Nat West Problem - Pre 6 Years Business Claim

[TINK660]

Hi everyone,

 

We had a business account with Nat West from 1991 to June 2000 (closed 23 June 2000) Sent off list of charges we are claiming back which with the 8% interest comes to approx £20,000. They have come back with the argument that as it was a business account and closed over 8 years ago (it wasnt - not yet anyway I still have a couple of months!) and a pre 6 years claim they will not offer any sort of settlement. What is my next move - I believe they are stalling as I am sure other people have pursued claims over 6 years with them and won, but the 8 years thing is a new one on me! If there is anything in this 8 years argument I need to move quickly although as I have already started the ball rolling would it make any difference as the date I started would be within the time limit anyway. Hope I have made sense - this is too big a claim to let go for me as it will change things considerably for us as at the time they crippled us with these charges!

Thanks for any help anyone can give me.

 

PS ...... if anyone has terms and conditions for Nat West business accounts for 1991 please could I have a copy as I think I will need them.

 

Cheers

[TINK660]

Any advice anyone ..... please

[steven4064]

Hi Tink

 

The 8 years is not relevant to anything AFAIK. Normally claims based on simple contract are time-barred after 6 years (in England and Wales) under s5 of the Limitations Act 1980. However, there is a provision in s32

32 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;

 

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.

In your case, you mistakenly paid the charges believing them to be lawful and the bank have deliberatley concealed the true nature of the charges.

 

You discovered this mistake and concealment due to the publicity surrounding bank charges in the media and you could not reasonably have discovered them before the BBC MoneyBox program in the spring of 2006.

[TINK660]

THank you Steven - that is very helpful

Have you successfully claimed pre 6 years against Nat West?

Tink

[steven4064]

Not against Nat West but against Goldfish. The same law applies though and you have the ace of spades - NatWest will do almost anything rather than have to discuss bank charges in court.

[TINK660]

Does anyone have any nat west business account t&c's for 1991 .... please?

[andrew1]

Have a word with AlanfromDerby the MOD, he's been collecting t & C's from all over the place I believe

[TINK660]

I have just managed to find a copy of "doing business with Nat West - our code of practice for business banking" dated March 1996. Does anyone know if this is the same as t&c's. In the booklet it refers to further booklets "ADvice of Account charging terms" "Advice of borrowing terms" and "Charges for business customers", which unfortunately I dont seem to have.

Tink

[steven4064]

You could write and ask NatWest for them

[TINK660]

Could anybody comment on a letter I received from Nat West in response to my LBA letter to them please

 

My letter

 

I note your comments stating that you are unable to validate the claim due to the fact that it is more than 6 years after the date on which the action accrued, referring to the Limitation Act 1980. However there is provision for such an action under Section 32 of the same act which states:-

(1) … 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.

· 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. ….

· (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty…..

Therefore I shall be continuing with my claim on this basis.

I also enclose a revised schedule of charges.

I calculate that you have taken xxxxx

I require repayment of this money. It would be in your best interests to settle this claim promptly as if you do not return it to me in full within 14 days I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount plus interest at 8% (which will increase the claim considerably) plus my costs, without further notice.

I look forward to your early response.

Their reply:-

I refer to your letter dated xxxx where you make reference to an action under Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 and after referrring to our Group Litigation I can advise that:-

Section 32(1)(b) provides that where any fact relevant to the customer's right of action has been deliberately concealed to him the limitation period shall not begin to run until the customer has discovered the concealment or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. However the Bank clearly did not deliberately conceal any facts. The amount and number of charges levied to the customer's account were known to the customer at all times. Similarly, section 32(1)© would not apply here because mistake is not an essential ingredient of your complaint.

I trust this clarifies the position.

Any views and opinions will be greatly appreciated

(as I see it, and I may be wrong, this is why I want other peoples opinions, they have made a mistake in charging unlawful fees that do not reflect their true costs)

Also that the fact that these charges do not reflect their true costs has been concealed from me).

I am not sure which direction to head along now and as my claim (with interest will be over £20K I dont want to make any mistakes.

Tink

[steven4064]

Section 32(1)(b) provides that where any fact relevant to the customer's right of action has been deliberately concealed to him the limitation period shall not begin to run until the customer has discovered the concealment or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. However the Bank clearly did not deliberately conceal any facts. The amount and number of charges levied to the customer's account were known to the customer at all times. Similarly, section 32(1)© would not apply here because mistake is not an essential ingredient of your complaint.

I got this from them too. It is disingenuous. Granted, they are quite open about the "amount and number of charges" but they have concealed (and continue to conceal) the nature of the charges and the costs they are supposed to cover.

 

The mistake is yours - you (grudgingly) paid the charges sincerely believing that they were lawful. Now you have discovered their true nature and the fact of the bank's concealement. You discovered this when you saw it on TV/internet. The earliest you could reasonably have discovered it was the BBC 'Moneybox' programme in Februay (or it may have been April) 2006. The 6 years begins then.

[TINK660]

Thanks Steven4064

Should I send them another letter basically pointing out to them what you have said above. The 14 days of the LBA are now up but in view of the recent advice on business account claims on this site I may hold fire until further advice becomes available. Also as this is a large claim will have to be dealt with at court differently than claims under £5000. I am sorry to keep posting questions but am not very confident and need lots of help and encouragement to see this one through.

 

Tink

[steven4064]

Tink

 

If it is a business account then you should hold fire for a bit. We are still assessing the impact of the OFT case on business claims

[TINK660]

Tink

 

If it is a business account then you should hold fire for a bit. We are still assessing the impact of the OFT case on business claims

I dont suppose it would hurt though to send a letter making this comment to them, I can then proceed with court proceedings when I am ready - what do you think?

 

Tink

[steven4064]

Yes, why not. I meant hold fire on court proceedings

[TINK660]

Steven - cheers mate, I am also going to ask for a copy of terms and conditions from 1992

 

Tink

[zootscoot]

Thread moved to the new forum for business claims

[TINK660]

Well, Ive had no reply from Nat west to my letter explaining to them why I am relying on the Statute of Limitations Act to proceed with my claim - so I guess the next move is down to me. Do I continue or wait a while? I have considered asking the media if they would be interest in the progress of this one - what does anyone else think? I really would appreciate comments.

Tink

[TINK660]

Hi all

Received reply from Nat West basically saying that their litigation department stand by their stance that their costs were not deliberately concealed with regards. I am using the Statute of Limitations Act. Therefore I presume it is now up to me to continue with the court proceedure. As my claim is for £11,000 plus interest does anyone know what the proceedure is now. It is obviously over the £5,000 limit for small claims. Also is there any new information about claiming on business accounts as I understand it is still advised for the time being not to continue with them. Any leads to threads where people have claimed for further back than 6 years would be appreciated, also any leads where people have claimed over £5,000 would also be appreciated.

Thanks for your help

Tink

[steven4064]

The 6 years isn't really the issue at the moment. I got a letter from NatWest saying they had never concealed the charges (which is true, but they certainly concealed the nature of them )

 

The issue is about penalties. THe OFT case judge has ruled that charges based on current current account T&Cs are not penalties. We are waiting for his ruling on older T&Cs. Technically, of course, this ruling doesn't apply to business accounts but I doubt we would get away with that as an argument. If it turns out that the judge doesn't think charges based on historic T&Cs are penalties either, we have a problem because that then leaves us (currently) without cause of action (UTCCR don't apply to business accounts).

 

We are working on it. So watch this space.

[TINK660]

Thanks Steven,

I will watch this space with eager anticipation then!!

The sooner we can get recompense from this greedy bank the better. I'm not going to be fobbed off with their patronising replies.

Tink

[welshwizzard]

Stick to your guns I heard of a case recently where they initially set out to disregard the pre 2000 charges but offered the full amount claimed at the last minute including statutory £20k+.

[TINK660]

Welshwizard,

Do you have any links to this one, was it someone on here?

THanks

Tink

[lancasterchelsea]

Good luck Tink I am involved in the pre 6 years rule with 2 business accounts... 2 different banks. I got the judge to agree to a separate limitations hearing... to argue that limitaions should not apply. One bank has paid up before going to court, and the other hearing with the other bank is 5 weeks away. My caims were approx 1990 to 1999

[TINK660]

Hi,

 

I have drafted a short but to the point letter to Brian Hartzer, Chief Executive Officer of NatWest, what do you think and do you think I will get a reply! Any comments appreciated.

 

Here it is:-

 

Dear Mr. Hartzer,

Whilst your decision to reduce bank charges has to be applauded, it comes too late for many people who have been subjected to these penalty charges in the past and many have suffered financial hardship as a result.

Having had a business account with Nat West from 1992 to 2000 and suffered these charges, which could sometimes be in the region of over £500 a month, we have definitely suffered financial hardship because of these charges. The fact that it was a business account makes it harder to control your account balance as with the best will in the world you cannot make customers pay you when they should. They will pay you when they are able to and if they are being subjected to these charges as well this just exacerbates the problem. Maybe large corporate businesses do not have this problem but for the small businessman struggling to survive this has a huge impact.

I have deliberately kept this letter short and to the point but would really appreciate your feedback on this.