I am going to court against barclay's and have received their note of defence

[paul carmichael]

I am going to court against barclay's and have received their note of defence. Part of the defence is that the first 2 sums I have claimed for are now outside the 6 year period for reclaiming monies - these were inside the 6 years when first correspondence commenced, but outside when the actual case papers were answered. The dates of the first 2 amounts on the claim were 16/10/00 and 14/11/00. The court claim was issued on the 22nd November.

 

Several questions.

 

Does the 6 years limit apply from when the actual claim is submitted or when you first contact the bank asking for your money back?

 

Can I continue with the claim and point out the error to the magistrate and ask him to amend the amount accordingly, at the start of the case?

 

If I proceed, will these 2 dates make the rest of the case invalid?

 

If the case is invalid, can I reclaim, or is there a "double jepordy" type of defence i.e. once you have claimed for a sum, you can't claim for that sum again?

 

If anyone can help I will be very grateful

 

:-?

[ED1237]

Hi Paul,

 

You are right and they are wrong. Send a letter to the solicitors and the court advising the 6 years aplies to first demand, not filing in court. On the letter make sure you cc the court so that Solicitors know that you have done it.

[stef1]

I have received a letter from Cobbetts prior to my hearing on 8th Feb :o explaining that Under the Limitation Act 1980 I am unable to bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued. My claim is from Aug 01 2006 and therefore apparently on entitled to claim from Aug 2000 to Aug 2006 so that is incorrect then? :-?

[ED1237]

It all hinges on the date of your prelim letter. It is six years back from that date. It does not effect the forward date, so say my prelim was dated 1st August 2006, the earliest date would be 1st August 2000. However if I filed in October 2006 and between the prelim and filing I had been charged further penalties, I could include them in the claim.

 

I hope taht makes sense

[stef1]

Thanks!

 

Prelim letter was 10th June 2006 so effectively I am alright from that date then? I had gone back to beginning of Feb 2006 - so I take it that I cannot do this?

 

Should I add the interest? not sure how that works seems confusing...

[phatram]

Read this , it may help.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/56083-rbs-claiming-six-years.html?highlight=statute+of+limitations

[phatram]

If they hid the true cost from you, you CAN claim back MORE than 6 years.

Many people have been successful in claiming back more than 6 years.

Search under STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS and do lots of reading.

[phatram]

This is it, section 32 of the statutes of limitation act.

The bank has deliberately concealed the amount of charges by charging more than it actually costs, so they took money fraudulently???

 

Fraud, concealment and mistake

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;

SEE HERE ALSO

c) The 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 the Claimant contends that the Defendant is mistaken. As the Claimant only became aware during February 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.