Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

HSBC problem


Dougy79
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5575 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hiya Dougy79 and welcome to the HSBC forum :) its not uncommon for the bank to realise that you still have a student account well after you have graduated and demand the repayment of the overdraft, this is their problem and mistake not yours.

 

I would write back to them stating that as they have never resolved the matter of your penalty charge claim your account is still in dispute. This should stop them continuing to try to collect the balance, reporting a default to the CRA's or passing the account to a DCA. They may still do this but you can fight them if you confirm the dispute :).

 

Also update your claim to the full value of the penalty charges to date (how far did you get with your claim?) and submit this with the above letter confirming you want full reimbursement for the unlawful charges.

 

Do you have anything in writing regarding your standing order? as you are continuing to pay them some money on a monthly basis I don't think they can say you are defaulting anyway because you are paying them.

 

I would also have a read of the Student section of the forum because I'm sure you will find many people in exactly the same situation that you are in :rolleyes:

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hiya Dougy :)

 

Ok the response I got back was, if I do not arrange a payment plan with them that suits them or pay back the full amount in 28 days, then they will formally demand the money back, sent my record to credit agencies, stop the use of the account (which they have already done).

 

And you are paying them back as they wanted at 33% of your disposable income :rolleyes:

 

Now I'm not sure what to do next?

 

Thanks everyone who has helped Unfortunately the deadline for response is coming up and I'm now panicking as to what to write back. They responded to my last letter last week (where I said the account should be frozen because it's a legal depute)but I'm not sure what to write back. I still think that the case is a legal matter because , it was their decision not to go down the legal route after I threatened it-they chose to solve it without the law getting involved.Here is what the letter states.

 

 

"Thank you for your letter dated xx

 

Balance shown.

 

Interest is charged on the bank account at our standard overdraft rate of 18.3%.

 

Fine its on disputed charges anyway so it will be repaid when they repay the charges :D

 

There is no legal action pending at this time.

 

So they basically agree with you and believe legal action would be futile :)

 

We are unable to freeze interest and commission charges or prevent any further action from being taken.

 

But are not above trying to frighten you :cool:

We look forward to receiving repayment proposals asap.

 

confirm you are repaying at 33% of your disposable income as requested by them :rolleyes:

 

Contact us on..."

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Oh dear the little fibbers :rolleyes:

 

Any advice on what to do/how to reply would be appreciated. I'm not sure if everything they say is 100% true and would like to better gauge my position.

 

Dear....

 

Whilst I appreciate that you currently have a dispute on your account with regards to your accounts, please note that we still expect you to run your accounts within the agreeds terms and conditions. If this does not happen then HSBC are entitled to pass your accounts onto a debt recovery agency.

The banking code and the OFT's guidelines on debt collection require them to resolve any dispute before any debt recovery measures are taken by the bank :rolleyes:.

 

As you have stated that you believe that are charges are unfair, we have deemed this to be a legal challenge, and as such have contacted the relevant department to deal with this. As you are aware there is currently an on-going court case with regards to the legality of bank charges. HSBC are therefore placing all cases on hold whereby a customer is stating that they do not feel that our charges are fair. When the court case has concluded HSBC will act accordingly. However, HSBC still require you to pay back any outstanding balance on the account. It is therefore not acceptable for customer’s to not pay a debit balance on the account and HSBC will follow our collection procedures if this happens.

The banking code and the OFT's guidelines on debt collection require them to resolve any dispute before any debt recovery measures are taken by the bank :rolleyes:.

 

Given the amount of your outstanding balance on the account, we are unable to accept XX/month as repayment. As your account has been placed on final demand we will require you to contact us immediately to make a repayment offer.

As an act of good faith you are making payments to the bank. I would be inclined to tell them that as soon as the balance of the account reaches the same level as the unlawful charges they have deducted from you this will stop until the conclusion of the test case in accordance with their own attitude to this situation.

 

Section 13.6 states that we will not pass any information to the credit reference agencies if your account is in dispute. However, as there is currently a hold on bank charges (pardon?... tell them to stop charging you then!!) following the outcome of the court case, customers are unable to place a dispute on the account for this reason (why? if you have a legitimate complaint you have to dispute it). Therefore, any information that we may place at credit reference agency will not contradict the banking code.

This is pure rubbish and a direct contravention of the banking code.

 

This also means we are fully entitled to add charges and interest onto your account, and we may continue to do so whilst your account is in breech of the agreed terms.

Hang on you just said there was currently a hold on bank charges...

 

~The charges applied to your account have all been applied correctly and in line with the bank’s published tariff. These charges are clearly outlined. Upon signing for your account you singed to say that you agreed to these terms and as such HSBC do expect our customer’s to run their accounts accordingly.

And as a customer of a once respected banking organisation you expect to be treated within the consumer regulations not be systematically milked for additional funds.

 

If you have any quieries...........

 

I do hope thats given you a few ideas regarding a reply to this frankly lame letter :)

 

pete

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We said the same things Johnny, in our own ways :) I think Dougy will be able to pick out the bits from both of out posts to put together a reply to that pile of crrrrrr.... he has been sent :D I think it might be a good move to send a copy of this letter to the FOS to see what they make of these lies

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Dougy, not had a chance to scan through the banking code and the OFT's guide to debt collection to pull out the sections that apply but here are the links to the full documents.

 

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/pdfdocs/PERSONAL_CODE_2008.PDF

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

I will try to scan through them tomorrow but if I don't get a chance at least you have the source :rolleyes:

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...