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

[Mozz1]

The latest on this is that HSBC have sent their Final Response and the Foz will have to adjudicate.

 

Basically, HSBC have admitted that the Default will not be removed and they have simply marked the Default as "satisfied." Not the outcome we want. While they have re-opened the account and paid expenses, the defaukt must stay.

 

we have refused their cash offer F&F.

 

The bottom line for us is that fecat that (a) my GF wrote to them with a repayment plan PRIOR o the defeult letter, and which went unanswered and (b) the Deafult they registered post dates the dispute instigated by the GF. Surely HSBC should have to remove the Default? Or are we flogging a dead horse on this one?

[johnnymitch]

Hi again mozz1

 

If you have paperwork to support these dates and events , then I'd say it should be worth another go .......... see my remarks on #123...

 

If you can build a case I'd say it's worth sticking with it .......... send copies of your paperwork to the CRA too and get FOS involved ..... it may set the CRA to regarding it as more urgent if you tell them you've taken it to FOS ...and if you've got a FOS Case No. to quote , so much the better ....

[car2403]

The problem here is that the CRA will only do what the Data Controller says, the FOS won't touch a Default complaint as they will say that the ICO should be contacted and all this to-ing and fro-ing really is just a big waste of time

[johnnymitch]

Thanks for that Car ,

 

So have you any advice to offer Mozz on this one , or are you saying best to forget it .........?

[Mozz1]

all this to-ing and fro-ing really is just a big waste of time

 

Not when you have a default on your credit report for 6 years it isn't. And particularly when that default should not nhave been registered because (a) it was during a dispute and (b) the bank was in breach of the Lending Code ignoring a repayment proposal and issuing the default regardless.

 

I have read elsewhere on here that the FOS have ordered Default Notices to be removed, is that wrong?

 

We have also complained to the ICO as well, at the same time. Havem't heard from them yet, just an acknowledgment letter.

 

We made the following points in the ICO complaint form:

 

1. HSBC neg in responding to the GF's written communications (her second letter in response to the 2nd excess notice even offered the bank money and a repayment proposal - ignored)

2. No termination notice was received

3. The bank had cancelled a repayment plan agreed 2 days after the default letter because the default was set in stone

4. Metroplitan instructed while a dispute was in progress

5. HSBC not compliant with OFT Determination and od was unenforceable

Edited August 26, 2010 by Mozz1
added info

[car2403]

My view hasn't changed - the Default should be challenged, but the FOS isn't the way to go. The only effective route is via the Court, which has it's challenges and pitfalls.

[johnnymitch]

Thanks again car , i see where you're coming from now ! takes me a little while sometimes .............

[Mozz1]

My view hasn't changed - the Default should be challenged, but the FOS isn't the way to go. The only effective route is via the Court, which has it's challenges and pitfalls.

 

Surely the court would expect my GF to have exhausted all other avenues first before suing the bank? ie HSBC's internal complaints process, the Foz and the ICO?

Would this be a small claims matter or would it have to go higer and involve lots of legal costs? I mean theirs, not ours, we'd manage our case ourselves.

[johnnymitch]

Surely the court would expect my GF to have exhausted all other avenues first before suing the bank? ie HSBC's internal complaints process, the Foz and the ICO?

 

You should certainly have a Final Letter from the bank saying this is their last word on the matter ..........

 

and it would help if you could be shown to have approached FOS or ICO and been told in writing that it wasn't their pigeon, or words to that effect .

Would this be a small claims matter or would it have to go higer and involve lots of legal costs? I mean theirs, not ours, we'd manage our case ourselves.

 

I'd say it was a small claims matter as there is no money involved .......only technicalities ...and of course , reputation .... would be up to the court , but I think it would be small claims ...... if it goes any other way there could be costs , but if you're in the right , it should be the bank who stands them .........

First things first though , I would suggest paying lip service to the requirements , so you can show you exhausted all avenues before going to court .....the court will appreciate that you tried

Edited August 27, 2010 by johnnymitch
trying to master this daft new site .............lol!

[car2403]

Surely the court would expect my GF to have exhausted all other avenues first before suing the bank? ie HSBC's internal complaints process, the Foz and the ICO?

Would this be a small claims matter or would it have to go higer and involve lots of legal costs? I mean theirs, not ours, we'd manage our case ourselves.

 

The Courts aren't daft - they know that these regulators are toothless in the sectors that they work in and don't or can't perform the tasks that they are assigned to in order to protect the consumer.

 

Ultimately, only a Court can take an over arching view of how a Default operates, as it covers consumer legislation combined with Data Protection law.

 

The Court will expect you to have exhausted all avenues before coming to them, but you've done that already and aren't getting the result that you need to, and can prove that others in your situation don't get results.

[Mozz1]

Having lodged complaint forms and copies of papers with the foz and ico we will see what happens. worst case is they do nowt (ash trays on motor bikes) and the default stays on 12 months while they investigate. we will then go to court for sure (no doubt about it). nothing to lose and if its small claims then the costs should have a ceiling (is it £500 + VAT and disbursements? I can't remember).

 

Experian have told us there is a dispute notice on the credit report and we are confident this can be kept on indefinitely or at least until court proceedings are finalised, one way or 'tother.

 

BTW, GF received this letter from HSBC:

 

I quote:

 

"1) Terms and conbditions are generic and do not constitute personal data as defined by the DPA 1998...Please also note that the current account is not a regulated agreement be3cause it provides no credit so there isno executed agreement.

"2) You requested details of the justification and explanations for manual intervention. Please note that our records are not structured in a way that will enable us to give a breakdown of any individual staff involevement in administering your accounts generally.

"3) Please note that a Default Notice [NB she used the word Default Notice] was issued to you prior to the account being written off to debt collection. DN's are produced by our computer system and we do not retain copies of them. We are not legally obliged to retain a copy of the DN and are only required to retain a record of it in our files. "

 

They go on to say that there were no charges or penalties (hard to believe over a ten year period) but there you go, and that the default letter serves as a termination notice.

 

Complete rot.

[Mozz1]

FOS have acknowleged my complaint. Nowt from ICO yet. This bollox just in from Experian:

 

Further to our recent correspondence, I have been contacted by HSBC Bank

regarding the account started on your credit report. They have advised

us that they are unable to amend/delete the entry in question at the current

time.

 

If you have any further queries or wish to discuss this further, may I suggest

you contact the company concerned direct at the following address:

 

The address to write to is as follows:

 

HSBC - Please contact your account holding branch

 

The following Notice of Dispute will remain on this entry for 28 days. It will

then be removed, unless we receive further notification from you:

 

"THE CONSUMER HAS DISPUTED THE ACCURACY OF THIS ENTRY AND WE HAVE THEREFORE

ASKED THE PROVIDER TO INVESTIGATE IT. GIVEN THAT THIS DATA IS DISPUTED, PLEASE

TAKE CARE IF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF ANY KIND THAT MAY INCLUDE THIS DATA."

 

Experian is unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the

company in question.

 

Please be assured that should they send us any further instructions regarding

this matter, we will act upon them accordingly.

 

Kind regards

[the_shadow]

Hi Mozz1, nothing surprising there I'm afraid...

 

ICO... slow as a snail... in fact I think a snail would beat them in a straght line race

 

As to CRA's, yep what they really mean translated is:-

 

"Our customer and major financial backer HSBC says the data is good so stick that where the sun doesnt shine matey"

 

Unfortunately if challanged they will state the DPA says the data has to be recorded accurate and the lender is responsible for providing accurate data not the CRA... dont think its ever been tested in court but these companies are big businesses and have lots of deep pockets and friends

 

Just need the FOS and ICO to respond fully and then you can decide the next step

 

S.

[Mozz1]

Totally agree. And the real p*ss take is that her dispuite Notice is in a tiny tab that you have to click on below the big, bold red DEFAULT details.

 

If it can be limitred to the small claims court then we'll go that route. The worry is theat the DJ says its too complicated and chucks it off onto a higher track (remeber, there's no money in dispute now, this is all about the damage HSBC have done to the GF's credit rating).

[car2403]

Totally agree. And the real p*ss take is that her dispuite Notice is in a tiny tab that you have to click on below the big, bold red DEFAULT details.

 

If it can be limitred to the small claims court then we'll go that route. The worry is theat the DJ says its too complicated and chucks it off onto a higher track (remeber, there's no money in dispute now, this is all about the damage HSBC have done to the GF's credit rating).

 

Those Notice of Corrections aren't worth the paper they are printed on. (Fair enough, no paper, but you know what I mean) Almost all Creditors use automated credit scoring including credit references, which wouldn't look at the details of the NOC on your CRA file. You'd have to appeal an automated decision to a real human, who can still turn you down as you don't score highly on their system. (Including not having to disclose if the Default is causing the issue or not) These CRA's really need taking to task on this, as it's a shocker.

 

I think you'll struggle to keep such a claim on SCT if there's no monetary value involved - it will likely be a CPR Part 8 claim for specific performance, (removal of the Default) rather than a financial claim to recover monies. You could say that the damages were less than £5k, hence it should be on SCT, but the Court may decide otherwise. This was the reason I didn't settle my Default issues before challenging them in Court and I think that Courts are more switched on to these types of claims these days.

 

Someone should start a petition...

[Guest HeftyHippo]

On another thread, a member had a decision from the ICO that a CRA was "joint data controller" and so was jointly responsible for the data. It is standard fare for CRA to claim they cannot amend the data. It may be worthwhile getting clarification from the ICO that a CRA is a data controller, then after you raise the matter with the CRA, you can take legal action against them as well

[car2403]

On another thread, a member had a decision from the ICO that a CRA was "joint data controller" and so was jointly responsible for the data. It is standard fare for CRA to claim they cannot amend the data. It may be worthwhile getting clarification from the ICO that a CRA is a data controller, then after you raise the matter with the CRA, you can take legal action against them as well

 

To be honest, it's splitting hairs a little, as they are technically a data controller, but they claim they aren't in control of it, so can't change it. They only process what they are given.

 

I'd think suing a CRA would be quite expensive, as you'd have to have the original data controller as a secondary defendant, meaning twice the costs should you go on to lose.

 

They will also fight back as they will want to keep their commercially sensitive relationship to themselves, I'd imagine.

[johnnymitch]

Hi Car !I totally agree the CRA's need to be regulated much better than they are .

 

They take the word of the Creditor without verifying if it is true ..... and they are so intransigent when it turns out to be wrong ......

 

If you want to start a petition , I'll definitely sign it and I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of others on here will too .....

[car2403]

We did this before, CAGgers not CAG, and didn't get many signatories - I'm sure we didn't reach the minimum number to be presented to the Government.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

To be honest, it's splitting hairs a little, as they are technically a data controller, but they claim they aren't in control of it, so can't change it. They only process what they are given.

 

I'd think suing a CRA would be quite expensive, as you'd have to have the original data controller as a secondary defendant, meaning twice the costs should you go on to lose.

 

They will also fight back as they will want to keep their commercially sensitive relationship to themselves, I'd imagine.

 

Oh well, lets all give up then and stop whinging about rule breaking, lies dishonestry etc.

 

I don't see it was splitting hairs. A CRA says they cannot change the data and that it isn't theirs. The ICO has said they ARE a data controller. Therefore they CAN change the data.

 

Such misleading claims should be challenged and their dishonest publicised. How can a dishonest company be trusted with so much data? How can the Goverement consider allowing these CRAs to report suspected benefits fraud when they are shown to be dishonest?

 

On another thread when the member took action against the CRA, the CRA amended the data as soon as they received the court papers. As the CRA cannot be sure what their banking pal tells them is actually true (we know the banks get it wrong, I am sure the CRAs and DCAs know it also) why would they risk being held responsbile for damages?

 

Their bluff that they can't change the details is a good stone wall, it forces people back to the bank who know that very few people have a concrete case, even fewer have the guts for legal action, and fewer still know how to do it, and even fewer solcitors would know better and they would play safe and advise aganst legal action.

[car2403]

Oh well, lets all give up then and stop whinging

 

If we did that, we wouldn't be CAG...

[Mozz1]

Car, did you win your cases?

[car2403]

Car, did you win your cases?

 

All Defaults removed except one

[Mozz1]

Car, which track/s were your cases allocated to and why?

 

If we take HSBC to court, are you willing to help guide us?

[car2403]

Small claims track - I had low balances and only claimed a limited amount of damages. if you search for threads with my username in, you'll see them all on CAG.

 

Of course, as will others assist