'best' company to take on first

[thecornflake]

Ok, so I am really scraping around for the costs I'm going to need for this. Even though I'm certain of getting my money back there is always the chance of somehting changing before my own case(s) come up, or somehting else going wrong.

 

So my plan is to go for the most likely claim first and then if successful use the money to fund all the rest. I am owed between 4 and 5 grand each from -

Natwest

Natwest Mortages

Mint

Egg

MBNA

 

I can't find a lot of cases going on with any of these, except Natwest where the only successful claims have mainly been smaller amounts.

 

Any suggestions?

[Neo]

To be honest, I would look at your charges and when they have occured.

 

Remember you can only claim back 6 years, generally. So choose your bank with the oldest charges on first and work it that way....

 

Hope this helps... and makes sense.

[thecornflake]

They all go back to at least 2002. Natwest go back to 1996 and in the last 6 months their charges add up to £1200 as do most of the others.

 

Basically, as I can only go back 6 years, and if I want to stay in small claims I'm limited to 5k anyway, it doesn't make much odds. The main thing is that the first one I claim goes well.

I know they all should do but my situation means I'm pushing it to get the money to do the claims in the first place so I'm going to be fretting until I start getting something back.

[dave]

Well now, Halifax were taken for an amount of about 12k I think - way above the small claim limit - and they of course STILL paid up.

 

Also, I think that we've all had lots of letters by now claiming that the T&C's are legal and the charges are a fair reflection of costs etc...

 

This, I believe is a deliberate deception, and therefore as you were deceived from knowing the truth about their debt to you, then they have excluded themselves from the statute of limitations.

 

It's up to you, but if I had 'my time' again, then I would definitly pursue that angle.

[thecornflake]

Hmmm

 

That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that angle before. Using the denial to remove the limitiation. However, the banks are only legally obliged to keep information for 6 years, and I doubt they'd admit it if they did have info going back further.

[Guest Lueeze]

Hmmm

 

Lol!

[coffindodger]

 

Also, I think that we've all had lots of letters by now claiming that the T&C's are legal and the charges are a fair reflection of costs etc...

 

This, I believe is a deliberate deception, and therefore as you were deceived from knowing the truth about their debt to you, then they have excluded themselves from the statute of limitations.

 

It's up to you, but if I had 'my time' again, then I would definitly pursue that angle.

Just read this and it could be that NW are paying up without much argument is to keep withion the Statute of Limitations.

It seems strange that just refund the money with no prior or post refund correspondence

Brian

[thecornflake]

You may find Bookworm's case interesting (see Natwest forum). Sent a cheque for full settlement asking to sign a NDA. On refusal, they basically said no, this is settlement in full but we don't admit liability. If they had any conviction that they were correct they wouldn't have done this. It's like they really don't want to go to court in this case, but then others they file what looks like a well thought out defence.

 

I'm gonna grow it back you know! 3 years now with nothing on my chin to stroke! (Please forgive my crap humour - I have drunk far too much coffee.

[Guest Lueeze]

Its okay we all have that same wired sense of humour...

[andrew1]

Well now, Halifax were taken for an amount of about 12k I think - way above the small claim limit - and they of course STILL paid up.

 

Also, I think that we've all had lots of letters by now claiming that the T&C's are legal and the charges are a fair reflection of costs etc...

 

This, I believe is a deliberate deception, and therefore as you were deceived from knowing the truth about their debt to you, then they have excluded themselves from the statute of limitations.

 

It's up to you, but if I had 'my time' again, then I would definitly pursue that angle.

 

Dave, surely this is a profound point you've made here or am I missing something? If they are saying their Terms & Conditions are fair - are you saying they are deceiving everyone as they know they have charged us more than is fair? thus excluding themselves from the Statute Of Limitation? If so, this could be the very foundation to everyones claim - put me right if I am out of sync.

[andrew1]

Ignore the above Dave, I've just picked up on the Barristers Letter thread which explains all and worth following - sorry.

[thecornflake]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group