Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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
      • 161 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 and FOS determination decisions


mycustbanking121
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 730 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

Thanks for the support BankFodder.

 

I turned to the ICO simply because they have a range of enforcement tools available to it, for the bank to disregard my SAR as they did,. and not provide information i applied for, is a failure to meet the deadline and exposes them to penalties. Ordering compliance would be nice right now, instead of getting practices of undue delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the interest in my posts regarding my HSBC matter. If anything. i have one question for you guys.. and that is.

 

Why is the ICO there to take complaints about non compliance?. representatives of HSBC decided to make sure my SAR was not complied with. Hence i did not get the right to access my data i requested to access to within the deadline. And no request for extended time, was made..

 

The ICO claim that there is nothing they can do about the non compliance of HSBC if HSBC claim there is no Data to give me access to.

 

From experience of working with UK banks. In the event a Group working for a bank and it's departments, fail to comply with a SAR and it's deadline. The bank tends to refuse to release the exact Data requested in the SAR to the groups working for the bank and it's departments until the applicant gets help to highlight the non compliance, for the bank to hire trusted people to comply with the SAR request and deadlines.

 

Hence, in the event the department representatives of the bank outright perform a non-compliance by ignoring the deadlines of a SAR. the department of the bank will be limited to Data they can supply you and depending on what Data you requested access to there is a high chance the bank will not release the Data you want until you and the bank organised for compliance.

 

I have tried to highlight this with the ICO and i now wait for there reply

Link to post
Share on other sites

i got the reply from the ICO case officer..

The officer does not seem to be interested in how the bank did not comply to the SAR i Filed.

In the end.. HSBC departments did not let me get access to the data i applied for within the deadline to comply with the 1 month, and i am now left at undue delay.

 

the case office claimed the following

 

"As explained previously, we are unable to take this case further.

If you remain dissatisfied with how HSBC have handled your request, you will need to pursue this independently through the courts.

This is not a process that the ICO can assist you with.

We therefore recommend that you seek independent legal advice if you wish to pursue this course of action.

 

I appreciate that this is not the response you were hoping for.

This case is now closed but if you remain dissatisfied with the outcome or handling of the case, you can ask for your case to be reviewed by a manager.

There is information on our website about this."

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately the ICO is now a Quango organization - take complaints and non action= HSBC was warned and promised a few years ago to ICO that they now have better systems in place regarding SAR request etc, since when HSBC has done nothing = ICO a waste of space as all the Regulators are. = job for the Tory Guys if you kneel before us.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Everyone.

 

i originally wrote to HSBC To get records of a account i held with them 23 years ago, the account was not closed, yet dormant.

The bank claimed they only hold records for seven years.

i filed a SAR.

 

HSBC failed to meet the deadline and provide me access to all data i requested.

 

I turned to the ICO who told me they do not have the tools to listen to a phone recording of me and a HSBC Agent confirming that the SAR department will not provide me what i requested as the Data i asked for is or will be held in a different profile to the one they where going to provide me information from.

 

The ICO officer originally claimed there was no non-compliance, i escalated the matter to the Information Commissioner's office.

 

The Information Commissioner's office got back to me today to let me know that.:

 

"Initially I should clarify the role of the ICO. We are an independent regulator, and we cannot work on behalf of individuals to resolve matters to their satisfaction. Our purpose is to improve information rights practices within organisations

 

Hence the ICO or the Commissioner's Office, will not help me get HSBC to comply with the SAR to provide me access to all Data Requested.

 

Since the ICO or The Commissioner's Office did not review the phone recording of me and the HSBC Agent that determined where the DATA would be accessible for me from HSBC, and Why the SAR department would not provide me access to all DATA requested, both the ICO and The Commissioner's Office claimed:

 

"Whilst I appreciate you may disagree with this, there is no evidence to suggest that HSBC has not provided all of the information, as such we are not considering taking any further action as a result of this concern."

 

Not is all bad, though as Despite what was said and done. The Commissioner's Office has provided me with the What they will do next.

 

"We will now write to HSBC, informing them of our decision that they did not comply with the requirements of data protection legislation as their response to your SAR was outside of the one month time frame.

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your case."

 

Please let me know guys if you know of ways to make sure HSBC Comply to any of my SAR's and provide all DATA requested and or how i should go from here to address with HSBC how the DATA i requested was not provided to me. HSBC did not provide any phone recordings of any conversation i had with their representatives within outside a year ago.

 

As HSBC representatives i am in contact with claim they will not discus the matter further:???::?::!:

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 threads merged for complete history of your story

please keeps to one thread

 

dx

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

  • 8 months later...

Hi Everyone,  I may later, but for now, do not upload documents from HSBC as they may be sensitive or private. 

 

here we go:

 

I wanted to get access to accounts i held with HSBC UK over 20 years ago. I was informed a SAR would get me this information. Once i Sent my application. 

 

HSBC UK did not reply within the deadline, Hence SAR non compliance. I turned to the ICO who claimed, for HSBC to not comply to a deadline was not a Non compliance situation. Hence they took no action to enforce my SAR.

 

I continued to contact HSBC about Inactive accounts and my SAR. Representatives and or the department i was referred to, claimed they only hold records of accounts for six years from the date of the last transaction, there for HSBC does not have my account records such as account number and it's final balance

 

During this whole situation, Non of the staff or departments i was in contact with, had any skills or professional advice and knowledge of HSBC UK Inactive account process and the website:\https://www.hsbc.co.uk/help/banking-made-easy/inactive-accounts/

 

When i highlighted this to representatives over the phone, they lost their temper and shouted that they the bank do not hold records for longer then six years and the bank does not have my money.

 

According to the website linked:

  • The Unclaimed Assets Scheme
    • We participate in the Unclaimed Assets Scheme, established under the Dormant Bank and Building Societies Act 2008. If your account is in credit and has been dormant for at least 15 years, we may transfer the balance to Reclaim Fund Limited (RFL). RFL is a not-for-profit organisation authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. However, if you have another account with us which is being used, we won't transfer your dormant account money to the central fund since your relationship with us is still active.

 

I continued to contact HSBC over the phone where i was able to meet a nice agent that informed me to contact the branch i held accounts with in the UK, so i did, i recently got back letters that where totally inconsistent to the Linked Website and my demands for services, as they continued to claim HSBC holds no records of transactions, business transactions and account records for longer then six years from the date of the last transaction.

 

I wanted to know if you guys can give me some advice and guidance. should i file an other SAR?

 

The first one i filed was in 2017 before the current updated laws for SAR compliance. Also, I wanted to locate records of dormant and frozen accounts i held with the bank over 25 years ago, these accounts where left in credit, i simply lost track of the accounts.

 

Which department should i contact for this?

 

Currently HSBC departments claim to me that the new Data retention policy of the bank means they do not hold records of the accounts beyond six years from the date of the last transaction.

 Does anyone else have more information i can use to get better services from the HSBC UK, such as how far back can i apply for access to information the banks hold about me like inactive account and dormant records, that the bank may hold for at least 15 years before they consider to transfer funds to the RFL. Since i remained a customer of HSBC UK, i do not think the RFL has my funds, despite this information i still applied to the RFL who had no records of funds HSBC UK May hold.

 

All i need to do now is find out how i can get my matter referred to the right department, as the current department who continues to deal with my matter, has no knowledge of Inactive accounts, as they continue to claim they only hold records of accounts from the last transaction date. Since the attached website clearly highlights HSBC UK holds accounts for at least 15 years when dormant and frozen, this department is not the right one i should be talking to!

 

If i make an application for a SAR, to recover records of accounts i held with the bank over 25 years ago, is it a SAR non compliance for the bank to ignore this and send my application to a department that only holds records of accounts for a period of six years from the last transaction?

 

Please let me know. 

 

Thanks for your time consumers

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you might find this a worthy read..

sorry its so long mind..

 

 

  • Like 1

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 for the post dx100uk

 

I wanted to know what you thought about my matter, I read the forum in the above post, yet left me confused.

In my case. a department of HSBC states that: "Also, inline with the Data retention policy of the bank, we do not hold records of the accounts beyond six years from the date of last transaction in your account"

 

In other words, the representatives of a HSBC department is not stating they deleted the records, they simply state they do not hold the records after 6 years. that under certain circumstances the bank does stop recording day to day use of accounts within a 6 year period.   Please let me know if you got some more info.. 

 

Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a post there from scarlet with an address for a data centre they found?

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

@dx100uk   Thanks for the info, i am looking for the post by scarlet now.

 

Since i sent HSBC an email stating i reject their position regarding HSBC holding records of my account dormant and frozen , for six years period, they replied overnight to inform me they want me to wait up to 8 weeks while they investigate. 

 

I informed HSBC Customer services my SAR and other complaints where going to the wrong department as i seek to be reunited with money i saved with the bank over 20 years ago. I advised them that the department i am constantly referred to only holds records for six years  after the last transaction and there for claim they do not have the records i filed for in my SAR.

 

I then again highlighted the website:https://www.hsbc.co.uk/help/banking-made-easy/inactive-accounts/

 

where HSBC Informs us that they hold accounts that are dorment and frozen for at least 15 years before they transfer funds to a Scheme. But because i continued to have accounts with HSBC, they would not have done this. So the bank should still hold the records i filed for in my SAR.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

@dx100uk @ anyone else interested in Fighting HSBC UK  Staff/department non compliance and incompetence/interference in between HSBC UK and customers.

 

I wanted to know what you guys had to say about the reply i got from HSBC UK today. 

 

Recap. I originally turned to HSBC UK to be reunited with Money i saved in accounts that where frozen and made dormant during the year 1995.

 

HSBC UK Teams tell me that HSBC UK only allows them to have access to account records dated back 6 years. there for they do not have the records, can not locate the records i requested for in my SAR. there for HSBC UK teams Ignored my SAR application for records of accounts made frozen and dormant during the year 1995. HSBC then claim if the accounts where closed they will no longer hold records of these accounts and tell that to the ICO. I again explained to HSBC UK and the ICO the records of accounts where left frozen and dormant.

 

HSBC UK teams continue to tell me over the phone that The records i requested for in my SAR, will not be located or do not exist because HSBC only allows them to have access to records of accounts dated back 6 years. 

 

I returned to HSBC highlighting there is no such provision in the Data Protection Act.

 

HSBC UK teams today totally ignored my complaint again and confirmed with me they are classing my complaint as wanting to locate accounts that where closed.

 

Let me know what you think about the  HSBC UK teams response to my last complaint. Is there any other letters i can send them to confirm thay are not correct about what they have done. 

 

The HSBC UK letter starts of by:You've been unable to recover funds you held in HSBC UK Accounts that were closed in 1994 to 1995, and to obtain the account details for the accounts concerned. You've been advised that we only retain records for up to 6 years, but you've been unable to locate any provision for this within the Data Protection Act (DPA). You require a Certificate of Destruction from HSBC UK to evidence the destruction of the data concerned. You feel your Subject Access Request (SAR) has been ignored by HSBC UK.

 

HSBC UK Teams now go on to explain:

In respect of you being advised we only retain records for up to 6 years, but having been unable to locate any  provision for this within the Data Protection Act (DPA), I can confirm that under the DPA, we are obliged to only keep records for as long as we deem necessary, in order to effectively manage our data. So, for most cases, this will be for no more than 6 years.

 

In regards to your request for a Certificate of Destruction from HSBC UK to evidence the destruction of the data concerned, I regret that this isn't something that we can provide, as we don't keep records of when individual customer data was destroyed. I'd also like to clarify that if the accounts concerned were closed after becoming dormant, that we would have sent you closing statements at the time.

 

Lastly, I'm sorry you feel we've ignored your SAR. I want to assure you that we'll always look to accommodate a request for a SAR as best as we can. However, if we're unable to locate the account details and information required, this will mean we're unable to fulfil the request, which has unfortunately been the case on this occasion.

 

How else do you think i can highlight to HSBC that the teams dealing with My complaint, and request to be reunited with my money is not going to departments that can deal with my demand for services.?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 th time we've merged your threads

 for complete history of your story please keeps to one thread

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

  • 2 months later...
On 26/05/2018 at 23:11, sgtbush said:

£1 million?????

Illegitimate funds or bull

You choose

 

If you have other accounts with HSBC during the minimum 15 year period, they will not provide the previous accounts to the Unclaimed monies Schemes or the BBA, at some point HSBC should contact us to return the accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

i contacted HSBC UK to get assistance with locating and returning monies from an account that was dormant, inactive and frozen 

 

favicon.ico Dormant Bank Accounts | Inactive And Lost Accounts - HSBC UK

WWW.HSBC.CO.UK

To keep you safe, we regularly review accounts and if you don’t use an account regularly we may class it as inactive or dormant. Find out more.

 

I told HSBC UK my accounts i held where last active in 1994, HSBC UK Staff then tell me, "they do not keep records of accounts/closed accounts for longer then 6 years, there for they will not be able to get the records i ask for now in 2022".

 

I then highlight to HSBC UK that 'If your account is in credit and has been dormant for 15 years or more, we may transfer the balance to Reclaim Fund Limited (RFL). ' Also 'However, if you have another account with us which is being used, we won't transfer your dormant account money to the central fund.'

 

At this point, HSBC UK staff told me that if they do not have access to account records any further back then 6 years, they will not be able to get the accounts returned to me that i asked for.. I continued to highlight HSBC can hold account records for at least 15 years. but they would not listen to me

 

By now i was asking HSBC UK staff to provide me contacts of HSBC departments that dealt with Inactive, dormant and frozen accounts. They ignore me refuse to provide me any information other then what i find online relating to anyone at HSBC UK Inactive, dormant and frozen accounts

 

If anyone knows more then me and can provide me with contacts i can use to better get assistance from HSBC UK to be reunited with my monies. Please let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread merge number 5 in 4yrs asking the same question...

 

dx

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...

Well.

 

I decided to take my time to stay up to date with ongoing HSBC UK services and the changes over the last 25 years.

 

Personally i been with HSBC since it merged with Midland bank despite the fact current HSBC UK teams who i talked with online, only have access to account records maintained by the bank within the last 6 years.

 

In other words. According to HSBC UK teams, If HSBC UK does not maintain account records for longer then 6 year period, they are not going to be able to locate records of accounts dated back to midland bank.

 

despite this being a growing trend. HSBC UK still have the legal powers to provide us with up to date information on their web sites. Leaving us feeling lucky if we had accounts with HSBC UK that where made in someway, dormant, frozen and inactive accounts.

 

This means the HSBC UK will maintain these dormant frozen and inactive accounts for at least 15 years, and if you hold current accounts, you can bet HSBC UK will hold on to the records of inactive and dormant accounts for a longer period to make sure you maintain the right to have these monies reclaimed at any time you reclaim them

 

WWW.HSBC.CO.UK

To keep you safe, we regularly review accounts and if you don’t use an account regularly we may class it as inactive or dormant. Find out more.

)

 

What does this mean to me..

 

Well according to HSBC UK specialist and standard teams. If they do not have access to account records backdated past 6 year period, they have no records to provide through courts and or SAR.

 

and to top it off, if you complain to the FOS and they do not uphold your complaint for lack of services. HSBC Teams will continue to remind you about this as if the FOS determination to not uphold a complaint is binding on you and the bank if you do not accept.

 

Despite the untruths of their misconception of how they want to run a bank where they are in a position and not going to be removed from their miss information they provide.

 

HSBC UK teams continue to thing a FOS decision is binding on you and them if you do not accept the fos outcome/ How wrong can you be.. if anything we are back at the beginning where you have a complaint against HSBC UK to put things right. and people working for HSBC UK who do not want HSBC UK to put things right. continue to prevent things from being put right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...