Charges over 6 years old - help needed!

Addison_2

Hi

I put in a claim for charges with Northern Bank for the period Sept 2001 to Aug 2003 they have replied saying that my claim is now time barred by virtue of the Limitation (NI) Order 1989, can anyone explain to me what that is as I thought that we could claim charges further back than six years if we had details.

Premier_2

The Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

Depending on the reason you claim the bank should be refunding you the charges, then that may not apply (e.g. under Reg 5., UTCCR 1999). However, I doubt the bank will simply accept such a claim based on that reason alone, so you'd have to prove it in court anyway (as it's unproven territory).

According to the MSE article on reclaiming, particularly regarding the possibility of making a claim under Reg. 5, UTCCR 1999, it reminds you

...when the Office of Fair Trading looked at them, it didn’t believe they had a realistic chance of success, (see the OFT to drop bank charges MSE News Story or read the full OFT Personal Accounts decision – focus on pages 13 and 14)...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

natweststaffmember

Addison wrote: »

Hi

I put in a claim for charges with Northern Bank for the period Sept 2001 to Aug 2003 they have replied saying that my claim is now time barred by virtue of the Limitation (NI) Order 1989, can anyone explain to me what that is as I thought that we could claim charges further back than six years if we had details.

It isn't barred under UTCCR 1999 because it is left to the national court to decide how far back. The OFT decided that after the Supreme Court verdict that they could not pursue a collective challenge based on the level of charges which is 6.2(b). I would await further reclaims guide on the court process but at the moment I would do nothing for now. Legal arguments are still being tested in courts

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

... Legal arguments are still being tested in courts

Is there any case planned yet that is going to test this in any court higher than a county/small claims court?
The reason I ask is that any decision made by a county/small claims court does not usually set any legal precident.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Is there any case planned yet that is going to test this in any court higher than a county/small claims court?
The reason I ask is that any decision made by a county/small claims court does not usually set any legal precident.

I haven't said any legal precedent would be set. Considering how many millions of pounds worth of cases were settled in county court with no precedent set prior to the OFT test case, I cannot see why that should matter currently. Remember, the individual that wins a small claims court does not give a hoot about setting a precedent, ONLY about their individual case.

Premier, we can do this argument re cost to claimant, give up now, etc,etc, and I can go back to the argument that a Case Management Company might take on the bank for an individual but the fat lady isn't singing on claims so please please please let's not do the warm up beforehand again, cos we will both sound like "groundhog day" and I am certainly not going to sing like Cher, sonny

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I haven't said any legal precedent would be set. Considering how many millions of pounds worth of cases were settled in county court with no precedent set prior to the OFT test case, I cannot see why that should matter currently....

I think it's important as I think it is very similar to the issue that the OFT tried to prove in the SC and lost.

Initially, banks were paying out on claims even without going to court. In some cases where the matter was brought before a county court, some judges ruled in favour of the banks and others against.

Ultimately it seemed right in the circumstances to clarify the legal position once and for all, (I think even county court judges were asking for it) and hence the OFT took the matter ultimately to the SC where the banks defended the action and won.

Your previous post said "Legal arguments are still being tested in courts", and whilst I agree that most individuals only care about their own case, for a legal argument to be tested, and therefore ne able to be relied upon later by others, it needs to be done in a court that sets legal precedent...imo.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

I think it's important as I think it is very similar to the issue that the OFT tried to prove in the SC and lost.
They did not argue about the level of payouts since that was not part of the OFT case. If one individual wins a case at county court, would you not say that as an individual this is not highly significant to them.
Initially, banks were paying out on claims even without going to court. In some cases where the matter was brought before a county court, some judges ruled in favour of the banks and others against.
You are referring to the Berwick case I think which was against Lloyds(no costs were awarded against him, for your information rather than mine).
Ultimately it seemed right in the circumstances to clarify the legal position once and for all, (I think even county court judges were asking for it) and hence the OFT took the matter ultimately to the SC where the banks defended the action and won.
On regulation 6.2(b). Read the press release and judgement, why are the Law Lords suggesting Regulation 5?
Your previous post said "Legal arguments are still being tested in courts", and whilst I agree that most individuals only care about their own case, for a legal argument to be tested, and therefore ne able to be relied upon later by others, it needs to be done in a court that sets legal precedent...imo.

I don't agree at all with you unless the bank appeals to a higher court. If they do not appeal a loss at county court level then the points may need further referral(which I am sure I have suggested for the last few months in posts on some of the forums---cannot remember if it was here or elsewhere).
If the bank lose in county court and do not appeal then the individual case is done and dusted. So are we now on a new merry go round on this point??

hicskis

If the Statute of Limitations in Northern Ireland is any way similar to that in the UK then you would be statute barred after 6-years unless you had killed someone, then other Laws would apply...

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

If the Statute of Limitations in Northern Ireland is any way similar to that in the UK then you would be statute barred after 6-years unless you had killed someone, then other Laws would apply...

Please tell me what UTCCR(Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations) 1999 and further back to the EC directive on Unfair Terms says with regards to a term that is unfair?
I do not want to have to give you a law lesson, with all due respect.

hicskis

Please do

natweststaffmember

House of Lords appeal day three:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18261
The transcripts of the appeal are on legal beagles which requires registration to view the transcripts.
"the banks are slightly coy about
12 the potential consequences of any finding that the
13 relevant charges are unfair. They rightly say in
14 paragraph 4 of their case that the stated effect of
15 regulation 8 is that the relevant terms would not be
16 binding. However, that leaves unanswered the question
17 whether the banks would be required to reimburse the
18 full amount of the relevant charges to their customers."
19 The reason why it leaves it unanswered is explained
20 in the footnote:
21 "Because where a provision of community law renders
22 a contract unenforceable, the consequence is a matter
23 for the domestic courts.""


Regulation 8 is about the term not being binding. The consequence is up to national courts. Statute of Limitation may not apply due to mistake