Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

HSBC Credit Card default charges***Success***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2135 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 guys

 

I need some advice on how to handle a situation regarding charges being applied to a HSBC credit card.

The card account was opened in 1998 with Midland Bank.

 

The card has a £500 credit limit and a payment has never been missed on on it

- I have always made the minimum payment by Direct Debit.

 

However, it has been incurring a £12 overlimit charge for some time.

As I wasn't receiving paper statements, and I didn't receive a single letter or notification about any over-limit, the situation was allowed to develop unknowingly.

 

It went on for a year two before I became properly aware, then it took me a while longer to get my butt in gear and try to sort it out. I guess I was confident that I'd get any charges refunded, and being busy with other things in life, I probably took too long really to get a handle on it.

 

Currently, the account balance is over £800 - with £12 being added each month.

I have maintained making payments via DD each and every month.

 

I messaged HSBC from my online banking around October last year to query the charges and also request statements going back prior to the date that is available online, so that I could view the transaction history.

They fobbed me off and requested that I contact the "Collections Team".

 

Only recently did I finally phone HSBC to deal with the matter.

After over an hour on the phone, being passed around through various departments, it turns out that the over-limit situation first occurred in May 2012 due to a Sky TV payment! That's £144 per year plus interest being added to the account for nearly six years.

 

Something in my mind is telling me that I made a payment to put the account back under the limit, but the charge and interest that was later added to the account put it back over (I may be wrong with this, but will need the statements to confirm one way or the other).

 

On that call, I requested that all charges be refunded to my account, plus compound interest.

I was informed that this was only possible after the relevant people conducted an investigation.

As part of this process, they would provide copies of the requested statements, apparently.

They were also supposed to write to me within five days to inform me that the request was being processed.

 

I did ask why I've never been written to regarding the ongoing over-limit situation, or even about the account generally.

The reply was that I had been written to "once".

I have no recollection of ever receiving a single letter so I asked what the letter was about

- they stated that it was to inform me that "making the minimum payments would take much longer to clear the account". Hmmm.....

 

That phone call was nearly three weeks ago and I've yet to hear anything, so I think they've had long enough.

I want to now push ahead with trying to claim these charges and interest back.

 

How would you advise I proceed?

I will seek out the statements this week so that I can get a fuller picture of what's gone on, but how should I then push HSBC for a refund of the charges.

 

Should I first write a formal letter of complaint and request the refund, followed by a Letter Before Claim?

I fully intent to issue a claim against them if they do not comply, albeit I'm not too well versed on how to angle the claim at the moment, by I'll address that later if necessary.

 

Thanks,

 

Sham

Edited by shammmy
Link to post
Share on other sites

sar 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

Ok, cheers DX - I'll get that moving tomorrow.

 

I only want the information relating to this particular credit card account - not my current account, etc.

 

Should I therefore request all statements since, for example, January 2012 and also a copy of the credit agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not get everything

you never know how useful it could be before it hits the shredder

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

  • 3 weeks later...

I sent the SAR off on the 8th March - was received on 12th March.

 

Today, I spoke to the bank on another matter which then led to the subject of the credit card in question.

This time I was speaking to UK based customer support and got more sense.

 

I queried a few of the early transactions and, as stated above, I did in fact make a manual payment to return the card balance to below the agreed limit.

I then cancelled the the Sky subscription that had put it over in the first place and didn't spend a penny more on the card since.

I was content that the 'minimum' payment would be made by DD every month and just left it alone.

 

Unknown to me at the time, after I'd put it into good standing, the interest and a £12 charge put it back over again.

Most likely the minimum payment took it back under again - only just - and then interest and the overlimit fee took it back over and it's been like that ever since. Month after month.

 

They guy said he's issued new statements going back to early 2012, so I should have these soon.

He was lost for answers when I questioned why I had not received a single letter (in post or via email) about the matter (happy to profit?)

- his comms log proved what I was saying.

 

Is it acceptable that they can make a charge when it was interest and charges that put me over in the first place?

I know it's a side issue, but I'd be interested to have some views.

 

I reckon the total I'll be owed on this is around £1,500.

Does that sound about right based on £12 a month for six years at 20%?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

probably a good chance

await the info

is this still on your credit file ...I doubt it

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've been making minimum payments on it each and every month without fail for the past six years - so, yes it should be on my credit file. The problem being, they've also been applying a £12 fee to it each and every month for the past six years too. I kept paying out of principle, because I knew the day would come where I would contest the charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

would have been statute barred by now if you'd not wasted you money.

 

but i'd take this all the way to court pers

FOS are useless on charges reclaiming.

never side with customers

 

CISHEET is the one you want.

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

Thanks DX. I didn't actually know the account was "overlimit" for a long time after it entered that position. Then it took me another while to actually get around to tackling it.

 

If I had paid a little bit more with the manual payment to leave the balance at say £480 instead of £490 (limit is £500), I'd never have been in this position and the card would have been paid off long ago.

 

I reckon they'd have gone down the court route themselves if I'd just stopped paying, so would probably never have got as far as SB anyway.

 

Listening to the guy on the phone today, I could tell he knew they were on dodgy ground. He even gave me back £100 current account charges (due to a different issue). So, hopefully they'll be open to persuasion once I have the full figures to hand.

 

I'll keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OC's don't do court

they'd sell it on

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

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

Hi DX

 

I've received the statements from HSBC. They show that my recollection noted above isn't strictly accurate. Back in 2012 the card limit was exceeded by the TV subscription a number of times. While I had DD set up to make minimum payments, it only debited x% of the balance each month - pretty standard. I did make a number of manual payments to put the account back under, but the TV payments kept putting me over. Therefore, the point about the charge & monthly interest putting me over isn't correct. Eventually, I kept the TV subscription going for a few more months and then cancelled it.

 

Nevertheless, they've been charging me £12 a month for near enough the full period of six years (save for a handful of months early on). However, it doesn't actually look like they are applying interest on the charges - does that seem about right. I'll give you an example: Card limit is £500, but the account balance is £800. They've been applying between £9.80 and £10.80 per month interest, based on "interest on standard balance of 1.671% - 21.9% APR" (same applied when the balance was around £500).

 

But..... am I correct in thinking that interest can still be claimed back by me on the following basis? On the back of the statements, it states that payments will be used to pay off interest & charges first. This is clearly what's happening. Therefore, the 'purchases' element of the balance never, and won't reduce as it stands. I'm now paying interest on £500 when the balance would undoubtedly be clear by now, but for the £12 charges and higher amount of interest.

 

I don't fully know how to explain the 'system' in simple terms, but should I even be trying? Would you advise simply totalling up all the £12 charges plus compound interest (plus stat interest?) and hit them with a formal request for a refund? They can then argue the toss over the amount.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

use the cisheet!

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

  • 4 weeks later...

I've had a response to my SAR. It only contains information regards to a HFC loan I took out to cover a "interest free for 6 months" purchase I made 10 years ago. I had completely forgotten about this, but considering I've got numerous financial products with HSBC, I was surprised to receive only this.

 

Is this a typical fob-off, or is it normal for SARs to result in information coming through in batches? I've never done one before, so am not sure what to expect from it.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Await the full time

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

  • 1 month later...

Good news! I've had all but £100 or so refunded to me, as a gesture of goodwill - the difference being the % rate they've applied compared to mine. I'm happy enough with that, all things considered.

 

For the benefit of others, I emailed a firm letter of request along with the CI Sheet to them. It had the desired effect, albeit their letter back was the usual "you are responsible for monitoring your account and keeping it within the agreed limit" and "we're within our rights to apply charges" nonsense.

 

Thanks for your help DX. You're one of life's heroes! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Sham...thread title amended

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Andy!

 

Just one final update on this - HSBC also closed the account. It's disappeared from my online banking. Cheeky!!

 

At least they're consistent - they didn't send a letter to notify me about the closure/termination. I also didn't receive a single letter from them for nearly six years, when the account was over limit and incurring monthly charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...