tanz - thanks, I was mixing this up with the re-claim period from when you realized it was unlawful .

 

Sorry muggy no1

[muggyno1]

Johnny, Tanz,

 

In a sense, you're both right but I can understand why there is confusion.

 

The statute of limitations is exactly as Tanz describes.

 

The confusion has arisen because the banks have interpreted the law as limiting back-claims to 6 years and people, in many cases, have asked for exactly that in court. Also, in FOS reclaim cases, the 'offers of goodwill' from the banks have always been for six years of charges.

 

So, you have six years forward from the date you realise that these charges are unlawful to claim, but you can go back as far as your relationship with the organisation has existed to arrive at the amount to be reclaimed.

[TANZARELLI]

Johnny, Tanz,

 

In a sense, you're both right but I can understand why there is confusion.

 

The statute of limitations is exactly as Tanz describes.

 

The confusion has arisen because the banks have interpreted the law as limiting back-claims to 6 years and people, in many cases, have asked for exactly that in court. Also, in FOS reclaim cases, the 'offers of goodwill' from the banks have always been for six years of charges.

 

So, you have six years forward from the date you realise that these charges are unlawful to claim, but you can go back as far as your relationship with the organisation has existed to arrive at the amount to be reclaimed.

 

Well put and I agree it is the banks putting spin on this which has led to confusion. Perhaps in my first post I didn't make my point clear, but in my head I know what I am trying to say lol.

 

Tanz

[bob m]

Got to say I thought I understood the statute of limitations S.32, in fact I have quoted same in my request for statements, for the sole reason of obtaining stats prior to the six year norm. You people have confused me somewhat with section 32 going forward. Does it apply to both ways?

I did receive 10 years worth of stats, which I am in the process of examining for charges, and I will claim for the whole amount, not just 6 years. I am totally against any limitation on claims, as I have already stated on this thread. The bank have supplied me with the stats, therefore the amount supplied are to be used in a claim.

[TANZARELLI]

I will try to explain this to you in a way in which you will understand.

 

If for example in January 1995 I was made aware that the charges were unlawful. Lets say I had been leaked the information from a bank employee and I wrote to the bank and supplied them with this information which proved the charges were unlawful and requested a refund of all the charges applied to my account, but the bank refused to pay back the money. The date which the limitation period started to run would be the time at which I discovered the charges were unlawful ie Jan 1995 (when I was supplied with the information). The limitation act states I therefore have 6 years to bring a claim to court so therefore I have until Jan 2001 to bring a claim to court before it becomes statute barred.

 

The banks will lead you to believe that the first charge applied to the account which you are claiming is when the limitation period starts.

 

I only became aware of it when the OFT credit card report was in the media in April 2006 not in 1996 when Barclays placed there first charge on my account, therefore the limitation period I beleive runs until April 2012.

 

Hope that clarifys things.

[McIavelli]

Succinctly put Tanz. All clear now..Even I get it

[kennythecelt]

Posted for info, (found by alanfromderby)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-media/110967-channel-4-overdraft-petition.html

[bob m]

Thanks Tanz, helps me a lot as I may need S.32 again.

bob m.

[TANZARELLI]

Succinctly put Tanz. All clear now..Even I get it

 

Thanks

[Vital Spark]

See this 6yr (England) or 5yr (Scotland) limitation thingy, I took that to mean that one had to make one's claim within 6 or 5 years (respectively,) of finding out that an illegal or unlawful act had occurred and not that the claim could only be made going back 5 or 6 years.

 

Actually, I did originally think the latter but then what does the Scottish 20 year limitaion act, mean?

 

I'm particularly annoyed because, had Lloyds sent all the data I requested and paid for in the first instance, my case would have been through the courts already well before this latest bank ploy arose.

 

Where are these government representatives, who are supposed to be managing this country in the interest of it's people? You know, as they shout about when looking for our votes.

 

Let's all look for the most ethical and customer friendly bank then switch to that one, if it agrees to charge no more than it costs to administer what has been previously taken in charges, and teach these banks a lesson. They will not make any profit from our money, if they don't concede and play along with moral and ethical conscience.

 

What does it take to establish a bank, CAG (hint, hint)?

[tifo]

it's also unfair that the FSA regulates the UK firms and yet the waiver only applies to those in England.

 

aren't the UTCCR's a UK regulation or just an English one?

[Vital Spark]

Hey tifo, the whole financial institution setup is unfair.

[tifo]

Hey tifo, the whole financial institution setup is unfair.

 

 

don't we all know it.

 

i accepted an offer by 3 banks a week before the announcement, through the FOS, and the banks promised to pay within 14 days. The FOS give them 6 weeks to pay (cos they say they're busy). Guess what? 6 weeks gone by and no sign of a cheque and no contact from the bank.

 

At least i know i will get my money and i'm now gonna tell my Adjudicator to get his finger out or i'm complaining .... the waiver cannot apply to me as i accepted 3 weeks before through the FOS.

 

I was thinking school holidays gonna be good but the bar stewards spoilt it for me ....

[duncan_disorderly]

it's also unfair that the FSA regulates the UK firms and yet the waiver only applies to those in England.

 

aren't the UTCCR's a UK regulation or just an English one?

 

The waiver applies to all banks in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ie all of the UK. No-one is exempt.

[tifo]

The waiver applies to all banks in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ie all of the UK. No-one is exempt.

 

No, as far as i am aware and from the letters i have received re waiver from banks.

 

The stay advice from the 'Master of the Rolls' applies to cases in England, Wales and NI while the FOS will continue to look at claims in Scotland.

 

Maybe the legal eagles can advice why the differences.

[Vital Spark]

I found this via Rory32 and Zootscoot. It's from the Govan Law Centre which has proved invaluable in its advice to date.

 

You might find it interesting reading, Duncan_Disorderly. I hope it helps all.

 

Thank God we held on to our own Laws. Please let it continue that way.

 

http://www.govanlc.com/sisted.pdf