The Pre Six Year Rule

S4R4H

Hi All,

I have held an account with RBS since 1998. Between 1998 and 2002, myself and my partner had a really rough time and I reckon that they owe us thousands from unpaid direct debit returns etc. Sometimes, they would charge us 80 pounds in one day.

It took us a while, but basically we got a handle on the account and from 2003 onwards, have only had a couple of charges.

I feel really aggreived that we cannot claim these charges back and have seen on another website that you can still request the data from the banks and if they do not give it to you, they have to provide a date and a reason for the destruction.

I know that bank charges are currently stayed, but do you think it is worth a go for asking for the information?

The only thing is, if they gave me the information and the limitation act meant that I couldn't reclaim them, I would probably be even more fed up knowing exactly how much I have given them over the years.

borgbaiter

hi

claiming more than six years is based on this;


Limitation Act 1980 (Section 32)


32.— (1) Subject to [F1 subsection (3)] [ F1 subsections (3) and (4A)] below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.


I dont know how successful it has been. the grounds would be either the bank concealed the cause of action, or is mistaken as to the lawfulness of their charges, or i guess you could claim fraud (dont think i would do that tho)

Borgbaiter

Tozer

It will not work. The banks haven't concealed the charges at all. They have only concealed the actual cost.

The LA 1980 exceptions are VERY strictly interpreted.

ALIBOBSY

I think I know the website your mean is it a "consumer" "action" site who used to be a bank charges site?

I read a bit about this on there, and some people have made claims. It seems to have had mixed success. Some were settled prior to court, some argued in court. The court cases have gone both ways and with them being small claims no precedence is set.

The best argument seems to me that it is likely the banks knew the charges were unlawful right from the start, and the fact that as a customer you would be unaware of any issues until the OFT stepped in. So the banks concealled and there is therefore no way you could have claimed sooner.

Pehaps the test case decision regarding older terms may strengthen this argument as well?

If you are going to be claiming some charges within 6 yrs it is probably worth including the pre 6 yrs charges (if you can get the records) as at least if the pre 6 yrs are turned down you will get something back from your claim.

ali x

Tozer

The banks haven't known that they were unlawful - in fact, until such time as they are judged to be unlawful, then they are valid.

The banks haven't concealed the charges in any event - they have rendered the charges pretty openly.

borgbaiter

hi tozer

if, note the word if, :-) the test court judge ruled historic terms to be penalties. Would this enable section 32 1 c. my reasoning would be there had been a mistake in law.


Borgbaiter

ps im not sure they have to know the charges are unlawful for them to be concealed, if they did that would be fraud under a so there would be no need for b

Tozer

I don't think so no. The rationale being that every single contract where a party does not think he is in breach but it is later found by a court that a breach had occurred would then be covered.

32(1)(c) is intended to cover situations where, for example, money is paid into the wrong account by mistake.

borgbaiter

hi

yes, but i think thats the intent.


Borgbaiter

stebiz

To put a slightly different slant on this. I owed ABC bank £8,000 on an overdraft going back to 2001. I requested an SAR and worked my way through the statements. All charges were pre 6 year rule. They issued a summons. It was not going through the small claims. The ABC bank requested a court hearing saying that they objected to a full hearing on the basis I had no chance in winning the case. Judge was not happy and asked for a full hearing.

We settled this week for £1,000.

I have now been to court on 5 occasions, relating to loans/cards etc taken out and have legally had £31,500 written off.

I have one court case left and then all my pre 2001 debts will have gone (it was a very difficult time in my life). I have the money to one side if the court rules for the claimant in this last case. It is for £10,000. Fingers crossed and with a lot of homework and now experience I hope they won't. If it is written off that will be £41,500.

If I hadn't fought for this, then I probably would have had to remortgage my house and used savings. I won't know what to do when it is all over. Oh except that I have 2 claims that I am due to take out against 2 banks.

Stebiz