HSBC: Help Desperatley Needed! *** Won ***

[Mozz1]

Anyone?

[the_shadow]

I suspect the FOS will accept this as a good result, the re-instatement of the bank account albeit without the overdraft. The £300 "goodwill" gesture and the removal of all adverse comments on your credit file....

 

I dont think FOS will push for anything extra and if truth be told they usually dont award large financial penalties so the £300 is prob as much as you'll get.

 

If it were me I'd probably accept this.

 

Just my opinion tho.

 

S.

[Mozz1]

cheers for the opinion Shadow. The thing that rankles with us is that she has to sign away her complaint and within 10 days, which seems like blackmail to us.

[johnnymitch]

I know it niggles Mozz1, but I'm inclined to agree with the shadow on this one .....

 

Just make sure you keep tabs on the bit which says they're going to get the CRA to wipe your record clean .............as I've said before their amnesia is legendary .... give them a couple of weeks then check your rating ...

 

I think you've done well to get this far , considering the current (apparent) ineffectuallity of FOS (for customers that is )............

 

BTW Shadow ...........congratulations on your 5000th post !!!

:D

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes

 

I think you have done amazingly well.

 

as said i would ensure that all promises are kept before closing the deal.

 

Peter

[Mozz1]

None of you think the bank are on the back foot then?

Or is it just that the Foz are woeful?

[Peterbard]

HI

Speaking personally if i was in the financial position to push this, then i probably would but if this is going to be a major gamble with limited personel finances i would take the money and run.

 

Peter

[Mozz1]

and if you did push it, what would you be pushing for?

Yes we want and need the money but at the same time the bank have crapped all over us and we would like the money and the right to continue this complaint in some form. for example, they are denying that their final demand is invalid but have agreed to reinstate the account and remove the DN. also the bank haven't addressed whether the od was exempt (they SAY it was bit haven't proved it).

Have just checked and they have BTW put a default on her credit report. the account was opended in 1988 apparently - that's the first bit of info we have received! courtesy of experian. No SAR and no od agreement received yet.

[Peterbard]

and if you did push it, what would you be pushing for?

Yes we want and need the money but at the same time the bank have crapped all over us and we would like the money and the right to continue this complaint in some form. for example, they are denying that their final demand is invalid but have agreed to reinstate the account and remove the DN. also the bank haven't addressed whether the od was exempt (they SAY it was bit haven't proved it).

Have just checked and they have BTW put a default on her credit report. the account was opended in 1988 apparently - that's the first bit of info we have received! courtesy of experian. No SAR and no od agreement received yet.

 

Hi

Well i would make sure that they adhered to there promise regarding your credit report.

 

THe OD is exempt from part V of the act that is not i think in disute,what is ,is whether they should have sent you an initial notice of terms of the agreement.

They will say that the information is available on there web site or in some pamphlet, you may say that is insufficiant, iwould agree this as i say has not been tested. Risky to say the least especially at the moment.

 

Peter

[Mozz1]

Well i would make sure that they adhered to there promise regarding your credit report.

 

Yes, that is more important than their £300.

 

THe OD is exempt from part V of the act that is not i think in disute,what is ,is whether they should have sent you an initial notice of terms of the agreement.

 

I didn't think it was exempt unless they applied for the Determination? But yes, they will have done this but 6 bucks and my left nut says they never sent an agreement or can produce one now

 

They will say that the information is available on there web site or in some pamphlet, you may say that is insufficiant, iwould agree this

 

But was it when the od was taken out? before the web was widely used, late '90s we reckon. also don't they have to produce copies of the leaflets and evidence they were widely available?

 

as i say has not been tested. Risky to say the least especially at the moment.

 

The risk being costs in suing them?

Can the Foz investigate if they are compliant with the determination?

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

Well youo can certainly ask.

 

As for the exemption being lawful. It is pretty much a chicken and egg scenario.

 

You will go into court and say , the agreement is unenforceable because no document was ever signed in compiance with section 61 of the act. The judge will say its an overdraft isnt it and therefore exempt? you will then say yes it would be but no notification was sent at the outset so the exemption does not apply. The creditor will then say, didnt need to it was available on our web site or some other.Then you will have to argue that this was a either insufficiant or b not the case.

 

Peter

[the_shadow]

BTW Shadow ...........congratulations on your 5000th post !!!

:D

 

Cheers mate, hopefully some of them made sense ;-)

 

Peter....

I think the exemption states the account holder has to be notified in writing.. I would take that as a personal letter but like you say it would need a strong judge and a good case to test it

 

 

S.

[Mozz1]

I think I'll be on 5000 posts by the time this 'un has run its course

Thanks for your advice guys.

On balance, I think we (I say we but I'm only advising here!) will tell 'em to stick their £300 and continue the complaint (a) to make sure the DN is removed; (b) to get some sort of determination from the Foz that the account was in dispute when the bank called in Metro and closed the account; and © to see if we can get anywhere on the exemption must be notified in writing argument. can't see us taking the bleeders to court because if we lose we pay their costs but if there's anyone out there willing to finance a challenge to these so-called exempt ods and who wants to make HSBC squirm please send me a PM :)

[Peterbard]

Hi

There is another thread on here somewhere from a couple of years ago where we tried to get to the bottom of this.

Personally I think it is atrocious that you can enter into a credit agreement without being fully aware of the conditions and cost of that credit.

The act was specifically designed to ensure that debtors where fully aware of all costs and charges associated with a loan before signing.

There are detailed pre-contractual rules that must be complied with if a loan is to be properly executed. Yet in an overdraft none of this seems to apply. It is based on the word of the creditor ,that he has sent a letter at some time in some form at the inception of the agreement. Seems barmy to me.

 

If you are going to pursue this i wish you the very best i think you will be doing us all a favour, keep us informed

 

Peter

[Mozz1]

For us the main thing is having the account recalled and getting the DN removed. will give 'em 10 days to get this done otherwise its off to the ico.

 

The cash compensation for what they have done is the icing on the cake.

if we get it great.

 

we are willing to pursue the issue of the exempt od as far as we can without having to risk our own money suiing them

 

I'll let y'awl know what their next response is when we receive it

[Peterbard]

Hi THis may be of some use had to dig it out

THE DETERMINATION

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by Sections 74(3) and (3A) and 133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

[The Debt Star]

Its pretty darned obvious that "this infornation shall be confirmed in writing" means a facility letter to the customer. How the heck the banks get away with claiming that sticking it in a leaflet or on the web satisfies the determination is a mystery. could you imagine that argument with CCA agreements? I mean, we pay for these 'loans' just the same and it is obvious that this is against the public interest.

 

Thing is, we also have moaned to the OFT on a similar complaint to yours and they just sent back a crappy computer generated "take it to the Fos" letter "we don't do individual complaints." We also might keep pestering them all the same

 

The OFT are as hopeless as the fos it seems to me

[car2403]

The question here is what is left to fight for?

 

Not being funny, but if you don't accept this, you may have a fight on your hands to take it any further, as it will just look like you're a) being greedy or b) or on a consumer mission of one.

 

Sometimes you have to cut your losses and take what's on offer, we've all being there.

 

Only you can decide, in true 'Who wants to be a Millionaire-stylee', the only thing anyone can do is be a 'phone a friend' and offer an opinion.

[Mozz1]

theres something of a consensus here aint there

i guess we are on a consumer crusade to some extent, yeah. not that bothered by the offer but more upset by what happened. figure we'll let it go then and send them their f&f

[rudy691]

subbing

[The Debt Star]

sorry but am i missing something? doesn't the bank only offer to remove references to closure of the account rather than the default notice per se? you might want to clarify that with them before signing anything.

[Mozz1]

Yeah, well, we've decided to tell HSBC to stick their 300 quid and to be held accountable for their contempt for my GF, who does not agree that she should waive gher right to complaina nd challenge the validity of the od in exchange for their f&f. She will also raise the issue of the removal of ALL adverse data at the CRAs with HSBC as well since, yeagh, the bank does only promose to remove SOME of the adverse data in their letter. Because the bank claims the default notice is valid (which say it isn't) they can justify the DN.

 

So off to the FOS we go. lets hope they are not an outboard ashtray in this instance. Time will tell.

 

HSBC will also have failed to comply with the SAR 40 day limit by Friday so we'll be firing off a complaint to the ICO then as well.

[the_shadow]

Mozz1 did HSBC actually send a default notice? under s87 of the CCA? or was this just a formal demand of repayment?

[Mozz1]

Mozz1 did HSBC actually send a default notice? under s87 of the CCA? or was this just a formal demand of repayment?

 

Hi. No formal "default notice" was sent as far as she is aware, just the bank's default letter.

 

What happened was that they sent 2 excess notices and the GF replied to both of these in writing, telling them she had lost her job and would start paying into the account asap.

 

HSBC then sent the default letter.

 

HSBC then agreed a repayment plan on the 'phone, which they cancelled because they had sent a default letter. Account then disputed. They closed account and got Metro involved. No DN from Metro. Forced her to pay up the full od.

 

I thought ththey couldn't issue DN's with ods? That default letters serve the same purpose?

[Mozz1]

Just to clraify: the CRAs have a "Default" registered on the GF's credit file for this HSBC account (which the bank has subsequently re-opened following her complaint). But she only ever received a default letter from them (not a DN).