Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[steven4064]

The bank are right - they have never concealed their charges. They have, however, concealed the NATURE of their charges, ie that they are really penalties. They have always claimed they are charges for a service but we know (now) that they are just there to make a profit.

Furthermore, because you didn't know this at the time, you paid the charges thinking they were lawful when in fact they were not - in other words, you made a mistake. Recovery from a mistake is also covered by s32 of the Limitations Act 1980.

[photoman]

HSBC

Okay, it appears they are trying to throw you a red herring here, by pretending to misunderstand what is actually being alleged regards "concealment".
They probably never did actually conceal the charges.
They sent you letters regards them at the time, and probably also listed them on your statements.

But, what you are actually really pleading with regards concealment, is that the "true nature" of the charges was concealed.
Either:
They were presented as a legit recuperation of their "costs" (otherwise termed as "liquidated damages") involved with dealing with your breaches of contract..... whereas in actual fact they were really unlawful "penalties", but just presented to you and "disguised" or "cloaked" as "costs". ie: concealment.

Or, on the other hand, if they were actually presented to you as "fees" or "service charges". Then in such circumstances, one need's to ask them what "services" were provided, and to what benefit they were to you.... and if they then fail to do so, then cloaking or concealment is evidently still occurring. Concealment again.

This is why I asked, and it is important to determine how the charges were presented to you.
To be honest, I have only dealt with Lloyds, and in my own particular case the concealment was very easy to prove. I actually had sample letters which clearly stated that the "charges occurred as a result of their need to recuperate their extra costs involved in dealing with the matter"..... yet despite my subsequent requests, they still failed (or refused) to provide evidence or a breakdown of such costs.
I have had no direct dealings with HSBC, so without knowing how they actually presented these charges at the time, I cannot advise how to deal with their response.
Hopefully some others viewing this thread, who've dealt with HSBC will.

But it would still help if you could post some examples of how any letters you received at the time were phrased (or even just how they were listed on statements) ?

PM

PS: regards the rest of my earlier response, does it make sense ?

[photoman]

In fact, actually I would forget trying to use any past settlement, and the fact that any of it crossed over into pre 6 years, as your last settlement was probably given "without prejudice".
This means that it cannot be used as evidence of any admission on their behalf, so cannot be used as evidence of the fact that they consider the pre 6 years charges had any merit.

Just use the straightforward concealment angle, and do not over complicate matters by trying to bring past cases into the equation.

PM

[gaz2954]

Originally Posted by photoman

HSBC

Okay, it appears they are trying to throw you a red herring here, by pretending to misunderstand what is actually being alleged regards "concealment".
They probably never did actually conceal the charges.
They sent you letters regards them at the time, and probably also listed them on your statements.

But, what you are actually really pleading with regards concealment, is that the "true nature" of the charges was concealed.
Either:
They were presented as a legit recuperation of their "costs" (otherwise termed as "liquidated damages") involved with dealing with your breaches of contract..... whereas in actual fact they were really unlawful "penalties", but just presented to you and "disguised" or "cloaked" as "costs". ie: concealment.

Or, on the other hand, if they were actually presented to you as "fees" or "service charges". Then in such circumstances, one need's to ask them what "services" were provided, and to what benefit they were to you.... and if they then fail to do so, then cloaking or concealment is evidently still occurring. Concealment again.

This is why I asked, and it is important to determine how the charges were presented to you.
To be honest, I have only dealt with Lloyds, and in my own particular case the concealment was very easy to prove. I actually had sample letters which clearly stated that the "charges occurred as a result of their need to recuperate their extra costs involved in dealing with the matter"..... yet despite my subsequent requests, they still failed (or refused) to provide evidence or a breakdown of such costs.
I have had no direct dealings with HSBC, so without knowing how they actually presented these charges at the time, I cannot advise how to deal with their response.
Hopefully some others viewing this thread, who've dealt with HSBC will.

But it would still help if you could post some examples of how any letters you received at the time were phrased (or even just how they were listed on statements) ?

PM

PS: regards the rest of my earlier response, does it make sense ?

Hi Is there any chance I can have copy of these letters you refer to etc "actually had sample letters which clearly stated that the "charges occurred as a result of their need to recuperate their extra costs involved in dealing with the matter"..... " as this wiill help me in case Im dealing with can you send me link thread or pm me please ? regards Gaz

[hsbcfiddled]

Thanks PM & Steven for your responses.

PM asks - Does it makes sense? Im struggling sorry.

I dont have any letters i am afraid- but then dont ever remember any being sent.

Charges appear on statements as -
Charge Unpaid Item
Charge recall S/O - D/D


You are quite right it does say 'Without Prejudice'

However i do have another letter dated 03/01/2008 from another branch of HSBC stating- We have recieved a payment of £1693 from HSBC- refund of charges paid into your account number XXXXXXX.
We enclose cheque for £1693 which we are unaable to apply as the account XXXXX is closed.

This letter does not state 'Without prejudice' and is evidence of refund of charges from the account over the 6 year limitation.--Is this any use?

[photoman]

Okay,

Gaz2954

Here is a sample letter from Lloyds which clearly presents the charge as being in relation to a recuperation of their "costs"

DO BEAR IN MIND (AND THIS APPLIES TO ANYONE INTENDING TO USE THIS). THIS APPLIES TO A BUSINESS ACCOUNT.
IT SHOULD NOT BE USED IN RELATION TO A PERSONAL ACCOUNT.

[IMG][/IMG]

[photoman]

And here's one from a bit later on, which then tries to claim that the charge relates to a "fee".

[IMG][/IMG]

[gaz2954]

Brilliant its for a business account i need it Regards Gary

[photoman]

They also demonstrate that the charges have arisen due to one breaking an agreement. ie; breach of contract.
Thus, in law, in such circumstances they are ONLY allowed to recuperate their actual costs involved in dealing with such.

[steven4064]

Also, in the first letter, they admit that the increase in interest rate is applied automatically - ie the computer does it.

[BankLover_not]

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to give you an update and ask for some advice regarding a previous issue. I have two friends (boyfriend and girlfriend) who have a business. They used to be a company but 6 months ago converted to partnership, the nature of the business has remained exactly the same. The conversion from a private limited company to a partnership was done simply for convenience purposes, apparently there was no point them trading as a company. The company was not liquidated it was dissolved. They had about 5k worth of charges and when they put in a claim the bank told them they wont get a penny as the company is now dissolved and therefore the money will go to the Crown.

The bank may be right. However I phoned a solicitor for a 'freebie' and he told me that my friends may actually be entitled to the money but it all depends on how the transfer occurred and what the arrangements were, for example was the company liquidated or dissolved.

If anybody has any help they could offer on this one (appreciating all help received before) I would really be grateful.

Thanks Guys.

BankLover_not

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by BankLover_not

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to give you an update and ask for some advice regarding a previous issue. I have two friends (boyfriend and girlfriend) who have a business. They used to be a company but 6 months ago converted to partnership, the nature of the business has remained exactly the same. The conversion from a private limited company to a partnership was done simply for convenience purposes, apparently there was no point them trading as a company. The company was not liquidated it was dissolved. They had about 5k worth of charges and when they put in a claim the bank told them they wont get a penny as the company is now dissolved and therefore the money will go to the Crown.

The bank may be right. However I phoned a solicitor for a 'freebie' and he told me that my friends may actually be entitled to the money but it all depends on how the transfer occurred and what the arrangements were, for example was the company liquidated or dissolved.

If anybody has any help they could offer on this one (appreciating all help received before) I would really be grateful.

Thanks Guys.

BankLover_not

What is it about the replies you've had before BLN that haven't answered your questions ?

[BankLover_not]

Hi Andrew,

Well if they are to write back to the bank what is the best angle to take? Or is now just a matter of filing at the court in the hope that the court will side with my buddies.

To answer a previous post, they have certainly put a lot of their own personal finance into the account when they were trading as a company. So I am assuming therefore this will help build a claim. But it seems that there maybe other areas where they may be able to rebuke the banks response, it's just that it is too ambiguous at the moment. Really confused as to where to start with the response.

BankLover_not

[andrew1]

My god, you're still up!

I am of the belief that as they have put cash into the business and paid off their debts then there is no reason why a claim cannot be put in, even if the company is dissolved. What they have to do is to backtrack and pull all the information together of what and when they put their monies in and how their personal finance funded the charges and overdraft.

Then I believe you should just continue as if it were a normal claim for a business account arguing that effectively it is their money. It would have to be worded in your particulars of claim in such a way as to demonstrate clearly what has happened. That's what I believe is the case from what I have read, although I'm no lawyer and as yet have not tried this myself.

Bout time for bed now BLN don't you think !