Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Wendy
    • By Former MSE Wendy 9th Oct 07, 12:07 PM
    • 868Posts
    • 1,782Thanks
    Former MSE Wendy
    Credit Card Reclaiming Discussion
    • #1
    • 9th Oct 07, 12:07 PM
    Credit Card Reclaiming Discussion 9th Oct 07 at 12:07 PM
    This thread is to specifically discuss the new
    CREDIT CARD RECLAIMING article.


    To discuss or ask a question about this article: click reply

    To report your credit card success: use this thread

    To discuss original bank charges reclaiming: use this thread
    Last edited by MSE Archna; 10-06-2010 at 3:01 PM.
Page 156
    • brown1950
    • By brown1950 19th Feb 18, 10:30 PM
    • 230 Posts
    • 53 Thanks
    brown1950
    No. .
    Originally posted by zx81
    Why your silence ? Perhaps you could learn from :-

    www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448783-HP-Mum-v-BC-reclaiming-penalties-and-Compound-Int-t-**WON**-
    • lel1961
    • By lel1961 11th May 18, 10:53 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    lel1961
    Egg Credit Card
    I recently completed a form on the Canada Square Operation web site regarding PPI on an Egg Credit Card. I received a letter stating that I did have CRP and that they were looking into it.

    The next letter I received was to inform me that my complaint had been rejected and that I could refer my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    I have since heard that it is Barclays that took over Egg. I was wondering if I should make another complaint to Barclays or just go to the Ombudsman.

    Any help appreciated.
    • zubo
    • By zubo 12th May 18, 7:29 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zubo
    can i claim older than 6 year charges
    Hi all
    In 2004 I got into an awful mess owing a lot of money.. i simply sunk under debt.. all my fault .. i stopped paying everyone ... about a dozen companies.. surprisingly, because i argued the agreements were unlawful and individually the debts were small compared with others I was never taken to court... i had a lot of hassle from debt recovery companies for seven years or so but i avoided payment: Im not proud of that fact quite the opposite Im ashamed.

    So understandably I ignored all this ppi stuff because i didnt deserve it...

    however ... i have now began reclaiming my ppi to try to bolster my poor savings... its tough just surviving on a state pension...

    examining the statements i can see all these excessive charges i paid back then... and would like to claim them back...

    i did a lot of research on Restitution some time ago and seemed to recall a test case where the claimant argued that he was unaware that he was owed money until recently and so the six year rule only applies once he is aware.

    I would appreciate any advice whether others had used the same logic and arguments

    thanks

    george
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 12:12 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    I recently completed a form on the Canada Square Operation web site regarding PPI on an Egg Credit Card. I received a letter stating that I did have CRP and that they were looking into it.

    The next letter I received was to inform me that my complaint had been rejected and that I could refer my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    I have since heard that it is Barclays that took over Egg. I was wondering if I should make another complaint to Barclays or just go to the Ombudsman.

    Any help appreciated.
    Originally posted by lel1961

    If you were rejected, your complaint went to the right place. You have 6 months from rejection to go to them or the complaint is closed
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 12:15 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron

    The subject of that post "HP Mum" has not confirmed what, if anything, they won. They have not even said they have won the case. The post is marked as "probably" as the poster hasn't updated for over a year. Straw clutching at best and another daft recommendation that people waste money on court cases. Sooner rather than later, banks will defend and win and get another court case precedent sent
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 12:18 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Hi all
    In 2004 I got into an awful mess owing a lot of money.. i simply sunk under debt.. all my fault .. i stopped paying everyone ... about a dozen companies.. surprisingly, because i argued the agreements were unlawful and individually the debts were small compared with others I was never taken to court... i had a lot of hassle from debt recovery companies for seven years or so but i avoided payment: Im not proud of that fact quite the opposite Im ashamed.

    So understandably I ignored all this ppi stuff because i didnt deserve it...

    however ... i have now began reclaiming my ppi to try to bolster my poor savings... its tough just surviving on a state pension...

    examining the statements i can see all these excessive charges i paid back then... and would like to claim them back...

    i did a lot of research on Restitution some time ago and seemed to recall a test case where the claimant argued that he was unaware that he was owed money until recently and so the six year rule only applies once he is aware.

    I would appreciate any advice whether others had used the same logic and arguments

    thanks

    george
    Originally posted by zubo

    Financial rules are set in stone, you can't bend them to suit your needs. The 6 year rule starts from when the account was opened. The THREE year rule is from when you knew you had a reason to complain and would be triggered by a charge or the bank writing to you advising of a charge, not when you decided you had a reason to complain - any documentation from the bank putting in writing the charge is enough to trigger the 3 year rule.


    Old bank charges etc cannot be complained about, only current hardship
    • zubo
    • By zubo 12th May 18, 12:50 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zubo
    Such a strange reply... financial RULES are set in stone.
    perhaps you can point me to the appropriate legislation...

    case law in legal terms take precedence to rules... if you are interested i will find the appropriate case law which may help you be more reflective and responsive,
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 1:22 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Such a strange reply... financial RULES are set in stone.
    perhaps you can point me to the appropriate legislation...

    case law in legal terms take precedence to rules... if you are interested i will find the appropriate case law which may help you be more reflective and responsive,
    Originally posted by zubo

    Certainly, it's the DISP rules set by the FCA that legislate financial complaints. Case law is irrelevant (and you won't find any, so don't waste your time) as it's civil issue, the 3 and 6 year rules are final and CANNOT be revoked. It's the same principle that means people can't have old debt chased after 6 years.



    You can read them here (point 2.8.2)



    https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/8.html


    see also


    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/before_we_get_involved_a7.html
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 1:27 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Such a strange reply... financial RULES are set in stone.
    perhaps you can point me to the appropriate legislation...

    case law in legal terms take precedence to rules... if you are interested i will find the appropriate case law which may help you be more reflective and responsive,
    Originally posted by zubo

    Also what I am explaining to you is that the 3 year rule is very clear:



    "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;"


    You cannot just decide that today is the first day you had reason to complain and set the 3 year clock ticking, any form of communication such as details of the charge trigger the clock - hence the wording above else customers would be able to keep financial complaints going as long as they like so long as they pretend they weren't aware - the FCA rules are intended to stop this.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 1:37 PM
    • 92,576 Posts
    • 59,881 Thanks
    dunstonh
    case law in legal terms take precedence to rules... if you are interested i will find the appropriate case law which may help you be more reflective and responsive,
    It is true that if you use the courts, then the law comes into play. There you have the 15 year timebar. you say you fell into financial difficulty in 2004. 14 years ago. So, the sale of the debts would likely have occurred prior to that. So, you are probably time-barred on using the courts.

    The FCA rules cover the regulated complaints process. There is no 15 year/long stop rule with the FCA. However, as mentioned above, there is the 3 and 6 year rule. The 6 year rule has nothing to do with awareness. It is 6 years from the event in question. It has to be met with the 3 year rule which is the awareness measure. You have to raise it within 3 years of being reasonably aware. The 3 awareness issue has to be specific and personal e.g. a firm cannot use PPI adverts on TV as a reason why you should be aware. This is why most old PPI complaints cannot be timebarred (although some have by writing out to people letting them know they had PPI and invited them to complain if they felt they were missold).

    If you failed to the repay the debt, it would now be statute barred. However, if a firm considered your complaint and upheld the complaint, they can set off the redress against the unpaid debt. Statute barring means they cannot come after you for the money but the debt still exists.

    When looking at old threads on consumer sites, you need to look athe outcome. Most (but not all) will update the thread when they are successful. So, you see an outcome. Those that are not successful more often than not do not update the thread and the thread dies. So, when looking for help, look at the threads with outcomes. Be cautious of old threads (say more than 3 years ago) where no outcome was posted.
    Last edited by dunstonh; 12-05-2018 at 1:40 PM.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • zubo
    • By zubo 12th May 18, 5:31 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zubo
    now i understand
    i think we had our wires crossed, i was ignoring the ombudsman and going straight for the ourts.

    The 15 year rule gives me just enough time to pursue these.
    In most cases the debt outstanding is less than the charges compounded... for example MBNA debt on one account 2000 pounds yet the charges of 200 pounds compound to 4200 so these are worth pursuing I would have thought.

    can you please provide me any link to the 15 year limit...

    thanks
    • LABMAN
    • By LABMAN 12th May 18, 6:37 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 1,404 Thanks
    LABMAN
    i think we had our wires crossed, i was ignoring the ombudsman and going straight for the ourts.

    The 15 year rule gives me just enough time to pursue these.
    In most cases the debt outstanding is less than the charges compounded... for example MBNA debt on one account 2000 pounds yet the charges of 200 pounds compound to 4200 so these are worth pursuing I would have thought.

    can you please provide me any link to the 15 year limit...

    thanks
    Originally posted by zubo
    The Ombudsman has no cost to you, the Courts however do.
    • lel1961
    • By lel1961 12th May 18, 8:26 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    lel1961
    Thanks very much for your reply Nasqueron.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th May 18, 8:35 PM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    i think we had our wires crossed, i was ignoring the ombudsman and going straight for the ourts.

    The 15 year rule gives me just enough time to pursue these.
    In most cases the debt outstanding is less than the charges compounded... for example MBNA debt on one account 2000 pounds yet the charges of 200 pounds compound to 4200 so these are worth pursuing I would have thought.

    can you please provide me any link to the 15 year limit...

    thanks
    Originally posted by zubo

    You are talking about trying to make a criminal case out of a civil issue. The bank will point to the 3 and 6 year time bars and almost certainly the courts will agree there is no case. You are trying to prove criminal wrongdoing for a civil issue of bank charges, this is doomed to be a waste of money but crack on if you must. Most people who post this will disappear, the odd one will come back and claim to have won all their money back, compensation of a bajillion pounds etc etc
    • zubo
    • By zubo 13th May 18, 7:24 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zubo
    I have no idea why you think I am making this a criminal case. The couny courts are used extensively to recover debt and are used to recover PPI and unfair charges IF you can prove the case.
    I see no criminal nature at all in my posts. None at all.

    and yes there are multiplr posts of chancers claiming all sorts. I take great offence at being branded as such. In a previous life on a number of forum like you I gave carefully considered advice to certain people i felt needed help.

    Its been a very long time since then and all I needed were some pointers in areas I am unfamiliar with. You would benefit from researching Restitution law though - it is after all about civil matters rather than criminal matters.

    Back to my question though... I need to better understand where the 15 year rule is formalised to determine what dates are used in the cause of action.

    btw, I would only use the courts if I thought I had reasonable chance of success and it is clear the rules set out in the fca handbook prevent me using them
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th May 18, 11:04 AM
    • 92,576 Posts
    • 59,881 Thanks
    dunstonh
    The couny courts are used extensively to recover debt and are used to recover PPI and unfair charges IF you can prove the case.
    After the banks won the court case in 2009, reclaiming of bank charges effectively ended. The OFT ruled on credit card charges in 2006. So, again, its unusual nowadays. PPI is rarely handled via the courts as you are more likely to lose than using the regulated complaints process.

    So, possible but not extensive nowadays.

    btw, I would only use the courts if I thought I had reasonable chance of success and it is clear the rules set out in the fca handbook prevent me using them
    The FCA rule book only affects the FCA regulated complaints process. Not the courts. The issue for you with the courts is the 15 year rule. Plus, if the debts were unpaid, the award, if there is one, can go against the debts.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 13th May 18, 11:11 AM
    • 4,492 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    I have no idea why you think I am making this a criminal case. The couny courts are used extensively to recover debt and are used to recover PPI and unfair charges IF you can prove the case.
    I see no criminal nature at all in my posts. None at all.
    Originally posted by zubo

    You don't have a debt, you aren't recovering anything. You're trying to go to court to get fees back which were lawfully charged and agreed to you by taking out the product. The bank will point to the 3 year rule, 6 year rule and the Supreme Court case in 2009 and will in all likelihood succeed in getting the case thrown out and if not, will win



    and yes there are multiplr posts of chancers claiming all sorts. I take great offence at being branded as such. In a previous life on a number of forum like you I gave carefully considered advice to certain people i felt needed help.

    Its been a very long time since then and all I needed were some pointers in areas I am unfamiliar with. You would benefit from researching Restitution law though - it is after all about civil matters rather than criminal matters.

    Back to my question though... I need to better understand where the 15 year rule is formalised to determine what dates are used in the cause of action.

    btw, I would only use the courts if I thought I had reasonable chance of success and it is clear the rules set out in the fca handbook prevent me using them
    Originally posted by zubo

    All I can say is we have seen posts like yours over and over here, there is little that differentiates yours from any other.



    As above, you're wasting your money, the time bar rules will stop your case which you won't win anyway but feel free to come back in a couple of years posting about how you won the case and a link to the court details
    • zubo
    • By zubo 13th May 18, 7:59 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zubo
    you are not very helpful at all...
    I'm not sure who Nasqueron is but clearly he has taken a dislike to my posts and questions and is being unhelpful in the extreme.
    A little education for him to help him (her?) in distinguishing between a civil legal case and criminal case...

    According to William Geldart, Introduction to English Law 146 (D.C.M. Yardley ed., 9th ed. 1984),
    "The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.

    So it is clear my case will always be a civil case.

    Yes it is true that there is not a fat lot to distinguish me from all those other hopefuls who previously posted and I really am not looking for it I simply find it unbelievably difficult to accept such a torrent of negative information from someone who should b guiding me and others. I am not sure how long he has been posting but in the six years I posted support I was never so dreadfully critical and harshly dismissive. I find his attitude so unbelievable... and unacceptable... but that is my opinion... I posted a thank you only for a small piece of information I und useful.

    Then when I sought more information I received none only critical unhelpful and irrelevant information.

    So I will ask again: does anyone else have detailed information on the 15 year rule please...

    thank you if you do.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th May 18, 9:29 PM
    • 92,576 Posts
    • 59,881 Thanks
    dunstonh
    So I will ask again: does anyone else have detailed information on the 15 year rule please...
    Quite a lot on google but here is a link that breaks it down by country
    https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-518-8770?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defaul t)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • antrobus
    • By antrobus 13th May 18, 10:12 PM
    • 15,593 Posts
    • 22,244 Thanks
    antrobus
    ...

    So I will ask again: does anyone else have detailed information on the 15 year rule please...
    Originally posted by zubo
    You quoted from William Geldart, Introduction to English Law. Try the index.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,590Posts Today

8,368Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin