10 year old ERC

[zootscoot]

I would say s.32(1)© would be a safer bet and easier route.

 

Under s.32(1)(b) you would have to establish that they had deliberately concealed the facts relating to your cause of action. You can not rely on any concealment of the law. You could perhaps argue that they had concealed their costs and therefore you had no opportunity to question the lawful nature of the charges. However, in order to do so you would have to establish that they had a duty to reveal those costs. Given that the banks rely on commercial sensitivity of costs it will be very difficult to establish such a duty.

 

Under s.32(1)© you only have to show that you paid the money under a mistake. The mistake would be that you believed the money was lawfully due. Mistake of law is allowed as a basis for recover of money as established in Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln CC which lifted the rule against recovery is such situations.

 

House of Lords - Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Lincoln City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Southwark and Others

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Birmingham City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the Lo

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot