needing help to reclaim bank charges

magpiecottage

Mersey wrote: »

At times, you seem to believe that an almost criminal burden is required 'to prove their guilt'. It is not. This is nonsense and no complaints would result in redress if that threshold of burden was the test. It is 50.1% not 100%.

I agree that on this board we do see some supposing it to be necessary to prove the claim beyond all reasonable doubt when the burden of proof is the balance of probability- which, I suppose could be any amount above 50% - say 50.0001% (although I do not think you could reliably measure with such precision)

On the other hand we also see posters who think that it should be for those against whom assertions of misselling are made to disprove those assertions. That is also incorrect. The evidence must show it is more likely than not, and not merely equally likely, to be true.

The difficulty that both complainants on this thread have is that, generally speaking, they have six years from the date of the event they complain about happening to make that complaint or, if later, three years from the date on which they first became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware that they had cause for complaint to make it - otherwise the bank can timebar it.

If we look at GemsT's post, they closed the account seven years ago, so the event they refer to must have happened more than six years ago.

And if charges were made to the account, the only evidence that can be produced to prove this would be documents provided when the account was running (such as account statements) - these too will be at least seven years old so the three year limit has passed.

So a complaint to the bank MIGHT result in an automatic payout but the bank seems well placed to simply timebar it should it choose to do so.