Sytra v HSBC (Business Acc) ***WON***

[Castlebest]

Hiya Sytra thats very odd, does your wife have a separate account with HSBC or one of the HSBC companies like First Direct? I cant think why they would send you a letter like that.

from our records it would appear that they were at one time in your employ (she has never been employed or even linked with the area in question)

Get your wife to call them or write to them asking where they get their information.

pete

[sytra]

No she has no other accounts with them.. cant really call them as the letter was addressed to someone else.

Sytra

[Castlebest]

someone else at your address?... has someone else ever been at your address?

pete

[sytra]

Yes it was addressed to a private school at our address, have checked on the net and it is a school in bournemouth.

The reason we opened it was that we reckognised the postcode on the envelope, and we could only see the address not a name, so just assumed it was for my wife....

There was someone at our address bt that was years ago, we have been here for 4 yrs, the old people before us were here for 10 yrs, the guy that owns the house lives in wales and hong kong.

so confused

Sytra

[Castlebest]

I'm confused too, I cant see why they would try to contact your wife through a previous employer when they have your address, I can see no point in writing the letter they have sent.

pete

[sytra]

Pleae can someone take a look at this letter i intend to take to the court on monday.

Started a claim against HSBC they acknowledged and had until 26th Feb to file a defence, we sent a judgment by default as we heard nothing from them on the last thing on the 26th.

Then this morning got a letter from the court saying claim is stayed, the judges words "i am not prepared to assume that the outcome of the action presently before the higher court will not bear upon or offer guidance on the issues to be joined in this case. The action is accordingly stayed"

I intend to take this letter to the court first thing monday, in the hopes that the judge will lift the stay without having to pay, i borrowed the letter above.


I write with reference to your letter dated 27th Feb 2008 in which you state the case I have brought against HSBC is being stayed.

I would respectfully bring your attention to the fact that as this is a small business claim the current OFT test case has no bearing on this case, I am not claiming as per UTCCR which is the reason behind the OFT’s case, this is clearly stated in my particulars of claim.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following statement issued by the FSA, in particular the paragraph on page 2 which is highlighted in red:

FSA publishes review of 'waiver' on the handling of complaints in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges


FSA/PN/119/2007
21 November 2007
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has completed its review of the 'waiver' of its complaints handling rules in the context of unauthorised overdraft charges. The waiver removes the obligation to deal with unauthorised overdraft charges complaints in the time specified under FSA rules. The FSA has concluded that the waiver is operating effectively and can remain in place.
The waiver was granted on 27 July 2007 to support the test case on unauthorised overdraft charges brought in the High Court by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The purpose of the test case is to bring certainty on whether these charges are fair and lawful. The waiver requires complaints to be put on hold until certainty is established and complaints about these charges can be dealt with consistently and fairly. The FSA pledged to review the waiver after two months.
Following detailed examinations of firms' compliance with the conditions of the waiver and extensive consultations with consumer groups and other stakeholders, the FSA has established that the waiver is meeting its four key requirements:
· An effective stay of proceedings in the courts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in place;
· The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is likewise staying cases about unauthorised overdraft charges;
· Firms granted the waiver are complying with its conditions, including the need for clear communications with customers and appropriate handling of financial difficulty cases; and
· The continuation of the waiver remains appropriate to assist the test case.
Clive Briault, FSA Managing Director, Retail Markets, said:
"The test case between the OFT and the firms is a crucial step in establishing certainty about the legality and fairness of unauthorised overdraft charges. When this certainty has been established complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges can be dealt with consistently and fairly.
"The waiver we granted in July allowed firms to put complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges on hold until these complaints could be dealt with consistently and fairly. But it was important to review the operation of this waiver to ensure that it was working as intended. Our thorough review shows that it is appropriate for the waiver to remain in place.”
Particular concerns had been raised during the review period about the position under the waiver of complainants who may be in financial difficulty. The FSA is satisfied that the relevant part of the waiver is being complied with. However, in view of the importance of this issue, the FSA will carry out further work, in conjunction with the Banking Code Standards Board (BCSB), to check that firms continue to provide appropriate treatment of consumers in genuine financial difficulty.
The waiver review confirms that it remains appropriate for the waiver to continue to apply to consumers in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The review has also clarified the status of small business accounts, which are not covered by the waiver. The FSA has agreed with the firms arrangements to ensure small business customers are not disadvantaged.
In the course of the review the FSA found that a number of firms had changed their terms and conditions in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'. The FSA will be closely monitoring how any change made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver.
The test case is expected to start in January 2008.

As you can see in the eyes of the FSA and myself this case should not have been stayed, I would also like to point out that as HSBC (DG Solicitors) are well aware of the fact that this case has no relation whatsoever to the current OFT case.

I respectfully request that you sincerely look again at this case.

Yours Faithfully

Any ideas or feedback?

[sytra]

Ok do DG have any idea what they are playing at?

Even though we have a claim going through against them at the moment they have sent another letter this morning saying

"unless an immediate payment is made, we will be instructing Debt Collectors to employ other methods of recovery, which may include calls at your address"

"If you are able to raise £xxx from other sources, our clients would be prepared to accept this as Full & Final, provided payment is made within 10 days"

Now i thought that:

1) while a claim was in court (even though just been stayed) they couldnt carry on collection activity?
2) It was aginst the law to ask you to raise the funds from other sources (as i read it they are asking us to borrow money to pay them)

The value they will accept as F&F is virtually the same as i am claiming back give or take a couple of £....

???????????????????????? DG

Sytra

[freakyleaky]

As it has not been proved that the ammount they are claiming from you is made up of unlawful charges they will see it as a legitimate claim for an outstanding debt regardless of any action you are taking against them.

But the short answer is NO they don't know what they are doing half the time.

Give them a ring or write them a letter telling them that you will clear the outstanding debt once they have returned your charges.

[sytra]

The saga continues................ .....

Today (22/3) received a letter from Central Debt Recovery demading total amount or doorstep representative will call... thing is letter was dated 13th March giving us till 21st to pay money the money we are claiming from them.

also tried to get the stay on the claim lifted but with no luck, the judge is adamant that the outcome of the test case "will have a direct relation to business claims"

Sytra

[Castlebest]

Hiya Sytra, HSBC should not have sold this debt to central debt recovery while it is in dispute.

Write back to CDR and tell them that the debt is subject to a county court claim that has been stayed, give them the claim number also have a look at this thread regarding threats of doorstep recovery.

Metropolitan Collection Services - Action on a stayed claim

pete

[sytra]

Thankyou for that, dont know how i missed that thread ,will get letter in post first thing Tuesday..

[zootscoot]

Thread moved to new forum for business claims

[sytra]

OK another update....... WON.............

HSBC settled without going to court, the full amount we were claiming for.

Sytra

[freakyleaky]

Excellent news. Congratulations.

[steven4064]

CONGRATULATIONS Sytra - well done