Jump to content

netg

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

1 Follower

About netg

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Yes, they look independent, but then so do Metropolitan until you check them out. You can get documents from Companies House - Companies House - just one pound per document for their web-service.
  2. Their plan is to confuse and intimidate ... Metropolitan is categorically 100% owned by HSBC. In practise they *are* HSBC in everything except name. I don't know about "Equidebt" you could check them out.
  3. Interesting, I didn't know that! Can you give any examples, just for the record? I guess you shouldn't post the actual email addresses, as that would result in them getting spammed, and even I still hate spammers more than I dislike HSBC/MCS liars, though perhaps they're at a broadly comparable level - after all, they both hassle you, try to get money from you and pretend to be something they're not. Likewise, any examples? Also news to me - more details please? I'm still wondering about just why HSBC have bothered to set up and maintain the MCS charade
  4. Thanks for the info. I took a look, but I don't think the it applies in this case as MCS are not "dormant". What they are is a paper company - no employees, no expenditure, no assets, no employees. It would be nice to be able to confirm that some law is being broken, but I don't think so (though Data Protection law is an angle we're still considering.) In general the set up is IMO highly unethical, but probably legal. I also wonder if the Inland Revenue might be interested ... HSBC are funding MCS's activities, providing them staff, office facilities etc, yet presumably writing off th
  5. Well, we now know it's not really so much "breathing down your neck", more like a gentle breeze from far off climes But actually you've made me think, I could do the call myself and launch into the routine without identifying myself. Perfectly reasonable - they will want me to tell them name, DOB etc but I don't know who *they* are. Just hope my Caller ID won't trigger them... hmm, but I used Skype, dunno how Caller ID shows up when making Skype calls, maybe shows my Skype id, so I could just create another one Maybe shows my IP address, not so easy to fix
  6. Indeed, thanks for the contribution spiceskull. Your input really adds weight to the theory that "MCS" telephone agents are in fact HSBC Philippines employees. I'm wondering about phoning them again to ask them that question directly, it would be nice to have it 100% confirmed (or indeed if they deny it that might even be more fun But, after my last conversation they might be on their guard (they sure as hell ought to be!) -- anybody else want to take it on? Something along the lines of: 1. Us: "Now that I've answered your security questions, I'd just like to establish *your* ide
  7. Did you actually report them to the IC and if so what was the result?
  8. Just thought - that pretty much confirms that the Philippines crowd are actually HSBC Philippines employees, doesn't it? I mean, they're even using same 0800 phone number, now as "MCS" as they were a couple of years ago when there was no "MCS" pretence and they identified themselves as "HSBC Philippines". Maybe MCS were invented, in part, to avoid DP issues?
  9. Spiceskull makes a good point, thanks, so taking his advice: I'd like to confirm that of course that I would never consider actually doing the above myself! This type of thing is common knowledge, at least to anyone who knows anything at all about "phishing" - Phishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - A worthwhile read to understand why you should be so careful with your personal details, obviously things like bank account information but also especially your email account and password. Anybody who gets access to your email could get access to your accounts on other systems by using "pas
  10. Did you get a reply? I take it at that time there was no pretence of them being "MCS" ? This has really set me thinking. Suppose, hypothetically a criminal, "Mr. X" did the following:- 1. Set up one or more 0800 or 0500 numbers (VoIP lines, very easy). On one of them he sets up a recorded message "You were called by HSBC, no action is required on your part..." by taking a copy of the real (?!) HSBC message you get when you call 0800 7838422 (interestingly, that number hasn't changed since your dealings with them, same one that "MCS" apparently called me from.) On the second number he
  11. Sorry for so much replying to my own posts but just smiling - the above makes it really clear why the guy I spoke to wouldn't answer my question as to who he was employed by! (listen to the recording) - he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, having been trained to mislead you into thinking that MCS is independent from HSBC and that he was an MCS representative. My guess is he's actually an employee of HSBC Philippines - About HSBC Philippines - that would explain everything! If only I had his full name I could then call HSBC Philippines directly and ask for him by name ... hmmm ...
  12. Just found another relevant bit: "During the financial year and the preceding financial year, the company ... incurred no expenditure ..." So, this makes it clear that all, not just some of MCS's needs must be provided by HSBC - if they used any other provider then they would have resulting expenditure. So as I already assumed above, the people you deal with who claim to be "MCS" must in reality be employed directly or indirectly by HSBC, as they cannot be employed by MCS (they have no employees) and not by some other party contracted by MCS (as MCS have no expenditure.)
  13. Approximate date? That might help and any other key words (apart from Philippines I've had a look but so far ended up with too many results to wade through. Also, it's occurred to me that as an alternative to the "data protection" angle, another angle might be "misleading information" - don't know what any relevant laws might be, but basically it seems to me that HSBC/MCS are deliberately spinning a yarn and trying to mislead customers into thinking there's no connection between HSBC and MCS when in reality there's one hell of a connection (did you see my update here: http://www.consume
  14. Interesting idea. My HSBC credit card was originally a Midland Access card, but my bank account was taken out directly with HSBC, much more recently, so probably a rather difficult line to take up. As an aside, one of my gripes with HSBC is that because they've closed my bank account (probably related to their administrative error but yet to be confirmed) I can't pay-off my HSBC credit card this month, as I have no other UK current account to pay it from! I've already complained to them about this, and insisted that I will not be liable for "late payment" charges nor interest resulting from
  15. Can anybody confirm that a company providing "debt recovery services", i.e. not a bank as such nor other type of financial institution, would be completely unconstrained by Financial Services law? It's an assumption on my part, I haven't verified it. Anybody?
×
×
  • Create New...