Under the CCA, HSBC cannot enforce the agreement. I don't know if this is sufficient for default removal but it's a good argument. You certainly don't have to pay them anything towards it and they can't charge interest until they provide a credit agreement. If they don't have an agreement, it will be totally unenforcable. It becomes unenforceable after 12 working days when they default. They commit an offence after one calendar month, but the debt has already become unenforceable at the 12 working day mark.

Apologies for straying off topic... one of my favourites by far is The Wagon Mound, for its bizarre circumstances. The only reason the oil ignited was because there just happened to be some floating cotton waste there as well, to act as a fuse or wick... madness.

As I understand it, it is not a matter of proving the debt, but rather that the debt is not enforceable by law because they have not complied with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. They can prove it all they want; they still can't enforce the agreement.

I've thought of this counterclaim thing, but no-one is suing me so can't try it. I think it would be a very interesting route to go as in order to continue the claim, they would have to attend and defend the counterclaim. I can't offer sound legal advice, but I'd certainly be looking to do this if I was in your position; I'll be watching with great interest. Hopefully someone else will be able to help further. Good luck.

European law doesn't technically bind our courts. We adopt it voluntarily (or just the bits we like). It's normally re-enforced with domestic statute (e.g. Human Rights Act 1998).

Letter from DG Solicitors today offering £4425.24 with confidentiality. This is the full value of the claim. Sending signed copy back in 1st class post tonight and have crossed out confidentiality clause. Will update when payment made; could a mod change the title of my thread to include "WON" please? Barclaycard and Sainsbury's Bank next... mwuhahahahaha...

The Financial Ombudsman has taken complaints on similar issues and has upheld the complaints. You may have a very strong case. See the link below. Extended Warranties Case Studies Edit: Middle case - "We noted that the policy also stipulated that a cashback claim would only be valid if the policyholder returned the certificate to the insurer within 30 days of the end of cover. Although this clause had not formed any part of this complaint, we considered it likely that a claimant’s failure to meet the insurer’s strict deadline would not be sufficient ground for rejecting the claim."

Sign your letter with an obvious "simple" signature that's not too far of an "X". Then produce your driving licence, passport or a bank/credit card (or all of the above) to prove what your real signature looks like. :?

Anyone got any thoughts on this? Should also have mentioned that original flights cost £69.67 per person including all taxes etc. So the name change charged of £110.50 was 159% of the flight's original cost! How can that be fair?

They suffered no damages... it's his bay!!! :o

The agreement is exempt, so it doesn't matter who they transfer it to. It is exempt because it is "low cost". I believe this is under s16(5)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and whatever appropriate order was made in respect of this.

I agree there is some confusion. 080s are free; the rest are up to 10ppm. 070 can only go up to 50ppm (it's the premium rate 09 that goes up to £1.50). Most are actually about the same as calling a mobile. With any luck, a lot of companies will take up 03 numbers (local rate) when they come out. This will make it easier to spot the difference between just using a non-geographic number and trying to earn a bit extra cash. 03 numbers will need to stay at local rate, though, and not end up with about 10,000 difference prices depending on what the following 4 numbers are... have you seen BT's price list!? :o IMO anything that isn't standard rate should clearly state call costs, as opposed to just 09 numbers as it is at the moment.

The system does work like that: 01, 02 - geographic 03 - non-geographic local rate for corporations (being introduced next year) 07 - mobile and personal number service (PNS) (no premium rate, but mobile & PNS calls can cost a bit, though there is no revenue sharing here) 08 - special rate with revenue sharing (no premium rate); 080 is free 09 - premium rate 08 numbers don't cost more than 10ppm (lowest is 1ppm e.g. 0844 400). 07 numbers can cost a bit (for PNS up to 50ppm (e.g. 0705 40)) but there is no revenue sharing here (i.e. the recipient gets no cut). Premium rate (09) numbers go up to £1.50pm. Be wary of 070 numbers (PNS - tend to be more expensive) and avoid 09 numbers or check the call costs and careful. 08 numbers do not cost more than 10ppm. All pricing information taken from BT's latest price list and includes VAT.

Seems a reasonable charge to me. DD is automated so costs them a lot less; they levy this charge to cover the extra admin involved in handling manual payments (and also the charges they pay for taking card payments which will be higher than DD). I can't see this being held as unfair. T-Mobile charge me £3 a month for this and I have no reason to complain.

The claimant, Hosni Tayeb, was awarded £944,114.23 with interest from 21/09/2000. This was in April 2004, so the interest would have been considerable. So, yes, HSBC lost a fair bit of money.

Yes, I included the breakdown with both my letters to HSBC, and added the following cover letter. It's in fax format as I just faxed it to them (it is a stalling tactic so I thought I'd fax to cut a day off it ). These were the two sheets from the spreadsheet: the one I'd originally sent to the bank twice, and then the second one with the 8% interest added.

They're not trying it on; that's just standard, in every settlement offer.

Just sign it, crossing out the bit about confidentiality. They'll still pay - they seem to be in all other cases.

Don't worry! You'll hear back. I think they're falling behind a bit. She sounded quite stressed when I spoke to her!!

When Googling on DG Solicitors, I found the below linked High Court Judgement against HSBC on a matter entirely different to bank charges. (I found it all an interesting read nonetheless.) However, contained within there is a full explanation of how CHAPS works, and how it is entirely automated. It also gives some hint at the rest of the bank's automated systems. With CHAPS payments, the settlements are made in the banks' Bank of England accounts in real time (i.e. not at the end of the day as with other clearing processes). Even the process of clearing between the Bank of England accounts is automated. From paragraph 14 of the judgement: The checks in the case of payments over £50,000 (anything below this is fully automated) are purely to check the sort code and account number of the target account are valid! Whilst this is CHAPS, a premium service, it gives a fascinating level of insight into the automated processes at the bank and where manual intervention may occur. It's not enough as evidence, but if anyone has any doubts, it is well worth a read to get an idea of the levels of automation in the industry. Here is the link: High Court Judgment Template

Good idea; thanks. Just spoken to Deborah D'Aubney. She said they receive a lot of faxes and it will be with her secretary now; however, she will ask her secretary to check and if it has not been received will give me a call back (contact number taken). Can't say fairer than that. Wait to hear from them again, I guess! Shouldn't be long now.

I have 10 passengers booked on a return flight to Amsterdam the weekend after next, that we booked a while back, for a stag weekend. We needed to change one of the names. When I phoned Jet2, they said I had to pay £15 amendment fee per flight (total £30) plus the difference in fares since I booked (though they will give no refund if fares go down - this is an important point). I used to work in travel and did so for 5 years. I have never known such an obscene charge. The only thing involved in changing a name is to type the new one into the reservation system. I would not have complained about being charged £30 (even though that is steep as far as name change charges go), but to pay the difference in fare when I have made no changes to the flight? GRRRR... I paid because I had to, but immediately wrote them a letter objecting. At the time, as it was in the contract, I couldn't see a way out. However... having read the OFT's website in relation to unfair terms in consumer contracts, which covers many areas, it appears I may be covered. I believe this is precisely the same argument as for the banks, i.e. they can only charge what it's cost them. However, they do have a much stronger argument here that it is a service. Nonetheless, I am very confident I could argue the case under s15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. As this is not often resorted to in the banks' cases and most arguments revolve around penalty charges, here is section 15: 15 Implied term about consideration (1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge. (2) What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact. My questions are: Does anyone think I do, or do not, have a case here? Should I: Argue only s15 SOGSA Argue s15 SOGSA then s8 UTCCR in the alternative Argue s8 UTCCR then s15 SOGSA in ther alternative (if it matters which way round) I've just sent them a complaint letter as it stands and will see what their response is to that. Failing that, I will commence action with a LBA then proceedings after that (possibly 21 days after LBA). There is also the argument that because the term does not allow for a refund if fares go down, it is unfair in itself (OFT have mentioned this for all such charges). So UTCCR may be the way to go.

Letter from DG today, dated 14 August (yesterday), requesting full breakdown. Full breakdown with covering summary sent by fax about half an hour ago. Anyone think I should send a copy of my fax by post, or is there no point? It will only go standard first class, and I know they've received the fax already.

Nothing from DG yet... seems to be taking a little longer than the others. Had another letter from HSBC in the meantime saying they still deny it all, so no offer at all as yet.

28 days from date of service once it's been acknowledged.