HSBC T&Cs HERE

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

As we havn't come across any t/c's for 1989 - it would be ok for me to use the closest to it ('96) yes? and highlight the bits you think are most relevant?

Thanks

Sha

 

When is the earliest charge you are claiming for? My understanding is that if it's post '96 then you won't need the earlier T&Cs.

 

I assume that at least some of the charges you are claiming for were taken since 96? If so, then you will definitely need T&Cs from 96 or later to cover those.

 

Basically, you need T&Cs covering all times that charges you are claiming for were taken. So if you are claiming for pre-96 charges, there is a currently a bit of a gap in your evidence, but I wouldn't worry too much.

 

Unless HSBC produce the older T&Cs in evidence, the likelihood is that the court will have to go with the assumption that they were similar in relevant respects before 96.

 

In other words, they will very probably give you the benefit of the doubt - because it's more likely that the older T&Cs were basically the same than that there was some unknown difference which just happens to undermine your case. This is especially true because the T&Cs didn't change significantly for ten years after 96 - until the recent rewrite last December, which was obviously a response to our claims!

 

So even if HSBC did produce them you would probably be OK, because it really is very likely that the older T&Cs will turn out to be much the same as the 96 ones in all relevant respects.

 

You can highlight the relevant passages and/or make a note of them and/or paste the text into a document, but if it comes to going to court, the most important thing is to make sure you understand what they prove and how it is relevant to your case. Its important even if you don't get to court You may already have it clear in your mind, but if not, and anyway for the sake of anyone else who might want clarification, I've updated the summary at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/95312-hsbc-t-cs-here.html#post883209 to make it clear what I think the significance of the key terms is.

 

So if in doubt, look at that post.

 

Also keep an eye out for the official CAG HSBC T&Cs post, which may be appearing sometime soon. In the meantime, hope this helps.

 

cheers, stax

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

 

 

 

[stax68]

 

[stax68]

Stax - this is absolutely wonderful. You've made an old girl very happy! .

 

Is there any chance of making this a sticky rather than a thread?

 

Not in my power to, but hopefully something is in the pipeline.

[stax68]

All the T&Cs collected so far are now available in PDF format.

Links are in post #1.

[stax68]

I don't think you need T&Cs from account opening time - but there is a bit of a deafening silence from the mods on this issue...

[stax68]

You can always use the PDF files which are linked in post #1. Save them to your computer, then open them with adobe reader (this is available for free download on the web if you don'tr already have it) and print them out. Since I've added PDFs, the images are a bit redundant really. It's alot less fiddly to print out one file per document rather than one image per page.

 

If you do wnat to use the images: if you can view them you should be able to print them - by right-clicking on them and selecting 'print', for example. How are you viewing them? What happens when you try to print them? It shouldn't be necessary to use Word, anyway.

 

Will the courts accept Word documents though?

 

It wouldn't look like a word document once it's printed out - just a printout of an image. If they will accept a photocopy, presumably they will accept a printout that looks like a photo or a scan. That's the beauty of the adversarial system: the courts can pretty much assume everything is as it seems unless it is challenged by the other side - which the T&Cs won't be.

 

(Mind you, Judge Poole in the infamous Lloyd's case apparently forgot he was in a common law jurisdiction. He seems to have had a rush of blood to the head, and started behaving like some sort of inquisitor. No-one expected that!)

[stax68]

Not at all stupid - exactly the question you should be asking. You certainly want to show that the charges are made because you have breached the t&c's. Without showing that, you probably wouldn't be able to argue that they are penalties.

 

Some ideas here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/95312-hsbc-t-cs-here.html#post883209, but read the T&Cs yourself, and make sure you can identify the relevant bits from each version that applies to your claim.

 

Some people are only including the relevant pages from T&Cs in their bundles. You could highlight the relevant clauses, and you certainly want to have a document quoting the text of those clauses with your account of what each clause shows. Make sure you are clear on the issues involved and how each relates to the overall argument. You should be able to explain your overall case, referring to your Particulars of Claim, and identify the evidence and legal authorities (cases and Acts/regulations) supporting each point you make.

 

Then you will be the best position to decide what to include in your bundle and how to put it all together. Even though there is almost no chance that you actually will end up in court, you can expect to speed things up if you show that you know exactly what you are doing. Remember the bank will try and delay paying until (a) you give up, (b) a trial is about to start, or © it becomes clear to them that you are ready, willing and able to argue the case in court with a realistic prospect of success.

[stax68]

The extracts were supplied by DG, HSBCs in-house solicitors. You should probably use the 96 ones too as they are complete and may have been in effect when you opened your account. Save them all, and if/when you need to produce your court bundle, print them off and include them. Make sure you understand which bits are relevant. There's some advice on that in this thread.