Mailman vs HSBC Round 2 - Defence Filed

[mailmannz]

HSBC has filed there defence, as below, so if anyone has any advice for how I counter their defence that would be most appreciated.

What I find most interesting is that they do not consider these fee’s default charges? Is that something that needs to be taken in to consideration?

Also as part of my rebuttal can I refer the court to my previous county court claim (£160) where HSBC paid out? This claim is for a mere £80.

Please note that all spelling and grammar errors are as per the letter I received from the county court J

Defence:

1. The claimants account is governed by the defendants personal and or business banking terms and conditions.

2.Pursuant to the Defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing and overdraft.

3. The defendant denies that the charges applied to the claimants account amount to penalties at common law and or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).

4. The charges applied to the claimants account are reasonable and properly and fully disclosed in the defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them; alternatively, they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further, the charges are not default charges and, accordingly, cannot amount to a penalty.

5. Save as set out above, each and every allegation made by the claimant is denied. For reasons set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Any help or advice would be most appreciated.

 

Regards

Mailman

[mailmannz]

Bump.

[lateralus]

just checking a couple of things then you can bump again.

when is your aq due?

have you had any contact with dg?

did you send your breakdown to them and if so, did you check that they received it?

i'm sure you are aware - they tend to close your acct after a 2nd claim - do you have another one lined up? if not, better do it quickly.

i'm sure you know all this but i'll put it here for you anyway.

Allocation Questionnaires - A guide to complet and this one:

New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

and my question:

yes, bong - been meaning to ask - does it mean just copy out that letter and attach to the n150/N149 along with it, anything else to do with it??

or is it the answer to one of the questions on the aq.

and bong's answer:

if its an N149 AQ at G (other information) write

 

I believe that the case will last no longer than one hour.

 

This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the attached draft direction be made into an order.

 

I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

 

If its an N150 AQ, at F tick yes and then no, and at H write the same text as above, but not the line about the case lasting for one hour as this has been answered elsewhere in the questionnaire.

 

You then attach the draft direction, making sure you have added your own case and court name and claim number etc.

__________________

hope that all helps - but get back with the answers to the first part - so we can advise. and by all means bump if you need more than what's here.