Just had thdefence & counterclaim from HSBC claim ref 7qz48724. it is being transferred to Dartford County Court no AQ required. HSBC defenceis in short 1) Claimants acount governed by Defendants T & C 2)Defendant entitled to make a charge for services as per price list including an overdraft review fee for considering and providing overdraft 3)Defendant denies charges applied amount to penalties at commion Law and unfair contract terms in UTCCR 4 Charges applied are reasonable properly & fully disclosed in T & C they represent contractually agreed price and UTTCR not applicable to them alternativly not unfair contrary to utccr not default charges & do not amount to a penalty. 5)Save as to above each & every allegation is denied blah blah What do I have to do now??

Well its sent now and to Dept of Constitutional affairs so lets see what happens

ok I was going to spell ckeck it first

This is the wording ofv the letter i am considering sending the members of the board of directors at HSBC, with copies to Lord Falconer, my MP, The Law Society and anyone else i can think of!! Let me know what you think Claim No xxxxxxxxx ACCOUNT NUMBER xxxxxxxx 12 May. 07 Dear , As a member of the board of directors for HSBC PLC I would like to draw your attention to what may be financial mismanagement by certain sections of your company namely DG Solicitors. As you are well aware there have been numerous claims made against financial institutions, such as yourselves, for the return of various unlawful charges made on customers’ accounts. The law on this is well documented viz. The Term permitting the Companies to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. The OFT have also ruled on these matters. These customers have had to resort to the Small Claims Court in order to recover these charges as the companies involved are unwilling to settle these claims immediately. As a result of this many of these claimants have to initially pay the court charges for the issue of claims causing further financial hardship. Despite receiving notice from the court of these claims, many of these companies, and yours is a prime example, are abusing the court system by using the time constraints to delay payment. In the case of HSBC I am not aware of any case that has been successfully defended, however I am aware of around 200 claims that have been settled prior to any court hearing. If those cases have all gone to the small claims track, at a conservative average of £50 each in costs, then that is at least £10,000 your company has lost. If you then add the interest charged on each of these claims the total amount your company has lost runs into tens of thousands of pounds. Your shareholders may find this to be financial mismanagement. These figures don’t even take into account the wasted time and court fees that DG Solicitors (part of your company) have made. Many of the district judges are now realising the blatant abuse of process and as such are ruling against the banks, and in some cases the banks are facing financial penalty by way of a wasted costs order. It is in the interests of your shareholders, the courts and your customers that an end is put to this abuse of the legal system and this financial mismanagement. I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which is agreed by you t at the time that these claiments open their accounts. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. I am shocked that your company is acting in this manner as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary. Yours faithfully Martin Johnson

This is the wording ofv the letter i am considering sending the members of the board of directors at HSBC, with copies to Lord Falconer, my MP, The Law Society and anyone else i can think of!! Let me know what you think Claim No xxxxxxxxx ACCOUNT NUMBER xxxxxxxx 12 May. 07 Dear , As a member of the board of directors for HSBC PLC I would like to draw your attention to what may be financial mismanagement by certain sections of your company namely DG Solicitors. As you are well aware there have been numerous claims made against financial institutions, such as yourselves, for the return of various unlawful charges made on customers’ accounts. The law on this is well documented viz. The Term permitting the Companies to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. The OFT have also ruled on these matters. These customers have had to resort to the Small Claims Court in order to recover these charges as the companies involved are unwilling to settle these claims immediately. As a result of this many of these claimants have to initially pay the court charges for the issue of claims causing further financial hardship. Despite receiving notice from the court of these claims, many of these companies, and yours is a prime example, are abusing the court system by using the time constraints to delay payment. In the case of HSBC I am not aware of any case that has been successfully defended, however I am aware of around 200 claims that have been settled prior to any court hearing. If those cases have all gone to the small claims track, at a conservative average of £50 each in costs, then that is at least £10,000 your company has lost. If you then add the interest charged on each of these claims the total amount your company has lost runs into tens of thousands of pounds. Your shareholders may find this to be financial mismanagement. These figures don’t even take into account the wasted time and court fees that DG Solicitors (part of your company) have made. Many of the district judges are now realising the blatant abuse of process and as such are ruling against the banks, and in some cases the banks are facing financial penalty by way of a wasted costs order. It is in the interests of your shareholders, the courts and your customers that an end is put to this abuse of the legal system and this financial mismanagement. I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which is agreed by you t at the time that these claiments open their accounts. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. I am shocked that your company is acting in this manner as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary. Yours faithfully Martin Johnson

I am today goung to write to every member of the board of HSBC and Lord Falconer to alert them to the flagrant abuse that DG solicitors are making of the court system and to alert the board of HSBC as to how much more money it is costing the company using this method. If they were to settle claims immediately then they would save tens of thousands of pounds. After all there is no defence to unlawful charges

moneyclaim submitted for the the sum of £2583.48 and guess what despite me making several offers to settle HSBC have filed a defence on the 28th day. This is not the first claim I have maid against banks so know the tactics they use, but I am getting fed up with their abuse of the court system. Surely they have a duty to their shareholders not to waste money, which they are clearly doing. I wonder how much the banks would save if they settled claims immediately, Judging by the succesful claims on this site it runs into thousands of pounds. THIS IS CLEARLY FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT. Does anyone know how i can get hold of a list of sharehol;ders for HSBC so i can write and let every one of them know what HSBC are doing to protect their interests! I have e mailed and written to DG solicitors ( who are probably just a load of clerks) and they have not even had the decency to reply. How much longer will we let these corporate muppets abuse the court system. I am going to write to Lord Falconer and my local MP so this matter can be raised in higher circles. The small claims courts should be there to be used and not abused.

go to We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to End the Practice of Early Redemption Charges demanded by Mortgage Companies. and sign the petition and pass it on to everyone you know

Attempting to claim ERC from Birm. Mid. So e mailed Rachel Hinchcliffe at HBOS as they are the holding company. Her reply made refernce to the fact that I should read recent posts on this site regarding ERC claims. This seemed to imply that she is a member and has read these posts. If that is the case, it is not good for us if these mortgae leeches cann see where we are coming from. Anyway I pointed out to her that it is on ly advice and should we get to the stage of a class action things may well be different. I think that the posts should only be available to bona fide members of CAG

several judges have requested that the companies concerned should either prove how many cases they have taken to court and won, and how many claims they have settled within a a stated time period. It is quite obvious. as regards unlawful charges that these companies will abuse the court process in delaying a pay out. basically the courts are saying that they should either defend cases in trial or pay out. I dont know any that have gone to trial.

Yes I did issue proceedings and they went all the way to have judgement stayed, after they were late in filing a defence. I remided them about recent directions on abuse of process and thats when they decided to cough up.

Do you have an e mail for Rachel Hinchcliffe

solicitor was gareth Vowles GarethVowles@eversheds.com

First the good news GMAC have settled a claim for £2595.31 in respect of unlawful charges. They initially through their solicitors Eversheds, wanted me to sign a confidentiallity agreement. I said I would on the condition they do the same for the ERC of £4000. The bad news is they would not do that., but have agreed to settle with no confidentiallity agreement. I have told them that i intend to take out a class action against them for recovery of ERC so lets get the ball rolling and start one, I also want to do the same for recovery of BM erc. Perhaps ZOOt wll know how we go about this

I'm with you on this one. Lets screw the sub prime lenders. If someone has a charge over your property whay cant they charge the same rate as prime lenders. After all they will getb your property in the end!!

I think we should all write or e mail our MPS the FSA etc to urge them all to look at these matters urgently as most of us are in no posituion to pay huge costs but stiil beleive that the mortgage industry is taking us all for a ride

Sorry to hear the news. Was this the first claim by anyone against Mortgage Express??

I have heard from a police officer that this system is open to abuse from crooks and the banks could make it more secure but they cant be bothered. It is mainly eastern europeans and asians perpetuating this crime

This is excellent news. I am fighting GMAC at the moment and they have requested judgement to be set aside. I wrote to the court to inform them that this is an abuse of process, lets see what happens. Its about time the courts stopped these big institutions taking thep**s out of the court system. I wonder if the shareholders of these insitutions are aware that their dividends will be lower due to the amount of money that is being wasted by the banks etc in defending these claims. Surely they have a duty to be financially prudent!!

I have a thread running in other institutions-mortgage companies which may be of use to everyone, Read it and let me know

see my thread under GMAC abuse of process

Here is a copy of a letter I have sent to the Law society, CCS Victoria Court, 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa, CV32 5AE 19 January 2007 Dear Sir/Madam, I am the claimant in a small claims case against GMAC-RFC. This is a claim for the refund of unlawful charges applied to a mortgage account I had with this company. The defendants solicitors are Eversheds 1 Callaghan Square Cardiff, their reference is xxxxxxxxx. Judgement was granted in this case by Northampton County Court on 28/12/06 as the defendant had not filed a defence, however on 4th January 2007 I received a copy of an application notice that they intend to have the judgement set aside. If this were a one off application in these sorts of cases it would be acceptable, but this appears to be a tactic that this company, and others, employ in order to delay the settlement of the case. It is therefore an abuse of the courts process. I can provide examples where this tactic has been employed in other cases should you require these. The case is very simple in its entirety and in no way would warrant an undue delay. I have enclosed a copy of a letter I have sent to Dartford County Court. I look forward to receiving your comments. Yours faithfully, Martin Johnson Lets see what happens now!!

Initial lettr sent off today. we are writing to ask you to refund £7167.54 in respect of a redemption fee. We now understand that such fees are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent consumer Regulations. In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract as oppose to a charge which represents a penalty. This law was confirmed and upheld in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. A charge will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable. The charge you have levied could not amount to a genuine pre estimate of costs. In addition, your charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). Our account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, as we are consumers. Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said Regulations that provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms that may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms, which have the object of requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. We would vigorously contend that this is the position regarding the fee of £7167.54 that you deemed fit to apply to our account. Furthermore a fee levied requiring us to indemnify you against any commercial risk to yourself in offering us a reduced interest rate in order to attract our custom is also contrary to s.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. We are confident that a court is likely to consider this clause to be unreasonable within s.11 of the said Act as a large commercial institution such as yourselves is in a far better placed position than us as consumers to bear the burden of the vicissitudes of business. We would like to bring your attention to the following statement by The Office of Fair Trading: "A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the borrower to pay more for breaching the contract terms than actual costs and losses caused to the lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable both at common law and (in a consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. A redemption charge may be regarded as a penalty even if it is expressed as the price for exercising a right rather than a consequence of breaking the agreement." We believe that the charges you have levied of £7167.54 for early redemption far exceed any true cost to yourself because of our breach and any genuine pre-estimate you could conceivably reach. If you disagree, then will you please demonstrate this by letting me have a full breakdown of the costs to which you have been put to as a result of our breaches, in order to reassure us that your charges really do reflect your costs. Your responsibilities We would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that we took out the loan. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. We are frankly shocked that you have operated our account in this way as we had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise. We consider that your repeated representations that your charges are fair and reasonable are deceptive and that they have deceived us into agreeing to pay them. Your concealment of the true nature of your charges has prevented us from asserting our rights until now. Our targets to resolve this matter We really hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and without the need for redress to the courts. Thus, we are asking that you refund the charges, which have unlawfully been levied on our account. Failure to refund all the money unlawfully taken from us will result in us taking further action. We will give you 14 days to reply accepting, unconditionally, our request in principle and letting us know a date by which we will receive payment. If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time, we shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. We believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. After that, there will be no further communication from us and we shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline. Thus take this letter as 28 days written notice of our intention to issue a court claim should you not comply with my request. I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. We would also point out that if it is merely your intention to use the court process to delay payment then this could be construed as an abuse of process. In addition, it would not be financially prudent to your shareholders to incur further costs and interest merely in order to delay settlement Yours faithfully, Note the final paragraph!!

I would be obliged if thiose of you who have had dealings with Eversheds could pm me with th the details ie late defences, judgements put aside, etc. I will then contact the court me claim is going through to quote these instances as abuse of process and inform the law society

I would be obliged if thiose of you who have had dealings with Eversheds could pm me with th the details ie late defences, judgements put aside, etc. I will then contact the court me claim is going through to quote these instances as abuse of process and inform the law society