Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?

[paulwlton]

It is inconceivable that the banks are unaware of their wrongdoing and by continuing the charges regime " the mischief " they cannot rely on section 5 LA and case Law such as Sheldon backs this up.

[photoman]

The facts that back up our case for claiming they are aware;

1/ The OFT report last May

2/ The 1000's of cases being brought against them

3/ The amount of press coverage.

4/ The Parliamentary Early DAy Motion

5/ The letters and campaigns that we have all sent

6/ The fact that many of them are now reducing their charges

7/ the very expensive lawyers they employ.

 

....amy more anyone ??

[paulwlton]

The facts that back up our case for claiming they are aware;

1/ The OFT report last May

2/ The 1000's of cases being brought against them

3/ The amount of press coverage.

4/ The Parliamentary Early DAy Motion

5/ The letters and campaigns that we have all sent

6/ The fact that many of them are now reducing their charges

7/ the very expensive lawyers they employ.

 

....amy more anyone ??

 

8/ The Northern Irish banking report.

[TANZARELLI]

It is inconceivable that the banks are unaware of their wrongdoing and by continuing the charges regime " the mischief " they cannot rely on section 5 LA and case Law such as Sheldon backs this up.

 

Hi Paul,

 

I think this would be what would be needed in a POC poss:

 

 

Section 5 Limitations Act 1980, Defence which could be used by Defendant

and Section 32 comeback arguement

 

 

If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that he Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken. As I only became aware during April 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

 

 

Tanz

[Guest bong]

9. Whistleblower

10.the fact that some are now changing their terms and conditions (HSBC at least)

[elsinore]

11. Paying out pre-court, using cost of litigation as an excuse.

 

Els

[JonCris]

AN important point to remember, in your argument, is that the Limitations Act is like Laches meant to protect against a stale claim where the evidence to refute such a claim might no longer exist thereby placing an undo burden of proof on a defendant

 

As the banks conduct is ongoing they can hardly make such an argument (& they are begining to realize it).

 

If their penalty charges are valid today as they claim then they must have been valid 6 years previously. If not valid they cannot (though some will continue to try) use the Limitations Act to avoid their misconduct

[TANZARELLI]

12) Trying to get us to sign confidentiality clauses.

[meagain]

12) Trying to get us to sign confidentiality clauses.

 

I'm not sure that's a fair point - confidentiality tends to be par for the course when dealing with large companies.

[TANZARELLI]

I'm not sure that's a fair point - confidentiality tends to be par for the course when dealing with large companies.

 

Maybe but it also suggests they don't want us to let others know about their nice big fat unlawful profit making vehicle.

[meagain]

It suggests no such thing. Put yourself at the other end of things.

 

You run a large company (not necessarily a bank). A member of the public sues you for a large sum of money over a given matter (not necessarily something unlawful), you settle with them out of court. The last thing you want is for people to see a large payout and jump on the bandwagon thinking "I want a slice of that", so you insist that the claimant keeps quiet about it. Of course, this only applies if you've offered them an amount considerably more than they would be entitled to, as you have to provide consideration for the additional service of confidentiality.

[TANZARELLI]

It suggests no such thing. Put yourself at the other end of things.

 

You run a large company (not necessarily a bank). A member of the public sues you for a large sum of money over a given matter (not necessarily something unlawful), you settle with them out of court. The last thing you want is for people to see a large payout and jump on the bandwagon thinking "I want a slice of that", so you insist that the claimant keeps quiet about it. Of course, this only applies if you've offered them an amount considerably more than they would be entitled to, as you have to provide consideration for the additional service of confidentiality.

 

Which is pretty much what I was suggesting, without getting into a debate about it, the banks know (I beleive) that they are fighting a loosing battle with the bank charges claims, and they wan't to minmise the amount they have to pay back, as there are still people out their who don't/haven't (for whatever reason) claim/ed back whats rightfully theirs. I also believe that they are still concealing their charges by doing this and this is why they want us to sign the confidentiality clauses, as you say to stop others jumpingon the bandwaggon, and by keeping the charges at the same rate, or even cloaking them as service charges all this helps our case.

[Harrassed&Hopefull]

To answer Bankfodder's original question, My A & L (nee Giro) account goes back to 1982! and during the 1990's there is a probable £2-4k of potential charges to reclaim. Certainly the last six years has revealed about £2200 plus interest and in a financially better time for me! My Nat West account is about 1990 but I think this will be a lesser figure £1-2k.

H & H

[meagain]

Which is pretty much what I was suggesting, without getting into a debate about it, the banks know (I beleive) that they are fighting a loosing battle with the bank charges claims, and they wan't to minmise the amount they have to pay back, as there are still people out their who don't/haven't (for whatever reason) claim/ed back whats rightfully theirs.

 

No, you've misunderstood my point. Google "Stella Liebeck". If instead of going to court you settle, the last thing you need is people engineering claims against you knowing you'll pay out before court. For this reason, it is SOP for a large company to try to impose confidentiality regardless of who they're dealing with or the nature of the case. McDonald's went to court in that case, but being one of the 30 largest companies in the US means you can afford to fight these cases willy-nilly (they even got the original $2.9m order reduced to $640k). Confidentiality in and of itself doesn't imply any wrongdoing.

[TANZARELLI]

Hi meagain,

 

If I could quote a post made by bong in the other pre 6 year thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80486-claiming-beyond-6-yrs.html

 

I've read in this forum that you cannot sign your rights away under common law. So signing anything as full & final settlement would require the bank to have given consideration over and above the settlement figure for this term to be contractually binding. In the same way that confidentiality clauses are not binding unless there has been consideration. Consideration is required in all English contracts (doesn't apply in Scotland)' date=' and the payment offered/made in respect of the claim is not consideration because that is a debt they already owe so they can't impose conditions to their payment without giving something additional. [/quote']

 

Tanz

[progenic7]

meagain

 

sorry but i agree with Tanz, and with several instances i can personally recall i have prior knowledge of uch processes.

for example on two occasions i have had problems iwth mobile phone companies (dodgy handsets ect) and had big problems getting them replaced for whatever reason, letters, threats of court action ect ect and in the end either got a new one or got a full payment as compensation, neither of these required confidentiality clauses.

I pursue a very small charge with the same company (less than £100 and they demand confidentiality).

My father inlaw dies from cancer (hospitals fault) they pay out huge, out of court...no confidentiality.

 

you cannot fabricate a claim and expect a company to pay out, generally ALL companies will defend in court, no matter what the cost, if and only if they believe they are in the right.

If they know they are in the wrong, then they pay out of court and ask for confidentiality. The whole excuse about a commercial decision and it would be too costly for them to defend is utter rubbish. If they thought for one minute they had a good case they would defend and pay thousands to do so.

i believe asking for confidentiality is in effect admitting liability, and a weak attempt at damage limitation.

 

IMHO

[Gez]

you cannot fabricate a claim and expect a company to pay out, generally ALL companies will defend in court, no matter what the cost, if and only if they believe they are in the right.

If they know they are in the wrong, then they pay out of court and ask for confidentiality. The whole excuse about a commercial decision and it would be too costly for them to defend is utter rubbish. If they thought for one minute they had a good case they would defend and pay thousands to do so.

i believe asking for confidentiality is in effect admitting liability, and a weak attempt at damage limitation.

IMHO

 

Spot on.

[TideTurner]

My father inlaw dies from cancer (hospitals fault) they pay out huge, out of court...no confidentiality.

 

This would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act at some stage

 

you cannot fabricate a claim and expect a company to pay out, generally ALL companies will defend in court, no matter what the cost, if and only if they believe they are in the right. IMHO

 

These will be defended as standard, on the basis, 10% will bottle it, 10% don't know what to do and will suffer the fate of limitation, 0.5% will die, 10% will feel pressure from their families to give in, 10% will receive a windfall and won't pursue, 10% will consider their future relationship with the banks generally, 10% will experience pressure from other financial organisations (DCA's) and give up, 10% will mis-read news articles, 10% will be ill-advised, 5% will suffer physical or mental problems, 2% will meet a new partner and will be too ashamed to tell them of their past, 1.5% will emigrate, 1% will make it in business, 0.5% will join a monastry, cult or religion, 0.25% will win the lottery, but: -

 

9.25% Will Fight and claim back what is rightfully theirs.

 

CAG

 

Tide

[elsinore]

Quick, Tide.

 

Edit the percentages before anyone spots that they don't add up!

 

Els

[TideTurner]

Cheers Els, maths was never my major - knackered without a spreadsheet.

 

Does it add up (and make sense)?

 

Tide

 

PS no particular source stated

[elsinore]

It doesn't actually matter whether it adds up or not, Tide, it's the truth behind it that counts.

 

I've always thought that LTSB/SC&M must recite that as a mantra each morning before the business of the day.

 

Els

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks progenic7

 

Damage limitation is exactly what it is, and a pretty lame attempt at it too.

 

Tanz

[TANZARELLI]

Cheers Els, maths was never my major - knackered without a spreadsheet.

 

Does it add up (and make sense)?

 

Tide

 

PS no particular source stated

 

Loving the stats Tide. I think i'll quote you. lol

 

Tanz

[meagain]

My father inlaw dies from cancer (hospitals fault) they pay out huge, out of court...no confidentiality.

 

As has been said, NHS trusts are public bodies operating on taxpayers' funds, so a carefully-worded FOI request would get this information released anyway.

 

If they know they are in the wrong, then they pay out of court and ask for confidentiality. The whole excuse about a commercial decision and it would be too costly for them to defend is utter rubbish.

 

Not heard of McLibel, then? After 7 years, McDonald's secured a judgment for £60,000, and ran up legal costs into millions. To date, they have received nothing, and hold no hope of ever doing so. As far as personal injury goes, it may well be cheaper to pay someone off for £10k than to end up running up thousands in costs which the claimant would be unable to pay should their claim fail.

 

If they thought for one minute they had a good case they would defend and pay thousands to do so.

 

Again, only if they actually think they are able to get that money back. I am not a homeowner, I estimate my net worth to be somewhere in the reason of £4k (generous valuation of my assets, and no secured debts) - and I imagine that there are a substantial number of people around with low or negative net worth. If a company successfully defends, they are landed with a hefty legal bill with nowhere to offload it. For a small or medium-sized business, this can be enough to force them under. Therefore if you are running a business, whether you are right or wrong it is in your interest to make the case go away as quickly as possible, and make sure it doesn't come back. From this, the mere fact of asking for confidentiality taken in isolation speaks to nothing more than protecting commercial interests, whereas every one of the other things that have been put forward can, in and of themselves, beat the test in S32.

 

If I were putting in a claim beyond 6 years, I wouldn't rely on the use of confidentiality as the basis for defeating S32, especially not if they have not proposed it to you personally in an offer.

[TANZARELLI]

It suggests no such thing. Put yourself at the other end of things.

(why would you need to we know that we are winning the bank charges issue)

 

You run a large company (not necessarily a bank (but we are talking about banks)). A member of the public sues you for a large sum of money over a given matter (not necessarily something unlawful but we are talking about something unlawful aren’t we)), you settle with them out of court because you know you cant win, yes!!). The last thing you want is for people to see a large payout and jump on the bandwagon thinking "I want a slice of that", so you insist that the claimant keeps quiet about it (or prior to that you plow all your legal resourses into defending the claim, because you truly believe you are going to win). Of course, this only applies if you've offered them an amount considerably more than they would be entitled to (so how do you explain confidentiality clauses on offers of just charges, or charges plus stat 8%, this is not a considerably large amount, more that we are entitled to?), as you have to provide consideration for the additional service of confidentiality.

 

No, you've misunderstood my point

(no I think you have misunderstood me and I think you know it, we are talking about Banks here not Burger King or KFC or McDonalds. If instead of going to court you settle because YOU HAVE NO CASE AS YOU KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN ACTING UNLAWFULLY AND YOU ARE ALSO DELIBERATELY CONCEALING THIS FACT), the last thing you need is people engineering claims who’s talking about engineering claim? I am talking about banks attempts to silence people, using confidentiality to do this, because they want to limit the damage they are facing) against you knowing you'll pay out before court (but why would they pay up if they had a case and they truly belived they would win it. Surely they would fire in their top highly expensive legal teams and fully resource this action to the max, to show they were/have always been right. But no they choose to pay up prior to court and then try to impose conditions onto our claims, which we don’t have to accept… simple.) . For this reason, it is SOP for a large company to try to impose confidentiality regardless of who they're dealing with or the nature of the case. Defend it and this would not be needed………. McDonald's went to court in that case, but being one of the 30 largest companies in the US means you can afford to fight these cases willy-nilly (they even got the original $2.9m order reduced to $640k) (well done McDonalds don’t choke on your burgers in the boardroom). Confidentiality in and of itself doesn't imply any wrongdoing. (It smells strongly as if it’s a cover up, with a large amount of damage limitation to boot)

 

 

Not heard of McLibel, then? After 7 years, McDonald's secured a judgment for £60,000, and ran up legal costs into millions. To date, they have received nothing, and hold no hope of ever doing so. As far as personal injury goes, it may well be cheaper to pay someone off for £10k than to end up running up thousands in costs which the claimant would be unable to pay should their claim fail. We are talking about banks here, but if I slip over inside one on a wet floor, without signage and the do my leg in, that would be a nice little PI claim I would bee putting in.

If I were putting in a claim beyond 6 years, I wouldn't rely who’s on about relying on it I was purely using it to illustrate a bigger picture. on the use of confidentiality as the basis for defeating S32, especially not if they have not proposed it to you personally in an offer.

 

Anyway I am sure people are bored about this now.

 

meagain I thank you for your opinions on this, but shall we move on.

 

Surely we should be talking about how we prove the banks have deliberately concealed the unlawfulness of their charges for years and years, not how they are now trying to use confidentiality to limit the damage and to avoid paying out on the inevitable.

 

Tanz