Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

[Yasmine]

Hi, I have just found this forum and am hoping to get some advice on the Limitation Act with regards to taking a S75 action against Nat West bank.

The bank refused to pay the claim on the basis that a) exceeded the limits set out in S75 (over £30,000) and b) it was statute barred. I issued proceedings and won my case that the single item cash price was £2000.

Unfortunately though the judge granted Nat West a summary judgment that the limitation period could not be extended against them as they were not involved in the transaction, even though he described the transaction as a "scam". He said limitation could only be extended against the supplier (who has long since disappeared.)

I cannot see how this can be right, surely Parliament introduced the legislation to protect consumers from dishonest suppliers/scams which by their very nature are designed to conceal pertinent facts for extended periods of time.

Does anybody have a view on this or know of any cases where limitation has been extended in a S75 case against a Bank?


Thanking you all in advance

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

The bank is jointly liable with the supplier regardless of whether they were not part of the transaction - that is the purpose of s.75. You must however bring your claim within 6 years of the date that the problem occurred and if you have not then you will be out of time and is statute barred.

If you are bale to provide any paperwork about the summary judgment or arguments from Natwest as to why it is statute barred then we can help. Remove any personal information if you do.

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Malouf v MBNA was the authority which was very similar to my own case. Nat West disagreed with the decision of Judge Halbert and said that limitation could not be extended against Nat West under Section 32 because the fraud was not committed by them. The judge agreed.

[charitynjw]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

http://legalbeagles.info/malouf-v-mb...vestment-case/
[MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION]

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Malouf v MBNA was the authority which was very similar to my own case. Nat West disagreed with the decision of Judge Halbert and said that limitation could not be extended against Nat West under Section 32 because the fraud was not committed by them. The judge agreed.

that's like saying if the supplier breached the contract Natwest can't be liable because the breach was not committed by them - makes no sense. They are joint and severally liable for their actions.

Quote from Supreme Court in Durkin v DSG Retail

"I have reached this view for the following five reasons. First, it is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the words of section 75(1): they give the debtor who has a claim against a supplier a “like claim” against the creditor. Thus a debtor, who has a right of action against the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of the contract of supply, can sue the creditor for that misrepresentation or breach of the supply contract. In other words, the creditor is concurrently liable for the supplier's breach. Secondly, it is consistent with that concurrent primary liability that the creditor and the supplier should be jointly and severally liable to the debtor."

The bank really doesn't have any argument over it to be honest. In my opinion, Malouf v MBNA is correct, it does not matter if the breach or misrepresentation was not committed by Natwest, they are still liable and their redress is an indemnity against the supplier. If that supplier has gone bust, tough luck.

Fraud still comes under the meaning of misrepresentation, the judge who granted summary judgment was wrong.

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

The bank really doesn't have any argument over it to be honest. In my opinion, Malouf v MBNA is correct, it does not matter if the breach or misrepresentation was not committed by Natwest, they are still liable and their redress is an indemnity against the supplier. If that supplier has gone bust, tough luck.

Fraud still comes under the meaning of misrepresentation, the judge who granted summary judgment was wrong.

So you believe the judge should have extended limitation?

[charitynjw]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Hi Yasmine

On what court 'track' was your case heard?

& when?

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

So you believe the judge should have extended limitation?

Yes I do, it was a fraudulent misrepresentation and the bank cannot dictate what claims it accepts and does not accept liability for. They are liable to you where there has been a breach of contract or misrepresentation, in this case there was a misrepresentation.

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

County Court and in April. I was unable to appeal at the time but new information has come to light and I'm looking into whether I can apply to have the case reopened and there are lots of people who have the same claim against the same supplier who wish to proceed.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Well you could apply to set aside the summary judgment, failing that the next step would be to appeal. Given the time since judgement you would have to show why you left it so late to set aside when it should have been done promptly, if there is new evidence come to light that may be a valid reason.

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Well you could apply to set aside the summary judgment, failing that the next step would be to appeal. Given the time since judgement you would have to show why you left it so late to set aside when it should have been done promptly, if there is new evidence come to light that may be a valid reason.

The new evidence relates to the Bank's relationship with the parties involved with the scam and in my view it could be concluded that the bank was involved and even complicit in the fraud. Would I want to set the judgment aside or just re-open the case to present this evidence. I thought I only had 3 weeks to appeal. I sent the appeal documents to the bank but didn't follow through as I feel ill

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

21 days to appeal but you can set aside summary judgement and if that is dimissed you then have the option of appealing.

I'm surprised the judge gave summary judgment as if there is usually any kind of dispute on a point of law they would be reluctant to grant summary judgment. I think it could be easily overturned and set aside.

In terms of the case did the judge award the sum of £2,000 then they made a separate application before or after judgment?

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

No, it was the same strike out/summary judgment hearing. He confirmed that the single item cash price was "clearly" £2,000 not the £70,000 Nat West had repeatedly argued so that he didn't have to award costs against me.

The judge who was intimately aware of the details of the case from a previous hearing, had to declare a potential conflict at the beginning of the hearing and ask whether we wanted to proceed. He was aware that a summary judgment in my favour would have triggered millions of pounds of claims against the Banks. I am trying not to imagine that this judge would be influenced by that potential outcome because he also potentially triggered claims on the SRA Compensation Fund by describing the transaction as a scam.

[Yasmine]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

I would much rather have this judgment set aside on the grounds that the judge was wrong in not extending limitation because any other similar claims would only be triggered if the claimant's bank was Nat West.

Is there a time frame in which I am allowed to have the judgement set aside?

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 CCA Claim - Extending Limitation

Hi Yasmine,

Just to clarify, if it is summary judgment you will need to appeal, if it is struck out then you can apply to set aside and then appeal if still refused, depending on what the order says.

If you are appealing then you will need to apply for relief because you are out of time and then will need to satisfy CPR 3.9, the criteria being

1. The Court must identify and assess the seriousness of the non-compliance. Is the breach "serious or significant"?
2. If it is, why did the default occur?
3. The court must then consider all the circumstances of the case in order to deal with the application "justly", including (a) the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and (b) the need to enforce compliance with rules, directions and court orders.