HDR - v - HSBC

[Dougal16T]

Thanks Pete,

 

YOUR GOOD WISHES ARE VERY WELCOME....!

 

BREAKING NEWS - HAD ANSWERPHONE MESSAGE FROM JASON NEWBOLD AT DG SOLICITORS ON FRIDAY LAST....WANTED TO SPEAK TO ME.....!!!

I CALLED HIM TODAY (MONDAY)....I LEFT MESSAGE.....HE CALLED BACK....

(IS THIS CALLED BUILDING UP THE SUSPENSE???!!)...AND GUESS WHAT -

HE 'WANTED TO APOLOGISE FOR THE WAY THE COURIER BEHAVED, IN LEAVING THE (HSBC) TRIAL BUNDLE AGANIST MY DUSTBIN' AND THE REASON FOR THE COMPLAINT, 'FRESHFIELDS HAVE BEEN ONTO US' HE SAID!!!

I ASKED HIM IF HE WISHED TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT...ANSWER WAS 'I HAVE NO INSTRUCTIONS TO THAT EFFECT'.....I ASKED HIM - 'WHY DON'T DG SEND AT LEAST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED?'.....I ASKED-'IS IT COMPANY POLICY?'....HE SAID 'IT IS NOT POLICY, BUT WE ARE SO BUSY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE'....MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW....IN BUSINESS IF SOMEONE WRITES TO YOU ETIQUETTE DICTATES YOU AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THE LETTER!

 

Finally best wishes to you all......

 

ps: Their Trial Bundle is not indexed, is not 'clearly labelled on the outside cover and on the spine showing the case reference number, Parties and the Court.' It also contains 5 sets (copies of different years) of the 'Terms of business for Students and graduates' 5 sets (also of different years) of those for Premier Banking!! 'Documents must not be duplicated unneccessarily and documents that are irrelevant must not be included'Those in italics are the guidelines by HMCS.

Did DG adhere to this - OF COURSE NOT!!

[pinkduchess]

interesting

 

& an entertaining read dougal - keep it up

[lateralus]

so, guess who's bundle will look more professional? the underdog!! yeah!!! hope the judge notices and comments - that would be hysterical.

 

and how did old jase know it was left by the dustbin and that you weren't happy - is he reading these threads????

[jailbird]

Hi Dougal

 

 

Latty do you mean Jason who is a 's****horpe' resident of HSBC !

 

I have thought for quite a while they are watching. The bar stewards. Shame they have not got the B.. guts to let us know tho.

 

Dougal......what a great thread

 

I have 'howled' laughing at times. HSBC are becoming more unbelievable as times goes on. I really wish you luck and cant wait for the next installment !

 

Best wishes

 

Chris:D

[lateralus]

yes, he has a way with words doesn't he!

[Rayne]

This has to be one of the best threads I've read on any forum anywhere for a long time. HSBC and DG not only keep repeatedly showing their total ineptitude, but the OP shows us all that with some work and preparation we can all carry on the fight even in the face of this OFT case.

 

Well done Dougal, you're doing everyone here proud and being an inspiration for all. Keep it up fella

[Dougal16T]

GOOD MORNING TO ALL OF MY FELLOW CAG MEMBERS.......

 

 

Just a short note to say thanks to everyone for their good wishes and kind comments......I could NOT have got this far without EVERYONE's support, guidance and encouragement.

 

KEEP SMILING.......(it makes people wonder what you've been up to!! )

 

All the best.....Howard (aka Dougal...!)

 

Thoughts on HSBC - Will they......or won't they.......I wonder.......my motto: 'NEVER UNDERSTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT'......

[Domant]

Brillant thread, have learned loads will continue to keep up as you are further on than myself, i am currently objecting to their application to set aside a judgement and stay poceedings

 

Steph

[Dougal16T]

UPDATE ..... DG FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE STAY BEING LIFTED ON 13/9/2007..IT WAS FILED OUT OF TIME (BUT MAY STILL BE HEARD). FOR INTEREST OF THE FORUM I SET OUT MOST OF THE 'APPELLANT'S NOTICE' :

 

7. It is unfortunate that in this case, the Defendant missed the deadline for an application for permission to appeal Deputy District Judge Parkes' decision to lift the stay (Monday 10th September). It therefore files its application for permission to appeal two days late on this, Wednesday

12th September.

 

7. The Defendant requests that since:

a.The request for an extension of time has been made promptly

in this case and the Defendant is only 1 day out of time;

b.The failure to apply for permission to appeal within the 21 day

deadline was not intentional;

c.The oversight is the result simply of the current volume of

claims which are being issued and which are ongoing, against

the Defendant; and

d.The Defendant has otherwise complied with the directions of

the court made on 20th August;

the Court extend the time limit for applying for permission to appeal by two days.

 

BLESS THEM THEY ARE TRYING....aren't they!!

Skeleton Argument: (Extract)

Grounds of Appeal

1. It is submitted that the Judge was wrong to allowing the Claimant's application to lift the stay. He ought to have held that the overriding objective would best be promoted by the continued imposition of a stay of these proceedings, for the following reasons:

a.The grant of the stay pending the outcome of the Commercial Court

Proceedings would in fact permit them to be dealt with on an equal

footing (CPR l.l(2)(a)), since the issues raised by the Claimant will be

litigated by the OFT who have a team of professional lawyers. It is

therefore more likely that there will be equality of arms in the

Commercial Court proceedings than there will be at the hearing of this

claim.

b.To await the outcome of the Commercial Court Proceedings would

actually save the Claimant expense (CPR l.l(2)(b)); even if he were to

incur no further expenses in preparing for and attending the hearing on

contained an income and expenditure questionnaire , so as to enable the Defendant to assess how the Claimant's alleged financial difficulties should most appropriately be dealt with by the Bank. The Claimant has not responded to this letter, nor has he provided evidence of his alleged financial hardship in the form of detailed information as to his financial circumstances, either to the Defendant or to the Court; he has simply relied on assertions that, for example, he is on state benefits, in support of this claim. This does not establish a proper basis for the Claimant's application to lift the stay, If the Claimant does indeed suffer from financial difficulties, it does not follow that the stay of proceedings should be lifted; the right course of action is for the issue of financial difficulty to be assessed and if appropriate addressed in the normal way;

b.The Claimant has provided no reason why such alleged financial

hardship is the result of the deduction of charges from his account with

the Defendant, such deductions totalling no more than £3,738.27;

c.The Claimant has provided no evidence that such alleged financial

hardship would be alleviated if his claim against the Defendant were to

succeed (for example the Defendant understands that, mortgage

possession proceedings currently being brought against the Claimant

are due to take place before his claim against the Defendant is in fact

listed to be heard).

The Judge was therefore wrong to find as a fact (if he did so) that the Claimant would suffer financial hardship unless the stay were lifted, because there was no evidence before the Court to support such a finding. In addition, alleged financial hardship is more properly dealt with in accordance with the Defendant's obligations under the Banking Code.

Moreover, any financial hardship of the Claimant would not be alleviated by the lifting of the stay since, as set out in paragraph 1 (d) above, these proceedings, even if eventually won by the Claimant, are highly unlikely to be resolved before or any significant time before the Commercial Court Proceedings themselves. [THIS LOOKS LIKE AN EFFORT TO AVOID PAYING. .OR AT LEAST TELLING ME I'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR MY MONEY!! CHEEKY ...MY FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS HAVING THE HOUSE REPOSSESSED AND BEING HOMELESS...PERHAPS THIS DOES NOT COUNT!!! ]AND IF THEY HAD PAID ME WHEN I FIRST ASKED I WOLD NOT BE HAVING THE HOUSE REPOSSESSED AS MY CLAIM EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BRING MY MORTGAGE UP TO DATE!!! ]

This allegation, even if substantiated is, therefore, irrelevant to the question whether it would be in accordance with the overriding objective to maintain the stay of these proceedings.

 

 

 

SORRY IT'S A LONG POST

BEST WISHES TO EVERYONE......JUST OFF TO MEET WITH THE BBC TO PLAN MONDAY'S FILMING!!!

THANKS CAG I COULD NOT HAVE GOT THIS FAR WITHOUT YOU - ALL OF YOU.

[Castlebest]

Hiya Dougal, just a few notes on DG's arguments know you have probably spotted there deliberate mistakes yourself already lol

 

 

7. It is unfortunate that in this case, the Defendant missed the deadline for an application for permission to appeal Deputy District Judge Parkes' decision to lift the stay (Monday 10th September). It therefore files its application for permission to appeal two days late on this, Wednesday 12th September.

Well thats an admission they cant keep to deadlines anyway lol

 

7. The Defendant requests that since:

a.The request for an extension of time has been made promptly

in this case and the Defendant is only 1 day out of time;

one day late is prompt now ?

b.The failure to apply for permission to appeal within the 21 day

deadline was not intentional;

why was it late then ?

c.The oversight is the result simply of the current volume of

claims which are being issued and which are ongoing, against

the Defendant; and

d.The Defendant has otherwise complied with the directions of

the court made on 20th August;

the Court extend the time limit for applying for permission to appeal by two days.

I thought they had been late with other things too ?

 

BLESS THEM THEY ARE TRYING....aren't they!! very !!!

Skeleton Argument: (Extract)

Grounds of Appeal

1. It is submitted that the Judge was wrong to allowing the Claimant's application to lift the stay. He ought to have held that the overriding objective would best be promoted by the continued imposition of a stay of these proceedings, for the following reasons:

a.The grant of the stay pending the outcome of the Commercial Court

Proceedings would in fact permit them to be dealt with on an equal

footing (CPR l.l(2)(a)), since the issues raised by the Claimant will be

litigated by the OFT who have a team of professional lawyers. It is

therefore more likely that there will be equality of arms in the

Commercial Court proceedings than there will be at the hearing of this

claim.

This is just what they said last time

b.To await the outcome of the Commercial Court Proceedings would

actually save the Claimant expense (CPR l.l(2)(b)); even if he were to

incur no further expenses in preparing for and attending the hearing on

contained an income and expenditure questionnaire , so as to enable the Defendant to assess how the Claimant's alleged financial difficulties should most appropriately be dealt with by the Bank. Managed loan anyone ??? lol The Claimant has not responded to this letter, no well you can now you have seen it nor has he provided evidence of his alleged financial hardship in the form of detailed information as to his financial circumstances, either to the Defendant or to the Court; I thought you had this information at your last court appearance and the judge viewed it? he has simply relied on assertions that, for example, he is on state benefits, in support of this claim. so this is wrong This does not establish a proper basis for the Claimant's application to lift the stay, If the Claimant does indeed suffer from financial difficulties, it does not follow that the stay of proceedings should be lifted; the right course of action is for the issue of financial difficulty to be assessed and if appropriate addressed in the normal way; unfortunatly the bank has proved its is unfit to asses and help with financial hardship its only answer is a managed loan at extortionate interest rates.

b.The Claimant has provided no reason why such alleged financial

hardship is the result of the deduction of charges from his account with

the Defendant, such deductions totalling no more than £3,738.27;

that looks like a few months mortgage payments to me

c.The Claimant has provided no evidence that such alleged financial

hardship would be alleviated if his claim against the Defendant were to

succeed (for example the Defendant understands that, mortgage

possession proceedings currently being brought against the Claimant

are due to take place before his claim against the Defendant is in fact

listed to be heard). I thought you had but take the letters with you to prove it

The Judge was therefore wrong to find as a fact (if he did so) that the Claimant would suffer financial hardship unless the stay were lifted, because there was no evidence before the Court to support such a finding. In addition, alleged financial hardship is more properly dealt with in accordance with the Defendant's obligations under the Banking Code. they realy want you to have a managed loan dont they

Moreover, any financial hardship of the Claimant would not be alleviated by the lifting of the stay since, as set out in paragraph 1 (d) above, these proceedings, even if eventually won by the Claimant, are highly unlikely to be resolved before or any significant time before the Commercial Court Proceedings themselves. [THIS LOOKS LIKE AN EFFORT TO AVOID PAYING. .OR AT LEAST TELLING ME I'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR MY MONEY!! CHEEKY ... very cheeky

This allegation, even if substantiated is, therefore, irrelevant to the question whether it would be in accordance with the overriding objective to maintain the stay of these proceedings.

I think its up to the judge to decide this not DG

 

 

I would draft an answer to the above anyway Dougal then at least when the banks council try to get at you before the hearing you can just say "read that"

 

pete

[Dougal16T]

Good morning Pete, (and everyone else..)

 

Well it was until the Postman called received this in the mail today.....!!!.

 

General Form of Judgment or Order

To the Claimant

 

In the EASTBOURNE County

Court

Claim Number

7QZ62507 and 7QT1 1609

Claimant

(including ref.)

XXXXXXXX

Defendant

(including ref.)

Hsbc Bank Pic DX 712630 BIRMINGHAM

32

Date

17 September 2007

Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE RAMSDEN sitting at Eastbourne County Court, The Law Courts, Old Orchard Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 4-UN

Upon considering notice of appeal and upon considering C.P.R. 52(2) and C.P.R PD 52 parts 2a & 4

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Appellant's notice be served on claimant forthwith

2. Appellant's application for permission to appeal be referred to the Circuit Judge for decision/further directions

3. Final hearing listed for 24 September 2007 be vacated pending further directions from the Circuit Judge

Dated 14 September 2007

 

 

What a shame.!!!...I had a meeting with the BBC yesterday who confimed that this saga will be filmed for the 'Money' programme - spoke to them just now and they still will be filming..(when we get to Court!!!)...watch this space...!!!

 

"Tenacity is a virtue"

[Castlebest]

The plot thickens the TV bit should be fun as long as you don't get one of these "investigative" reporters who tries to shove his microphone under everyones nose and ask what he thinks are shocking questions and are actually a lame statement of how little he knows hopefully it will result in some good publicity for the current appalling state of affairs.

 

Good Luck Dougal !!!!

 

pete

[freakyleaky]

Yes good luck with the tv stuff! That should be an expeirience!

Just a bit concerned that you have detailed your personal stuff in the post above. If there is any identifying information in there you might want to edit it out. You never know what cranks may be trawling for personal information!

[lolly371]

hi dougal. i was wondering how you are getting along. you havent posted for a while. have there been any developments?

[Dougal16T]

Good Evening All...not much to report, just a hearing with about 20 other claimants, all against HSBC!! next week (Friday 12th at 10 a.m.) at Brighton County Court - when HSBC (aka Horrible Sly Backstabbers Club) - via DG - will argue to for leave to appeal their request for a stay to be re-imposed...Circuit Judge has allowed them five minutes and we have both had to file skeleton arguments!!!

 

Should be good for a laugh......

 

I'll keep you posted.............

 

THANKS TO EVERYONE - WITHOUT YOU I WOULD HAVE THROWN IN THE TOWEL - YOU ARE ALL WONDERFUL IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. NEWS FLASH HSBC REVEAL NEW MOTTO: 'TIS BETTER TO HAVE CUTOMERS WHO BORROWED AND LOST THAN NEVER TO HAVE CUSTOMERS WHO BORROWED AT ALL!' (with apologies to the Bard...)

[jowalshy]

Good luck Howard. Keep us posted.

[Dougal16T]

Well hello world....!

 

Last Friday 12th October I was before His Honour Judge Simpkiss at Brighton County Court, with 25 other cases (they were all applying to have their stays lifted - I think that happened to my Gran once, but I digress!!)

 

His Honour is the Circuit Judge for East Sussex and in my case HSBC were applying for leave to appeal my having had the stay lifted in August by Deputy District Judge Parkes...

 

Technically the Bank were 2 days out of time with their request.

 

However, this 'judge' :? told all 25 other applicants that he refused their applications (which were on the grounds of hardship in all cases, one elderly man was unable to walk without crutches, was about to lose his home due to excessive rent arrears, and was very badly physically disabled (breathing problems) and on the point of bankruptcy - but this was not hardship....????!!!!) as they would 'be better served by waiting for the OFT initial case in Jan 2008'.

 

There were nine Counsel in Court and a senior one of them spent over one and a half hours putting points of law to the Judge..counsel all nodded and I thought, 'I wanna be in your gang, your gang, your gang....' (apologies to Mr Gadd - but he got what he deserved - why can't we?

 

Despite my argument to the contrary, His Honour (what a load of....) then granted HSBC leave to appeal and then guess what (?)...he heard the appeal !! - I got ABSOLUTELY no warning about this he just brushed aside that the Bank were late with their request, ignored that THEY had failed to comply with orders of the Court previously, and told me that I would be in a better position in Jan 2008, once the initial case had been decided......

HOW HE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION IS A MYSTERY...BUT WHATEVER HE WAS 'ON' I'D LIKE SOME..!!

 

THE QUESTION IS - CAN I APPEAL THIS CIRCUIT JUDGE'S DECISION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO NOTICE GIVEN BY HIM, HE DID NOT ASK IF I CONSENTED TO HIS PROCEEDING AND HE THEREFORE HEARD THE APPEAL WITHOUT ME BEING ABLE TO PREPARE FULLY?

IF SO, WHO DO I APPEAL TO.......??

 

I'M STUCK AND NEED HELP..!!!.....

 

Best wishes to you all and all I can say is..........

 

 

Will someone please ask the fat lady to start singing!!!

 

Kind thoughts to all on CAG.

Dougal (aka Howard)

 

ps : can someone also pass this to the moderators for inclusion in the section 'having stays lifted' ? Thanks.

[jansus]

Oh Dougal

 

I really can not believe this - why did they bother to lift the stay and then do this?

 

Some scenarios - 1) the courts know something we dont and really think it will be in your interest not to proceed - maybe they believe the banks will attempt to overturn decisions after the case which might make you liable for costs - and therefore really do think they are doing you a favour?

2) they thought the waiver would avoid all these cases clogging up the system ( and who could blame them - but they should blame that on the banks - not the claimants) and are now thoroughly sick of it and want to deter others from proceeding

3) The courts have been warned off making any decisions which would jepordise the case ( by higher up authorities) as they may create a precedent that would over-ride the court case.

 

So please dont take the decision personally.

 

You also have to ask the serious question why are the banks paying huge costs to defend these stays when they could not even be bothered to defend the cases before and were paying out ( even though at the last minute)

 

Unfortunately I smell a deal coming up that will exonerate them from paying out backdated charges.

 

I am no legal expert and can not answer your questions but in view of the A&L success with support from the FOS - I would be tempted to switch to that track - you appear to be an example of a claimant that should be treated on a special basis - so what have you to lose . I am sure you have seen the A&L thread and here is a link to a suggested letter .

 

HOWEVER - this has not been in anyway approved or suggested by this site and is only in draft form for discussion - so I can not comment further.

An idea - any comments from mods and others?

 

 

I am really sorry to hear how your case went - but please dont give up yet.

 

Jan

[becci]

I'm so sorry to hear your report, Dougal. They really are pulling out all the dirty tricks in the book.

 

Best wishes

 

becci

[Castlebest]

I'm gutted for you Dougal

 

I have to agree with jansus, if you appeal now it could get very expensive for you the way forward has to be with the FOS, you have proved once in a court of law you are a hardship case so they have to look at your claim.

 

best of luck

 

pete

[freakyleaky]

This stinks!

Really sorry for you Dougal!

I also think an appeal at this stage could be risky as far as costs!

Good luck Dougal!

[jansus]

HI - I have just copied this later post from the A&L case - hope it helps

Jan

Hi,

 

In reply:-

 

My approach was to contact the bank by telephone first of all and argue that they had a duty to examine cases of genuine financial hardship.

 

Take a look at my entry dated 12th October 2007, posted at 13:19

 

The crux of my argument was to argue, initially during telephone calls, and subsequently in writing that.......

 

……….my position (confirmed via contact with the FOS and OFT) is merely that the agreement reached between the banks, FSA, FOS and OFT prior to the OFT v banks case being submitted to the High Court at the end of July clearly states that responsibility for determining and resolving a ‘hardship case’ lies with the bank, that the waiver granted to banks, allowing complaints re charges to be held pending the outcome of the High Court case does not apply to ‘hardship’ cases, and banks should therefore seek to identify and resolve such cases; further that where agreement cannot be reached between a customer and a bank the bank must issue a final response letter as a precursor to the FOS seeking to resolve matters.

 

I argued this point on a no. of occasions, first of all with the dept. that handled bank charges claims (in the case of A and L the Credit control dept., you need to find out who this will be with your bank) and thereafter with the Customer Care Team (likewise re determining the correct dept. in your bank) that took up my case, eventually successfully winning the day on my behalf.

 

It was necessary to ensure that the latter dept. accepted my arguments (during a telephone call) and once they had done so I faxed them a copy of the letter originally sent to the initial dept, (I have copied this letter into the aforementioned entry, namely the entry dated 12th October 2007, posted at 13:19)

 

As indicated, if you cannot determine which dept. you need to contact, seek the support of a PA in the Chief Exec.'s office.

 

Whilst you could go down the N244 route ( and to check I believe this would be an application to set the stay aside) it is only worth doing so if you are sure that the Court dealing with your claim is one of the Courts that is proceeding as normal, if it is a Court that is maintaining the stays until the outcome of the High Court case then obviously there is little benefit in pursuing this route. Alternatively, contacting the bank may be a quicker route, as you will not be delayed waiting for your N244 application to be considered.

 

Re the other option you mentioned, the advice I had from the FOS is that in the present climate you can only seek to gain their support once you have a final written response letter from the bank, and as indicated in several of my submissions, I seemed to succeed by using the request for the aforementioned letter as a bargaining tool with the bank, i.e., consider my case or you MUST provide me with a final written response which I will take to the FOS. Even at this stage (my experience) was that the banks do not wish to involve the FOS, and lo and behold they came up with an offer !

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the best, and keep at the buggers !

vbrep_register("1183952")

[freakyleaky]

Important! Calling all HSBC claimants!

[Castlebest]

Which one of us is doing this Freaky

 

pete

[freakyleaky]

Sorry Pete. I take it you have PM'd Dougal! I just thought I would try and put the info in as many places as pos. I will leave it to you now mate!

 

 

 

Important! Calling all HSBC claimants!