from XXXXXXXX to Rachel Tomlinson cc [email protected] date 23-May-2007 13:35 subject Re: XXXXX XXXXXX -v- HSBC Bank plc Claim number: 6QZXXXXX Directions Hearing listed 24th May 2007 at 10:00am Dear Ms Tomlinson, XXXXXXXXX v HSBC 6QZXXXXX I refer to your letter, a hard copy of which I received this morning, and which was attached as "Scan NW 22.pdf" to the appended email. 1. Your latest offer Since you seem to have left this move very late, I am replying in some haste to let you know that I, quite reasonably, do not accept your offer, which represents less than half of the amount which I stand to recover in the courts. I would remind you that by maintaining an untenable position for a long time, you cannot render unreasonable my conduct in refusing to compromise my claim. 2. Your latest informal concession However, I note with weary approval that you have for negotiatory purposes abandoned the limitation defence, which now joins on the scrapheap of previously vehemently asserted claims your now long-extinct protestations that your charges are lawful. It is a shame that you could not have acted earlier, and that you continue to assert vague and feeble reasons for withholding payment in regard of the remainder of my claim. 3. The reasonableness of the parties' conduct May I make it clear that we are not haggling: I did not inflate my claim in the expectation of making concessions later. I would regard such a practice as an abuse of the court's process. I have stated my claim and heard nothing to convince me that it is untenable. As legal professionals employed by a major corporation, I would expect you to be able to explain clearly any defence which you genuinely believe viable. The only authorities you have cited comprise: one statute in support of the now-abandoned limitations defence; and one case, the relevance of which you have still not made clear even in your latest letter which merely alludes, rather coyly, to some of the circumstances in which compound interest may be awarded and in the same breath brusquely asserts that they do not apply. Given your history of informal concessions and the insubstantial nature of your arguments, you have given me no reason to suppose that you have discovered some obscure obstacle to my claim. 4. The finer details of my case-in-preparation This brief note is being drafted quickly, as you request. I will therefore not respond here to your remarks concerning the legal niceties of the claim, as I require time to give such due consideration to your submissions as they merit. I do not intend to be rushed into a response by your ostensible urgency to resolve the situation at this late date, particularly in view of the fact that you do not appear to have addressed even the outline case included in my statement of claim or the initial demand letter which you/your employer received on the 19th November last. As legal professionals in the employ of a multinational corporation, I would expect you to be able to understand the bases of my claim. Your insouciant protestations of bafflement must raise the suspicion that you are hoping to take advantage of some supposed lack of knowledge or expertise on my part, rather than on the merits of the claim itself. The details of the claim presented in court may depend to some extent on the information I have requested and which you have not yet supplied, nor explained your failure to supply - see below. 5. Your 'right' to draw the letter to the court's attention Your most recent letter refers to previous correspondence and is made in the context of our ongoing discussions. It has no special status in relation to those discussions or the court proceedings, and it is my opinion that it would not be noticed by the court unless in conjunction with all the other communications which have preceded it. Many of those communications were marked 'without prejudice' by you. It is hard to see why the court would make an exception to the general rule that privileged discussions of this nature are not to be disclosed to the court before determination of the substantive issues. In any case, I do not accept that the effect of those communications is to portray my conduct as unreasonable. I suggest that on the contrary, they can be shown to reflect rather badly on you/your client. You are of course at liberty to settle the issue by make a binding offer or an admission - see below. 6. My Part 18 request a. Your failure to comply I am disappointed that you have failed to comply with parts 1 and 2 of my request, and that you have supplied no explanation of this failure. Your partial compliance with the request is appreciated - however, you have not supplied any contractual document specific to me, and you have not supplied all the terms and conditions which have applied to my account during its life. May I remind you that failure to supply this information is somewhat bizarre given that natural justice, the common law and freedom of information legislation somewhat overdetermine my right to this information quite apart from the provisions of the CPR. I intend to raise this issue with the court tomorrow. b. Your intention to object to the request i. On grounds of verbosity Regarding the remainder of the request: It would be otiose for me to deny that it fails to the requirement of concision: those issues will, I suppose, be adjudicated - in my favour I am sure - by the court. My request is no more verbose than is necessary in the interests of precision. I do not take the CPR to require that precision be sacrificed for brevity. However, it may be that the superior drafting skills of the court wil make to it possible for similar directions to be issued in a different form. ii. On grounds that it is unnecessary or disproportionate The supposed redundancy of the application you seek to assert does not provide a distinct ground for objecting to it, and also provides the only ground you have stated for objecting on grounds of non-necessity or disproportionality. I therefore take the issue of redundancy to be identical to ( i.e. one with and the same as) that of non-necessity/disproportionality. In the absence of either an admission of liability or a binding offer of full settlement in relation to the central issue of the claim, that issue (viz., unlawfulness of the charges under at least one of the heads pleaded) must be regarded as still a live issue. Furthermore, even if that central issue were put beyond dispute, it may still be necessary to decide the status of those claims - by adjudication or admission - in deciding the other issues involved. Furthermoren, my claim for compound interest is in any case likely to draw on the evidence I seek to elicit. For example, such interest may be claimed in lieu of an account of profits to reverse, for example, either autonomous unjust enrichment or unauthorised profit by a fiduciary. I therefore regard it as unlikely that your submission will be viewed favourably by the court once I have been heard. 7. My willingness to accept a reasonable offer May I take this opportunity to remind you that I am still willing to accept a reasonable offer of settlement, but that I do not see any reason why I should accept a sum substantially below the amount currently due to me - viz., £11, 533.10. It is entirely reasonable for me to allow this claim to go to adjudication if you refuse to pay. Part 1 of the CPR does not seek to make the courts redundant, only to prevent their abuse. Yours sincerely, XXXXXXXXXX On 22/05/07, [email protected] wrote: Dear Mr XXXXXXXX Please see attached letter for your attention. I confirm that a hard copy has also been sent by first class post today. (See attached file: Scan NW 22.pdf) Regards Naomi Wharton Tel: 0121 455 2366 Fax: 0121 455 2771 DG Solicitors e-mail: [email protected]

Lol! Sorry if my drivellings can get a bit obscure! They seem to make sense at the time, to me anyway! As to the offer - I regard it as an insult. I have made my position quite clear - I require payment of £11, 533.10 - and I intend to stick to it. Their persistent evasion, delay and attempted intimidation only serve to make me even less inclined to compromise my principles for mere convenience. Harrumph. (Pauses for breath...) Thanks for asking, though! Good to know someone out there is reading some of this stuff. After four months, things are finally shifting up a gear I think, so there may be some interesting developments in the next few days...

Extract of 1997 T&Cs which I got from DG (a.k.a. HSBC UK Legal dept). http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/55086-stax68-hsbc.html#post846275 I only have those three pages, but they are quite useful ones, even though they are poor quality copies. I have similar extracts covering 1999 - 2005, as listed in the post previous to the one linked above. Shall I send pdfs of the extracts? If so, should they be cleaned up (i.e. with the black backgrounds, marks, scribbles, punch holes etc removed as far as possible), or just as they are?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/55086-stax68-hsbc.html#post846275 these are some from 1997 which I think, would have been in force when you opened your account. Note it says you must not go over your limit - which pretty clearly means you are in breach of contract if you do - which I reckon means the charges for doing it are either liquidated damages (if proportionate/reasonable) or penalties (if excessive). I can send you a cleaned up and PDF'ded version if you want it, but I only have these three pages.

Please ask for: Rachel Tomlinson Your Ref: Our Ref: DMD/NW/XXXXXX Date: 22nd May 2007 Dear Sir XXXXXX -v- HSBC Bank plc Claim Number: 6QZXXXXX We refer to the above matter and to previous correspondence. HSBC is confident that its charges are fair and reasonable, they were properly and fully disclosed in its terms and conditions and published price list and you must have been aware that you would incur such charges depending upon how you managed your financial affairs. HSBC is confident that it was entitled to apply these charges and that it would successfully resist your claim in the Courts. HSBC is, however, mindful of the time and expense that would be involved in defending its charges. For those commercial reasons alone, and without any admission of liability whatsoever, HSBC is prepared to make an ex gratia payment to you in the sum of £4,309.71. That payment is made in full and final settlement of your claims arising from the charges applied to your account in the period 30 March 1997 to 30 April 2007 (totalling £2,804) and includes statutory interest in accordance with the County Courts Act 1984 (amounting to £1,155.71) and your court fees (amounting to £350). By accepting this payment you agree not to make any other claims relating to these charges. HSBC also, reasonably, requires your confirmation that you will treat the terms of this settlement, together with the payment thereunder, as confidential. The above offer includes £1,017.50 in respect of charges, which, being charges that were applied to your account before 28 December 2000, are statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980. Our client's stance in relation to these charges remains the same as previously articulated to you in correspondence. However exceptionally on this occasion and in order to bring this matter to an amicable settlement our client is prepared to refund all of these charges to you. We continue to disagree strongly with your analysis of the law in relation to your claims for compound interest and overdraft interest. Regarding your claim for compound interest, as we have previously pointed out to you, the House of Lords case Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 ALL ER 961 is authority for the proposition that, absent exceptional circumstances (that do not apply here), the court has no jurisdiction to award compound interest. You have singularly failed to explain to us the legal basis for this part of your claim. As for our claim for overdraft interest, as we have previously explained. you are, in effect, seeking a double recovery because of your claim already includes interest. Again, you have failed to explain to us the legal basis for this claim. We believe the offer contained in this letter to be a generous and fair offer in the circumstances, particularly in light of the fact that the offer includes £1,017.50 in respect of statute barred charges. The facts of your claim have been considered with due consideration to the CPR, particularly Part 1. We consider that a clear and genuine attempt has been made by our client to settle your claim. If you accept this offer please arrange to sign and return the attached copy of this letter. Taking into consideration the hearing listed for 24 May 2007, we should be pleased to hear from you before close of business on 23 May 2007. We would also ask you to notify the court immediately in the event that you accept this offer. Should you be minded to refuse the offer set out in this letter then the case will proceed and the Court will give directions for the future conduct of the case at the 24 May hearing. At that hearing, our client will submit that in light of the fact that its offer relates to all of the charges applied to your account, your Part 18 Request is now redundant. Furthermore, our client's position is that Requests 3 to 23 of your Request are not "concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable [you] to prepare [your] own case" as required by the Practice Direction to Part 18. We should also remind you that this case is in the fast track and that you are therefore exposed to our client's costs incurred in connection with your claim in the event that you lose at the final hearing. When deciding the question of costs, the court will take into account the conduct of the parties, including the unreasonableness of any rejections of offers to settle. We reserve our client's right to draw this letter to the attention of the Court on 24 May. Yours faithfully DG SOLICITORS I accept the sum of £4,309.71 in full and final settlement of my claim against HSBC for the charges applied to my account in the period from 30 March 1997 to 30 April 2007. I agree not to make any other claims relating to charges for the period stipulated above. I also agree to keep the facts of my claim and HSBC's ex gratia payment strictly confidential. Signed: ...................................................Dated:.............................................. (Mr XXXX XXXXX)

Along with the above letter came 86 pages of photocopies of photocopies of some selected T&Cs. No contract relating to me, and certainly not all the T&Cs covering the life of the contract. The older ones were only 'extracts' - they did at least send the bits dealing with the issue of unauthorised overdrafts, admittedly, but who knows what was in the bits they didn't include? A rundown of what was included, using their own headings (handwritten on the photocopies of which they had sent me photocopies): Terms + conditions 2004 - 30 Nov 2006 these appeared to be complete - 46 photocopied pages each with one page of the 48 page booklet - you know, the kind of horrible little shiny booklet that looks just like junk mail so you will throw it away immediately. The omitted pages were 2 and 47 which I think were blank. Extract from terms + conditions 2004 (month unknown) 2 photocopied pages covering 4 pages of the T&Cs booklet Extract from terms + conditions June 2005 Again 2 photocopied pages covering 4 pages from the booklet. The existence of these T&Cs contradicts the heading of the first set, which seems to state that they cover the period from 2004 - Nov 2006. Extract from terms + conditions January 2004 4 on 2 as above Extract from terms + conditions September 2002 6 on 3 this time. Extract from terms + conditions July 2002 6 on 3 Extract from terms + conditions April 2002 4 on 2. Looks like 2002 was a busy year for T&Cs - no wonder I never got round to running them all past my solicitor Extract from terms + conditions July 2001 4 on 2. Extract from terms + conditions October 2000 4 on 2. Extract from terms + conditions September 1999 4 on 2. Extract from terms + conditions January 1999 3 on 3. Extract from terms + conditions January 1997 3 on 3. Unlabelled An assortment of price lists with 01/02, 10/02, 04/04, 07/04, 08/04 and 09/06 in the printer's blurb presumably signifying month/year. So not exactly full cooperation, but of some use, esp. the 1997 ones.

Please ask for: Rachel Tomlinson Date: 21st May 2007 Dear Sir XXXXX -v- HSBC Bank plc Claim Number: 6QZXXXXX Part 18 Request We refer to your Request for Further Information (the Request) received by us on 10 May 2007. In accordance with points numbered 1 and 2 contained within the Request please find attached copy documentation. Yours faithfully DG SOLICITORS Enc.

Thanks to everyone who has sent T&Cs! Note to mods/admins - what is the plan for these T&Cs? Any progress on making them available on the site yet? Sorry to hassle - all your efforts are much appreciated - but I just can't wait to get stuck into them, especially the pre-1999 ones. I have obtained some poor quality photocopies of photocopies of excerpts of the 97 and 99 T&Cs from D&G, and it looks like they changed 'you must stay within your limit' to 'you should..' around that time - though without making any real change to the way the contract operated, in particular the fact that customers were discouraged (deterred?) from going over the limit. I'm not sure, but I reckon saying 'you should', without giving some reason why this is to be taken merely as advice, should be construed as imposing a contractual obligation anyway - especially when it represents a merely verbal change to the previous terms. I have a lot more ideas on this topic - e.g. the obligation to repay 'excess borrowing' immediately and without demand might, with some argument, bring into play rule 4(b) from Dunlop ("It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid - Kemble v Farren"). I'm going to start a thread in the legalities section about the various issues once I have a bit more to go on... cheers, stax

Try http://www.archive.org Results for HSBC here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90721-i-need-your-help.html#post840881

Terms from Sep 1999 (NOT MUCH USE - ONLY SELECTED TERMS): URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000614163424/www.banking.hsbc.co.uk/terms&conditions/terms.pdf Print info from back page: "MCP 01931 09/99 Printed by John Blackburn Ltd, Leeds 31K" T&Cs from 2004: URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20051024004400/http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_1_4_24P/content/uk/pdfs/en/personal_banking_terms.pdf Print info from back page: "91804-1 (Pack of 10) MCP21428 Printed by Charisma Colourprint Ltd, Sheffield. © HSBC Bank plc 2004. All Rights Reserved. HBJ6202/1/0804048" T&Cs from Aug 2005: URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20050526042225/http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_1_4_24P/content/uk/pdfs/en/personal_banking_terms.pdf Print info from back page: "91804-1 (Pack of 10) MCP24515 (08/05) Printed by Charisma Colourprint Ltd, Sheffield. © HSBC Bank plc 2004. All Rights Reserved." IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A BROWSE AROUND, E.G FOR PRICE LISTS: Internet Archive Wayback Machine Internet Archive Wayback Machine NB: 1. Wait until archived pages are fully loaded ('Done') before clicking on links, otherwise they may try to direct you to the original page rather than the archived copy. 2. When you follow links, you may get directed to a later version of the page - I think this is when the original version is unavailable. This could be because it was never archived, or because the 'owner' of the page has asked for it to be deleted from the archive - archive.org will always comply with such requests. THIS (I.E. POINT 2) IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU TRY TO LOOK AT OLDER VERSIONS OF THE T&Cs. YOU CAN'T FIND ANY EARLIER THAN 2004-5, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN ACCESS VARIOUS OTHER HSBC PDF DOCUMENTS FROM AS FAR BACK AS 2000! DID HSBC ASK FOR THE OLD T&Cs TO BE PULLED? Or is that too much like a 'conspiracy theory'?

archer_66: it's not ideal, but you could try using a digital camera if you have one/can get access to one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90721-i-need-your-help.html#post830459 Wilks_77: I think CAG will be able to do it, if you just send the image files (TIFF or BMP are best). My understanding is you shoudl send them to [email protected]. If they can't do it, I can. If you PM me, I'll give you an email address to send them to - I should be able to return PDFed versions to you within a few hours.

I don't think the use of the words 'charges' or 'fees' has any legal significance. What you are looking for is something that suggests that by going over (or trying to go over) your limit you are in breach of the contract. So as I understand it, you want something that says you mustn't do it or - possibly - just that you "shouldn't" do it. It might be enough if you can find a clause that makes it clear that the contract is aimed at preventing you or discouraging you from doing it. There hasn't been much discussion of this point on the site, and I'm not an expert, so don't take this as gospel.

from XXXXXX to Rachel Tomlinson cc Deborah D'Aubnay , Naomi Wharton date 18-May-2007 14:38 subject Part 18 request - claim no 6QZXXXXX Dear Ms Tomlinson, Thank you for your acknowledgement of receipt of my email of 10 May 2007, entitled "Important documents relating to claim no 6QZXXXXX", which contained a request for information under CPR Part 18. (the Request). In the Request, I asked that you supply me with all documents specifying the terms, past and present, of the contract governing the operation of my bank account. I also asked that this information be provided within one week. I further specified that in the event of your declining or otherwise failing to supply this information, you should send an explanation for such failure, also within a week. I am sure you would not make the quite incredible claims that you do not possess this information or that significant research is required to gather it. Furthermore, I would expect to be furnished promptly with the requested information in the interests of transparency and good faith dealing, not to mention basic courtesy. This is particularly so since I am a party to a contract whose terms have been frequently modified by the other party without negotiation or prior consultation. I am accordingly very disappointed that the reasonable deadline I specified has now expired without any explanation from you of your delay in complying. Please supply the aforementioned information immediately. Please also reply to this email explaining your conduct in this matter. I refer you to the provisions of Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and to the Practice Direction accompanying that Rule. May I remind you that a case management hearing has been scheduled in this case to take place in less than one week's time, and that I shall certainly seek to raise this matter with the court at that meeting. The deadline for supply of the remaining information falls on the morning of 24 May 2007 - the scheduled date of the abovementioned hearing. I request that a copy of all responses you may have prepared by then to any part of the Request be brought to that hearing and handed to me in person, notwithstanding that you may have used, or intend to use, any other means of delivery in addition. I am sure that you will not wish to cast doubt on your bona fides by refusing this simple request. yours sincerely, XXXXXXXX

Ask for: Rachel Tomlinson Date: 21 May 2007 Dear Sir XXXXXX XXXXXX -v- HSBC Bank plc Claim Number: XXXXXXXX Part 18 Request We refer to your Request for Further Information (the Request) received by us on 10 May 2007. We will respond to the request on or before 24 May. Yours Faithfully DG SOLICITORS

Date: 17th May 2007 Dear Sir XXXXXXXXX –v- HSBC Bank plc Claim Number: XXXXXXX Our client remains confident that those charges claimed prior to 28 December 2000 are statute barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980. Nevertheless, our client may be prepared, on a without prejudice basis, to consider refunding some of the earlier charges that fall outside the limitation period. However, before our client can do so, you will need to provide evidence to show that all of the charges that you say were applied to your account were in fact applied to your account. Our client does not maintain, nor is it required to maintain, records beyond six years. If you would like our client to consider making an offer in respect of the charges allegedly applied prior to 28 December 2000, you will need to provide us with copy statements in relation to all such charges. We will then consider with our client whether it is prepared to increase its offer. In any event, as you are no doubt aware, should this matter proceed to a final hearing, you will need to prove to the Court that all the charges you say were applied to your account were in fact applied to your account. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully DG SOLICITORS

Hey publicenemyno1, did you have any luck finding those old T&Cs?

remus, I think you have described district judge Cooke's reasoning pretty well. First he finds there's no evidence of an express term imposing an obligation on the customer to keep the account within the limit. Then he looks at whether there is an implied term imposing such an obligation. In doing so, he seems to think it necessary to go through the strange reasoning you describe, drawing the false conclusion that it is not within the control of the customer to keep the account within the limit. This is of course contradicted by various public assertions made by the banks, in which they say basically 'no-one has to pay the charges, because they can just stay within the limit.' And his reasoning: "the customer will typically not know the exact state of his balance at any point in time. Even if he keeps the most meticulous records of all payments into and out of the account, it is likely that on any given day the balance shown by those records will not be the same as the cleared balance on the account at the bank" doesn't justify his conclusion, even if the conclusion were accurate. One doesn't need to know the exact balance to avoid going over the limit: all one needs to know is the minimum possible balance - i.e, the 'worst case' balance. He additionally seems to take the view that a contract cannot impose an obligation which it is not within the control of the supposed obligee to perform. I'm not aware of any such rule, even if it had any appication to this case (which it doesn't). Or if he doesn't take that view, he is content to lead Kev down the path of accepting it in making an admission that there couldn't be a breach for going over the limit. (And I'm wondering whether his Socratic cross-examination is an acceptable way for a judge to elicit admissions from a litigant in person - I don't know the protocol in such situations.) In any case, the judge then undermines this line of reasoning by saying: It would no doubt be possible to draw up a contract in which the customer was placed under an express obligation to ensure that there were at all times in his account sufficient cleared funds to meet any payment request authorised by him from that account on the day the payment fell to be made. Such a term would be onerous for the customer (as Mr Berwick's reaction makes clear) because of his inability to ascertain the exact state of the account at any point. In the absence of any such express term (and I have no evidence to suggest that there is such an express term applying to Mr Berwick's account) it is not in my judgement a term which should be implied into a contract by the court. so he suggests that since such a term would be onerous (and Kev's reaction is evidence, apparently, that it would), it is less likely that it should be 'implied into' the contract. This is despite the fact that earlier he takes a hardline, commercial view of contract in which the only relevant issue is whether the clause is needed for the contract to make 'business sense'. Out of interest, note that the judge also seems to say that in the absence of an express term, there should be no implied term. Does this mean that a term should be implied only if it already exists as an an express term? That would be a pretty rum doctrine, wouldn't it. Basically, all this is just the judge sounding off. There was no evidence of an express term, and he even has an admission that there isn't one. And no basis was suggested for implying such a term. So the judge had no need to go into all this stuff about knowing how much is in the account etc. He is just showing off (not very effectively) becuase he knows it's a high profile case, if you ask me. The judge is on stronger ground (though it's still all uirrelevant by this stage) when he says: the customer may make or authorise whatever requests for payment out of his account he wishes; the bank is obliged to honour those requests insofar as there are sufficient funds in the account (or within any overdraft facility it has contracted to allow the customer) and it is free to accept or decline the request in any other case. If the bank accepts the request it is entitled to debit the customer's account and (to the extent that payment causes or increases an overdraft) in due course to be repaid by the customer for what it has paid out on his behalf. If the bank declines to accept the request it is not in breach of contract to the customer for having done so and nor is the customer in breach of contract having made the request in the first place. most of this is fairly well-settled law - when a customer authorises or attempts a payment out of his account, the bank need not honour it if it wouod take the account over the (contractually) agreed limit. the customer is taken to request an OD extension of the amount requested, and the bank may grant such an extension by honouring the payment. Of course this position is a bit odd as a description of what actually happens and could (should?) be challenged, but I'm not going to go into that now. The dubious bit - which isn't as far as I know expressly specified by the existing case law - is that the customer isn't in breach by (ahem) 'requesting' the extra overdraft. It's perfectly possible that it might be breach to make these 'requests' - it seems that it is if you use a cheque card, even though the bank doesn't actually have to honour the cheque - it just chooses to do so for commercial reasons. Anyway that's enough amateur legal analysis for now...not that the professional variety is necessarily much better, going by the antics of Cooke DJ. stax

I sent a "request for further information" under CPR part 18 just over a week ago (before the Lloyd's case), asking among other things for all the T&Cs. I sent it by email after getting them to agree that I could serve documents by that method, as preferred in the CPR. I gave them a week to send me the (signed) contract doc and all the T&Cs. They haven't responded at all. I'm about to send a followup email. I have a case management hearing in a week's time, so I'll be interested to see what the judge makes of this. I'll keep you all posted, and in teh meantime I'd be glad of any advice anyone has. However, I have a feeling there may be limitations on what I can do with the info they provide under part 18 - though how they could claim a right to keep secret their own published T&Cs I don't know. Anyone have any further info on that issue? The email is reproduced here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/55086-stax68-hsbc.html#post823126 and for convenience the relevant bits of the request are here: (...) Meaning of terms: The claim: proceedings at XXXXX County Court the claim number of which is XXXXXX The claimant: XXXXXXXXX , claimant in the claim. The bank: HSBC bank plc, defendant in the claim, previously trading as Midland Bank. The account: The personal bank account identifiable by the account number XXXXXXX and held by the claimant at the XXXXXXXX branch of the bank. The contract: the contract or agreement, governing the operation of the account, entered into between the claimant and the bank. The start date: 2 September 1997 Today: Thursday 10 May 2007 The claimant requests and requires the defendant to supply further information relating to the claim as set out in numbered paragraphs below. The claimant requests and requires that all such information be supplied by post or by hand, and where possible by email, within two weeks of today - that is, before 00:25 on 24 May 2007 - in the case of items 3-23, and in the case of items 1 and 2, which the claimant considers to be extremely straighforward, within 7 days - that is, before 00:25 on 17 May 2007. the claimant believes these timescales to be reasonable given that the defendant is a large corporation with dedidated departments and that it is reasonable to assume that much of the information requested must already have been gathered in checking the truth of the defendant's statement of defence. The claimant requests and requires that any item or part of an item which is not supplied within the indicated timescale shall nonetheless be provided as soon as possible thereafter, and that a delay in providing one item or part thereof shall not be taken to justify delay in providing any other item or part of an item. The claimant requests and requires that the defendant provide reasons for any delay in providing, or failure to provide, any item of information requested herein, and that these reasons be provided within the timescale indicated for supply of the information concerned. In the case of delay, an indication should at the same time be given as to when the information will be made available - and reasons given why it cannot be made available more quickly. The defendant is advised that any good reason it may have to refrain from suppling, or delay the supply of, any of the items listed, or any or part of an item, does not relieve the defendant of the requirement to supply all other items or parts of items within the timescale specified or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible. (...) The defendant is advised to consult carefully the provisions of part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the practice directions which accompany it. The information requested and required comprises the following items: 1. Any original document, or a true copy thereof, which specifies, explicitly and/or by reference to other documents, the terms of the contract and/or records the inception of the contract. If a version of such a document exists which bears the claimant's signature that version or a true copy thereof should be supplied. 2. True copies of all documents setting out terms and conditions or price lists, and any other documents which actually or purportedly specified, supplemented, or varied the provisions of the contract: (a) at the commencement of the contract (b) at the start date © from time to time throughout the life of the contract up to and including today. (...)

Yes, that's basically what I concluded - though since the Lords ruled that the term wasn't unfair, presumably they must have said something obiter about other terms which would be unfair, presumably terms which are not "simply designed to ensure that [the core] position remained unaffected by the entry of any judgment in favour of the Bank". My perplexity was that at para 46 the judge referred to "a letter...referring me to the decision of the House of Lords in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL 52, which he said was inconsistent with my provisional conclusion that the charges complained of were not charges imposed for breach of contract by Mr Berwick." which surely can't be right.

Thanks elcorazon. I must say that having read this summary, it remains unclear to me why the case was cited. I don't believe that it can have been for the reason given by the judge - i.e. to challenge his decision that the charges weren't default charges. My best guess is that the judge made a slip in giving that as the reason, and that in fact the submission aimed to challenge his application of s6(2) of the 1999 Regs (equivalent to 3(2) of the 94 regs), on the grounds that the term specifying the charges was not a core term. That would at least remove the circularity from the judge's reasoning. The only other explanation of what was going on that I can think of is that the submission referred to some obiter remarks in the DG v FN case. I suppose Tom Brennan might be able to enlighten us if he reads this...

Everyone who has any T&Cs - yes, please do send them to alan@consumeractiongroup. co.uk. We need to build up a history of this stuff. For what it's worth I'd recommend that scanning the whole document including front and back covers, using greyscale rather than black and white if possible, and using the highest quality you can - they don't call it 'small print' for nothing! It's recommended to save the scanned images as a pdf file, but if you can't do that for any reason, send the images - TIFF or BMP files are better than JPEG as there's less likely to be distortion of the image. If in doubt as to how to do it, ask on this thread. Manic Blonde: sounds like you have a real Aladdin's cave there. Please send everything you can - hundreds of HSBC claimants will be eternally grateful! I'd suggest sending the oldest stuff first as this is likely to be the most scarce. If you are still having trouble with the scanning, post details of your scanning software and the model of scanner you're using and I or someone else will be able to give you detailed instructions. cbcb - might be a good idea to start a new thread for the legal arguments - but post a link to it in this thread so we get notified. I have a few ideas too, as I'm sure do others - it would be good to get a discussion going. Alan/admins - I assume you are working to make this stuff available on the site - thanks for your invaluable efforts. cheers all, stax

No probs - it's a start, anyway. I'll be watching for new developments! Anyone who has any T&Cs: remember, once they are displayed on the site you will be able to get advice on them. And if you send the ones you have, other people are more likely to take the trouble to send the ones they have - which may well benefit you. It's not necessarily only the T&Cs that were in force when you opened the account that are relevant. It might be worth pointing out for those who don't have access to a scanner that it is possible to get usable images with a digital camera if you have one - and a steady hand. Even some mobile phone cameras might be hi-res enough. It doesn't always give good enough results but it's worth taking 5 minutes to try it if the alternative is that you wouldn;t send them at all. Some basic tips if you really have to use this method: Set the camera to take the biggest picture at the highest resolution. Lie the document flat in bright sunlight. Bend over it so you are photographing from directly above the middle of the document. If you need to use flash, be aware that you can get bad reflections/glare off shiny pages so you may have to take the picture from a slight angle, i.e. not directly above the middle of the page. Make sure not to cast a shadow. Try to get the camera close enough so the page fills the viewfinder with just a little bit of space around the edges. Don't try to photograph two pages together. You can photograph a single page in two halves if necessary. Don't get so close that you can't focus. Don't use zoom if you can avoid it. Don't worry if part of the opposite page is in the picture - it can be masked out later. Keep as still as possible when pushing the button, obviously. Photograph all pages including the front and back covers. Save the pictures as bmp or tiff files if possible. Try to avoid using highly compressed formats like jpeg. It may add a frisson of excitement to an otherwise dull process if you pretend to be a spy who could be discovered at any time by the Gestapo. Er, That's it. But it is a lot easier to use a scanner if you possibly can. cheers, stax

Yes, sorry I messed up the link. It's fixed now and I may as well repeat it here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90721-i-need-your-help.html

see this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90721-i-need-your-help-new-post.html