therealslimady vs the ethical bankers

[therealslimady]

Thanks Hedgey,

I think my claim is actually going to be heard today, i think the stay was lifted by the judge when i appealed against it by letter.

I'll find out soon enough though,

fill you in on the outcome later.

cheers a

[therealslimady]

well it was the hearing today, but lucky enough for me the judge postponed it till a later date as the court had only received the banks defence papers this morning.

their defence is the contractual one(ie i signed the contract so they can charge me) and the six year rule.

well we didn't get round to the contractual argument(which i should have a defence for using the 26 paragraph statement of evidence, i hope), but as far as the six year thing goes i tried to use the limitations act section 32 but that didn't work, they were saying that i could not claim beyond 6 yrs.

so please someone how do i get over this one?????

today it felt like they would have slaughtered me if the judge hadn't

adjourned till a later date.

[sallysas]

Who says section 32 won't wash? The judge or the co-op. I bet it's them so my advice is to not loose sleep over this bank who can't even get their defence in on time.

 

I'm sure someone else will have something to say about this but if it were me I would write to them a week before the next hearing data and offer to settle for the nearest rounded down figure (not too low) but throw in that if they reject your offer you will be putting in a wasted court order as you are disappointed they cannot get their act together. I do hope they make you an offer before then - herberts!!!!!!!

[therealslimady]

Which part of the limitations act should i use ,because i used s.32 (1)© and both judge and solicitor looked at me like i was stupid for suggesting it, it actually backs up the fact you can only claim for 6 years,at least thats how they argued it.

[hedgey06]

Hi slimady. The thing about the Limitation Act is that it kicks in from the time you realised the charges were unlawful as opposed to when the charges were actually applied.

 

So your argument is based on the fact that you wasn't aware that the charges were unlawful until xxxxx date......... therefore you wish to reclaim the older charges under s.32(1) B of the Limitation Act. Look up the relevant section of the Act to quote at the next hearing date.

 

I'd also be inclined to do as Sally suggested above........... there's a good chance that they'll cave in and accept! Just make sure that you round it down to pennies, as opposed to pounds!

[sallysas]

Thanks for the click. How are you feeling now? They have taken the same line with me so you're not alone.

[therealslimady]

thanks a lot folks,

section 32 (1) (b) states

"subject to,any fact relevant to the plaintiffs right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant."

as i understand it this means the limitation is not applicable because the bank deliberately concealed the fact that they should not be charging so much for their services,

therefore i couldn't possibly have known in time to make the claim.

 

have i got the right end of the stick now?

has anyone used this route and been successful?

[hedgey06]

have i got the right end of the stick now?

has anyone used this route and been successful?

 

Spot on!

 

Plenty of people have used this argument successfully........... myself included!

 

Just out of interest, how old are the pre-6 year charges? Are they just outside the six years or are they a lot older than that?

[therealslimady]

Great, thanks for that H,

when i brought up s32 (1)© in court they argued it backed up the fact i could only claim 6 years as it states

"the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it."

and they say this is the date i filled the first letter on the subject.

how do i counter this if they bring it up in the next hearing? (which they surely will)

[sallysas]

In your original prelim letter did you ask for 6 years or the whole of your banking history? If the former then you could argue that you were ignorant at the time of writing. Surely the same argument would also apply latterly as it could be stated that they failed to supply you with statements going back more than 6 years as they disregarded your request for the whole of your banking history? Catch 22 then for the co-op?

[therealslimady]

holey defences batman your right!

I asked for the whole of the history from 98 to 04

great thanks a lot sally, i prob would never have noticed that,

I'm surrounded by bits of paper covered in some weird version of english, can't make head nor tale of much of it, just trying to understand all the bits that apply to me,

i should now be able to argue the case a bit better next time.

[sallysas]

Glad that has helped. Have you thought of asking for a 'court buddy' on this one? Moral support is always good. Still thinking they will settle before then. Waiting for the next installment then..........:)

[therealslimady]

I've just got this feeling they're gonna sit this one out till the bitter end.

they've spent sooo much fighting a claim thats less than their solicitor was prob on for the day in court. i wish they would though, i dread to think how much of a chunk all this paper used in these cases has taken out of the rainforests, i feel real bad pumping out all these copies of statements which arn't even going to be read.

enough of my ranting, yeah a court buddys a good idea, wonder if there is anyone close to here at a similar stage in the game?

like they say two heads are better than one,