N1 help re CCA request failure and Default Notice non-disclosure

[un1boy]

Self regulation......dont ya just love it!

 

Engineers and scientists will never make as much money as banking executives will.

Now, for the first time we have a rigid Mathematical proof that explains why this is in fact true.

Postulate 1: Knowledge is power.

Postulate 2: Time is money.

As every Engineer knows, Work / Time = Power

Since Knowledge = Power, and Time = Money, we have Work / Money = Knowledge

Solving for Money, we get: Work / Knowledge = Money Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero,

Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of work done.

 

 

Conclusion: The less you know, the more you make.

 

Interesting post, Smoothy-lad!

[un1boy]

I have just had this response from TS:

 

Bear in mind that they have failed to supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions relevant at the time and so have breached the requirements of that act and my sec 78 request.

 

[/size][/font]

 

I want to reply to this but would really appreciate some help and ideas from everyone

 

Thanks.

 

Ok, so in terms of TS's reply:

 

Further to your request for further investigation into your complaint. Having looked at Section 78 of the CCA it would appear that you have requested a copy of the Default Notice. xxx have correctly stated that they are not obliged to forward a copy of this document. Section 78 does not require them to do this.

They have provided a copy of request form and a signed copy of the Credit Agreement which stated that you have read and agree to be bound by the Terms and Conditions Attached.

As previously stated if they do not put the APR on your agreement then that agreement could be unenforceable in the Civil Courts.

With regards to a prosecution we look at all the circumstances and do not prosecute on every complaint. We do not feel that there are sufficient circumstance to institute an investigation against xxx.

If you have any specific issues regarding a debt or debt counselling you can contact our Consumer Advice Centre on

 

I want to send one back saying the following:

________

 

Dear Trading Standards Man,

 

Thanks for your email.

 

My request under sec 78 was a full sec 78 request whih included the production of the alleged default notices which I have not received. The ICO are invesdtigating this issue and HSBC will be required to prove that they sent the alleged default notices and that complied to the relevant section of the CCA.

 

As you may be aware, HSBC have still failed to satisfy my sec 78 request and may have commited an offence as they have still not sent the terms an conditions which were relevant at the time of the alleged agreement and they also failed to send a statement of account - which are both requirements of the sec 78 request.

 

It is this breach that I would appreciate Trading Standards investigating as I believe this is a serious offence for them to have commited. Is is over 6 months since my original request and I am still not in receipt of the documentation required under the Act.

 

It is for this reason that I believe Trading Standards should investigate the possibilities of a prosecution.

_____

 

How does that sound?

[un1boy]

**Bump** for the above guys (now that email notifications are working again!)

[pford]

damm about time was a hard job keeping up without it

[pford]

just re read last few posts where screwed. they say they sent it tough **** thats it they don't have to prove it? ye it is logged on our sytem that our computer sent it on xx date f""k you. we don't have to keep a copy.

just got to prove it been sent???????????????? ye my computer says it sent a mr tight git a default on x date so it is true

[un1boy]

just re read last few posts where screwed. they say they sent it tough **** thats it they don't have to prove it? ye it is logged on our sytem that our computer sent it on xx date f""k you. we don't have to keep a copy.

just got to prove it been sent???????????????? ye my computer says it sent a mr tight git a default on x date so it is true

 

I know, crazy isn't it?

 

Shall I send him this as a reply? (I've changed it a bit):

 

Dear Trading Standards Man,

 

Thanks for your email.

 

My request under sec 78 was a full sec 78 request which included the production of the alleged default notices which I have not received. The ICO are invesdtigating this issue and HSBC will be required to prove that they sent the alleged default notices and that complied to the relevant section of the CCA.

 

If HSBC did indeed send the Notices, which I did not receive, they have also failed to prove to me that they complied with section 89 of the CCA, despite my various requests. I was under the understanding that Default Notices had to comply with section 89, otherwise the relevant issuer committed an offence under the act.

 

As you may be aware, HSBC have still failed to satisfy my sec 78 request and may have commited an offence as they have still not sent the terms an conditions which were relevant at the time of the alleged agreement and they also failed to send a statement of account - which are both requirements of the sec 78 request.

 

It is this breach that I would appreciate Trading Standards investigating as I believe this is a serious offence for them to have commited. Is is over 6 months since my original request and I am still not in receipt of the documentation required under the Act.

 

In summary, HSBC have committed two offences under the CCA:

 

1.They have failed to send default notices.....if they did send them, they have failed to prove that the specific ones tey sent complied with section 89.

 

2. They have failed, after 6 moths, to satisfy my section 78 request by providin terms and conditions and a statement of account.

 

It is for this reason that I believe Trading Standards should investigate the possibilities of a prosecution.

 

All comments appreciated.

 

I want to send this today really....

[un1boy]

damm about time was a hard job keeping up without it

 

I know tell me about it!!

[un1boy]

just re read last few posts where screwed.

 

Pford, can you explain what you mean by the above? You are screwed?

[carderuk]

Pford, can you explain what you mean by the above? You are screwed?

 

Im getting the same responce from TS as you are. Its up to us to prove that the bank is wrong

[un1boy]

Im getting the same responce from TS as you are. Its up to us to prove that the bank is wrong

 

What is the point of them?

 

I have reported it to the ICO - now, they'll have to prove it to them, surely?

 

I am gonna start putting together POC's for this now - I can prove to the Judge that I have been writing to HSBC since Aug 2006, that I've got TWS etc involved too, so he should realise I've done all I can to avoid legal action....

[Smoothy]

Un1,

apart from the odd smelling mistake the letter looks fine mate!

Question is, will it do any good?

[un1boy]

Un1,

apart from the odd smelling mistake the letter looks fine mate!

Question is, will it do any good?

 

Cheers Smoothy,

 

To be honest, it doesn't matter - if they don't do anyhthing and this does go to court, the Judge can see that I have exhausted everything - I will also sent the details to the OFT, or the head of TS so that they can be made aware of the situation....

 

Worth a try, eh?

[Smoothy]

I just find it galling that the consumer has to do the job they are meant to. Makes me wanna scream!

[un1boy]

I just find it galling that the consumer has to do the job they are meant to. Makes me wanna scream!

 

I know, tell me about it....but, if eveyone in this situation notified the OFT of it, surely something would get done?

 

I'm also gonna write to my MP explaining about it, asking why we have to do all the work that a govenrment department should be doing in order to enforce legislation made by this government in order to protect the consumer....

[Smoothy]

Perhaps a petition is in order demanding the government force their departments to do the job they are employed too....or maybe thats just asking for too much?!!

[un1boy]

Perhaps a petition is in order demanding the government force their departments to do the job they are employed too....or maybe thats just asking for too much?!!

 

Lol, do you really think that they will listen?

[Smoothy]

Do they ever??

[un1boy]

Nope

[un1boy]

I have just come across the following:

 

1.4 What is covered by the s74 determination?

A determination under s74(3) was made by the OFT with effect from 1 February 1990. It applies to d-c agreements enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a ‘bank’ as defined in the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, provided that certain conditions are satisfied – see Q1.5.

A separate determination was made in respect of certain agreements connected with the death of a person.

Copies of the determinations may be obtained from the OFT.

Agreements covered by a s74(3) determination, and satisfying the relevant conditions, are exempt from most Part V rules including s61(1) on execution. However, the Agreements Regulations will apply to any document embodying such an agreement, and to any term expressed in writing – see Q1.2.

 

Agreement reg

 

Section 127(3) precludes the court from making an enforcement order if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with, unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor or hirer. Section 127(4) precludes the making of an enforcement order if certain provisions relating to cancellation were not complied with.

 

 

Now, I have been advised that I should ask for a true copy of the original current account agreement.

 

I'll put together a reply to HSBC's Solicitor's letter saying that I want a copy of the agreement.

 

Should I send that to the DCA (MCS) or to the sols, or both?

 

I will refuse to acknowledge the OD as unless they can provide the original agreement, the agreement deosn't conform to sec 61 and is unenforcable by virtue of sec 127(3).

[Smoothy]

Doesnt really matter i guess....

“creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

[un1boy]

Oooh, I just realised, I haven't posted the sols reply....hehe, I'll do it tonight when I get in!!!

[un1boy]

Doesnt really matter i guess....

 

Ah ha, thanks.

 

Now, MCS are an "in-house" DCA so are owned by HSBC.

 

If I did a sar request to them in paricular, that would show me all the notes and stuff, wouldn't it? And the notes that say it is on hold because the agreement is unenforcable??? See where I am going?

 

They can't send me the details on HSBC's systems, can they?

 

I will write back to MCS in response to the sols letter, and CC the sols too.

 

They have sent it from their sols to make it look more official, but basically says the same as their last letters - do they not remember that I have sued them for bank charges recently and I am not "scared" off that easily?

 

Sheesh!!

[Smoothy]

As far as I am aware under a SAR , they must send all details held on file about you. That includes automatic and manual intervention (includes handwritten notes)

[un1boy]

As far as I am aware under a SAR , they must send all details held on file about you. That includes automatic and manual intervention (includes handwritten notes)

 

Good, I'll get the Sar written today and sent tomorrow for the DCA....we will see what they supply.

 

I don't trust them though- I won't get everything....

[Smoothy]

BTW...you aint skiiving already are you?!!!!