Help Needed-Limitation Act-Claim over 6 years

[SupermanX]

I was made an offer by HSBC without prejudice in settlement of my claim. My claim is for 1735.62 pounds they have offered 1153.45.

 

HSBC are claiming that they are not willing to settle in full because my claim goes back more than six years:-? ,,,,they state that they will not consider any claim over six years since it is time barred under the Limitation Act 1980 :-? ,,,,,

 

what shall i do? is anybody familiar with the Limitation Act? what does without prejudice mean?

 

can anybody please help? Tks

[Curlyben]

Here's the whole act: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf

The part you are interested in is[quote name=s32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or

mistake](1) Subject to 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

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a

mistake;

439

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.

References in this subsection to the defendant include references to

the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the

defendant claims and his agent.

 

Basically what this means is that the have concealed the fact that these charges are unlawful.

[Castlebest]

Plenty of people have excceded the limitations act and won their claims in full, you will have to play a bit harder to get them to agree though

 

pete

[SupermanX]

Thanks for your replies.

 

I just went through my breakdown of charges and I have noticed that only £55 goes above 6 years. Their offer makes no sense to what they are claimining under the Limitation Act,,, their offer is £581.81 lower than what i am claiming, on the other hand only £55 is over six years.

 

Their explaination for not make a full refund is crap,, it should not look good in court?

 

I'm thinking of replying to the offer and pointing out that the offer is contradictory

[HSBCrusher]

stick to your guns...

 

they will pay out the full amount.

 

How can they say that its statute barred? They dont even agree that the charges are penalties do they?

 

This is normal stuff from HSBC/DG... just carry on regardless. Just send in the standard rejection letter in the library.

 

(it's not a negotiation... )

[MgintyMIA]

Hi, I'm in a similar position and have a hearing on 3rd Aug. Wish I'd read this yesterday as I reckon I've ballsed up. I refiled my POC yesterday taking off those dates and wrote a letter to them conceeding that they were over 6 years...I thought that you had to use the above defence in your POC (which I hadn't done in my original)?

[SupermanX]

Hi Everyone

 

Thanks for your advises.

 

Does anyone know what does without prejudice mean? If HSBC offers to pay the claim,,,,what should be my terms of acceptance?

 

Tks

[MgintyMIA]

without prejudice:

Prejudice (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In the UK this basically means that the correspondence is not admissable as evidence

[SupermanX]

Thanks MgintyMIA

 

Sorry to hear about your letter. Hopefully the amount above 6 years was not a big portion of your total claim

 

I think without prejudice means that i cannot use their partial settlement offer as evidence in court:mad:

[tumble]

take a look at thread tumble v natwest theres some input on that relating to limitation act and a court attendance for a strike out denied by the judge needless to say they paid out before hearing date.

 

Tumble

[chauvesouris]

Just to add to the legal arguments for you, s32(1)© gives you a very strong case for extension of the usual 6 year limitation period. The argument you can point out to HSBC is that, following the House of Lords judgment in Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council [1998] All ER (D) 518, s32(1)© applies in the case of an action for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law. The only question of law that remains to be established in court is whether the banks' charges are unlawful.

 

The beauty of this is that, in order to apply s32(1)©, the courts have to decide whether the charges are unlawful - so it is a question of fact which the courts would have to settle. I can't see HSBC being keen to allow that to get to court.

 

There is a further argument that goes in your favour as long as this is not a business account. UTCCR is European legislation and so any legal remedy that you are entitled to under it cannot be limited by national provisions - i.e. the Limitation Act simply cannot be applied (there is good ECJ authority for this; e.g. Factortame).

 

The only time limitation with UTCCR is that it can only be used back until 31 Dec 1994.

 

I hope this helps.

[SupermanX]

Thanks for reply chauvesouris.

 

I've rejected their offer and I'm in the process of filling out the allocation questionnaire.