Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Poor FOS response to HSBC hardship bank charges claim - where to go next


Bunchie69
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2523 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

my 19 year old son who has recently been diagnosed with depression got himself into a muddle with his banking due to inexperience and the ease of contactless payments.

 

 

He was paying charges of £80 per month for the majority of a year and was unable to get himself out of the financial mess he had got himself in.

 

Once I became aware I advised him to speak to the bank HSBC and ask them to give him an authorised overdraft so he could limit his charges and get himself out if the situation he found himself in.

 

He contacted HSBC and as he failed a credit score (no surprise there, he has never had credit) they refused to give him an authorised overdraft.

 

He buried his head the sand a little longer and then finally took my advice to contact the Financial Ombudsman.

 

 

HSBC initially denied to the FOS that he had made a call to them explaining his financial situation and asking for help

 

 

but after we supplied a telephone bill detailing the date and the fact that he was on the phone for in excess of an hour they agreed that he had made contact.

 

 

The FOS requested the conversation.

However HSBC did not submit a recording of the phone call

they supplied hand written notes.

 

 

These notes failed to mention that he was experiencing financial hardship.

Therefore the FOS said that he had no case.

 

 

He stressed that he did state this in the phone call but the FOS decided that as it was not mentioned in the notes submitted by HSBC then that was the end of the matter.

 

My son has paid in excess of £800 in charges on a paultry income and it feels that he has no redress against HSBC.

 

 

Can they not be forced to submit the original recording?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a recording of the call doesn't exist or can't be located then of course this won't be possible.

 

Your son may may be able to make a Subject Access Request in order to obtain a copy (if there is one).

 

Though, whether he's experiencing financial difficulties or not,

HSBC are not under any obligation to refund any charges that your son's own spending habits have incurred.

 

As your son is on such a "paltry income" and is inexperienced with his banking perhaps your efforts will be better focused on educating him on his responsibilities in managing his finances?

(It's just a suggestion and I appreciate you may have already done this, but your post didn't mention it so I thought it worth mentioning)

Link to post
Share on other sites

get an sar running

they cant use 'notes' if they've nothing to base them on.

 

and those 'notes' must have been made at the time of the call.

 

so study the comms/account log very carefully.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course this will depend on whether or not there is a recording.

 

And my understanding was that a bank is not supposed to perpetuate a cycle of debt especially when the person has raised the fact that the charges were pushing them into an overdraft that the bank would not authorise to limit the amount of charges.

 

Since becoming aware of the problem I have tried to educate my son and offer advice and support about managing his finances which was why we started by approaching the bank directly for help in the first place. We raised the issue of the amount of charges only after they refused to help him get out of debt.

 

I will try the subject access request as you suggest

 

Thank you. We will look at this

 

I was wondering if we would have a case to take to the Independent Assessor

Link to post
Share on other sites

just for want of ref

the FOS never side with customers in cases of unfair bank charges

they never do no matter how strong the case

remember who pays them...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it bizarre that initially denied any knowledge of a telephone call from him explaining his situation and asking for help and only supplied the 'hand written notes' once we supplied telephone records showing the date he called and the length of the call.

 

is it all just a waste of time?

Even if we do the SAR where will that leave us?

 

 

One week after charges he had £2.00 in his account after he got paid.

He had to find his travelling money to get to work and so was immediately back in the red again accruing more charges.

 

 

I completely understand that the debt was his fault prior to the date he contacted them but afterwards for at least another 6 months he was in the same situation even though he'd asked them for help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no we'll hit them harder

its disgusting..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were able to change the rules after a succesful trial... it used to be that you could quote financial hardship and they would have to return all those unfair charges which pushed you further into debt.

 

Some people really do find it hard to manage on a very small income... wages are at an all time low whilst costs of living go up and up... it's not a matter of educating people, it's just that some are 'just about managing' and some don't manage at all because they are on zero hours, or whatever, and have to juggle the bills.

 

I was trying to help my own son a few years back... the bank was aware that he was in trouble, and he was in receipt of housing benefit, even though he was working full time... but they just kept chraging him for bounced DDs, etc, until he ended up with an unauthourised overdraft of £4k!!

 

These banks just don't give a damn and especially HSBC... always involved in all sorts of fraud and corruption, but the last to admit to any wrongdoing, especially where those who have been treated unfairly are concerned.

 

Just appalling. :-x

 

TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...