Jump to content

stax68

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Excellent

About stax68

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    Note to self - the unfairness (thus ineffectualness) of the variation clause will strengthen the prospect of pursuing S14 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 - (implied term as to reasonable charge where this is not explicitly determined by the contract but instead left to be specified by some other means or in the course of dealing). But the SGSA S13-15 also supplies a clear rationale for the bank to make 'going over the OD limit' a breach - and thus the charges not a price. This helps to rebut the judge's obiter (conceded by OFT) aside that it is unlikely to be intended to be
  2. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    I'd say we haven't even lost the penalties basis - the OFT conceded that 'going over your limit' wasn't the kind of thing that was plausibly seen as a breach of contract. I disagree. I'm not sure that the Appeal judges will find for the OFT - I thought they muffed it a bit. LJ Waller seems in sympathy but I think he's also the junior partner. Even if the banks succeed in excluding 'price' assessment of the charges, the theoretical possibility of other kinds of assessment remains, but I'm not sure how much room the OFT have left themselves with their over-defensive and rather unfocus
  3. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    Right then, things are coming to a head. I was stayed and I'll post all the relevant stuff once I dig it all out and get back into the swing of things. One thing I've thought of recently while researching the arguments made in the appeal is that the variation clause in the original T&Cs is very likey to be adjudged unfair under the 94 UTCCRs (or indeed the 1999 ones, except they were't in force at the time). The trend of the arguments and responses in the appeal suggest that the UTCCRs might also be useful as a 'penalty clause doctrine lite' in that if the charges arise even indirectl
  4. stax68

    HSBC T&Cs HERE

    The extracts were supplied by DG, HSBCs in-house solicitors. You should probably use the 96 ones too as they are complete and may have been in effect when you opened your account. Save them all, and if/when you need to produce your court bundle, print them off and include them. Make sure you understand which bits are relevant. There's some advice on that in this thread.
  5. Looks like Halifax were applying unauthorised OD rate to the whole overdraft - including the authorised portion - in 2003. Halifax customers could claim back extra OD interest!! telegraph.co.uk/money Entering an unauthorised zone carries stiff penalty Last Updated: 6:34pm BST 18/09/2003 One bank imposes big charges on customers who stray over agreed limits, writes Nina Montagu-Smith Most people know that they will pay a higher rate of interest if they slip over their overdraft limit but Halifax customers are punished more severely than most. Other banks only apply the
  6. From 29 May: No appeal The man who lost in Birmingham county court on 15 May, Kevin Berwick, has decided not to appeal against the decision, but to go to the Financial Ombudsman Service instead. A QC's opinion suggested that he had failed because he had not put forward some important evidence, such as the exact terms and conditions of his account with Lloyds TSB. As a result of the lack of this evidence, the QC advised that the rest of the case was not important and did not deal with any legal principle. As the rules for appeals in civil cases do not allow fresh evidence to be br
  7. I assume you have seen the sticky in the HSBC forum which has some T&Cs. We still don't have all of them, and better copies of some of them are needed, but what we do have is pretty strong I'd say. The contract appears explicitly to impose an obligation not to exceed an OD limit, and provides (or warrants?) that the charges are to cover admin and mgmt costs.
  8. The defence have issued a notice of application to: amend their defence and have part of claim claim struck out/summarily adjudged in their favour. They've also asked me to consent to their amended defence. I want to: 1. consent to their amendment 2. make that consent conditional on their accepting an amendment to my claim 3. allow them two weeks to make any changes to their proposed defence 4. consent in advance to that amended defence, regardless of what it may contain and 5. ask to have the strike out/summary judgement application dismissed I have
  9. The defence have issued a notice of application to: amend their defence and have part of claim claim struck out/summarily adjudged in their favour. They've also asked me to consent to their amended defence. I want to: 1. consent to their amendment 2. make that consent conditional on their accepting an amendment to my claim 3. allow them two weeks to make any changes to their proposed defence 4. consent in advance to that amended defence, regardless of what it may contain and 5. ask to have the strike out/summary judgement application dismissed I have
  10. Adara - I can post them on the T&Cs sticky if you send them to [email protected] It doesn't currently have any business ones, and I've been meaning to add them. This would be a great start. Crusher, do you have any T&Cs, price lists facility letters that aren't already on the sticky? If so, could you send them to the same mail address so I can add them? cheers Stax
  11. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    Left out the draft defence - the most important bit! - which was appended to DMD's witness statement. I've added it in now.
  12. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    Thanks. I'll have a look at the fraud stuff, but I don't think I'll be trying to get any criminal proceedings started just now. I'm certainly planning to consent to their amended defence - on condition that they consent to my amended claim - I'll also consent to them making any changes within a reasonable time in response to my new improved claim. I'll also be vigorously oppposing their summary judgement application - on the grounds that they haven't shown that I have no realistic chance of success. I'll also be making quite a thing of their delay in submitting it and the request fo
  13. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    Defendant D. M. D'Aubney First Exhibit DMD-I 18 June 2007 IN THE XXXXXX COUNTY COURT Claim No. XXXXXXXX BETWEEN:‑ XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Claimant -and‑ HSBC BANK PLC Defendant WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEBORAH MARY D'AUBNEY I, DEBORAH MARY D'AUBNEY, of 12 Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 1QZ, WILL SAY: 1. I am a solicitor employed by HSBC Holdings plc and I have conduct of this matter on behalf of the Defendant. The in-house litigation department of HSBC operates under the name of "DG Solicitors". 2. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to make this witness stat
  14. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    N244 Application Notice We(1 ) DG Solicitors on behalf of the Defendant intend to apply for an order (a draft of which is attached) that: (i) The Defendant be given permission to amend its Defence in the form attached to the witness statement of Deborah D'Aubney; (ii) The claim for compound interest (particularised in a schedule to the Particulars of Claim to be in the sum of £6,240.84) be struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a) and/or be summarily dismissed pursuant to CPR Rule 24.2. (iii) The case management timetable in respect of exchange of disclosure lists and witness
  15. stax68

    Stax68 v HSBC

    DG SOLICITORS 12 CALTHORPE ROAD EDGBASTON BIRMINGHAM B15 1QZ DX 712630 Birmingham 32 Please ask for: Rachel Tomlinson Your Ref: Our Ref: DMD/GR/XXXXXXXXX Date: 18 June 2007 The Court Manger [sic] Brighton County Court DX 98070 Brighton 3 By DX and Fax: 01273 602138 Dear Sir XXXXXXX–v- HSBC Bank plc Claim number: XXXXXX We act for HSBC Bank plc (HSBC) in relation to the above claim. We enclose various documents in relation to an application from HSBC seeking: (
×
×
  • Create New...