Jump to content

TM123

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About TM123

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Just to update, HSBC has decided to come a settlement 3 days before hearing date. I would have liked to see them in court and see them provide an explanation to the issues I have had. I did not see the point in taking time off work, also I would not have achieved much more than I had already had achieved.
  2. I have been told that they should provide documents by 11-05-2015 and then I have 14 days to file defence. I have drafted a response to the point in the claim, but want to know if I have a good ground for a counterclaim on the point in the first post, how much do you claim.
  3. Name of the Claimant ? Marlin Europe 1 Date of issue – 30-03-2015, have sent request for documents (31.14), solicitor has agreed extension. What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1. The claimant claims the sum of 2345.43 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated agreement between the defendant and HSBC Bank plc (3-------4) and assigned to the claimant on 22/03/2013, notice of which has been provided to the defendant. 2. The defendant has failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 3. The claimant claims the sum of 2345.43 and costs 4. The Claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction. What is the value of the claim? £2500 The claim for a current account (Overdraft) Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt Purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Yes Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not sure Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? account was in dispute over charges What was the date of your last payment? September 2009 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Yes Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? Yes
  4. Hi I received a court claim from a debt purchaser for the account I had with HSBC (current account). I had put the account into dispute in 2009 as I was treated unfairly by HSBC Bank and the balance was made up of charges and interest there on. I am in the process of drafting the defence and counter claim but need some help. Have I drafted the following section correctly and what are my chances on this. On 16-03-2009 and 18-03-2009 the defendant was sent a letter informing him that is direct debit for Egg credit card and Bradford & Bingley Home Insurance had been retuned unpaid. He was also told that “As this not the first time that we have returned an item we have cancelled this payment.” And that “Please contact the payee to make other arrangements to pay them in the future.”. The defendant contacted HSBC Bank to see if the direct debits could be reinstated but HSBC Bank refused to reinstate the direct debits mandates. Breach of Contract HSBC Bank Plc in the test case OFT -v- Abbey National and Others (2008) went to great length to argue the fact that when a customer requests a informal overdraft that the customer is not in default or in breach. In the Amended Defence and Counterclaim the following was stated: Paragraph 37 That in connection with an informally requested overdraft (a) the customer has not at any material time committed and does not commit any breach of the HSBC and First Direct Relevant Terms and Conditions or any other terms and conditions, …. Paragraph 38 HSBC and First Direct expect, in the course of the normal operation of personal current accounts, to receive an informal request for overdraft and the bank operates system and facilities for handling such requests as an integral part of the personal current account service that it provides. The informal request of an overdraft is not a beach of contract by the customer: it is, for example, expressly contemplated and permitted in the current HSBC Terms and conditions and in the First Direct Terms and Conditions that take effect on 1st October 2007 (HSBC Section 2 clause 7.3 …) There is nothing within the terms and conditions that allowed HSBC Bank to cancel the direct debit mandate and then refuse to reinstate them. The terms and conditions only allowed them to return the direct debit unpaid and charge a return fee. The letters sent to the defendant on the 16-03-2009 and 18-03-2009 contradict what is said above. It had lead the defendant to believe that he had done something wrong or was in breach of the terms and conditions. This had coursed the defendant considerable amount of distress and inconvenience. It had also coursed him some embarrassment as he had explain to Egg credit card and Bradford and Bingly Insurance why his direct debits had been canceled and to allow him to make payment by other methods. As the Charges imposed by the Banks constituted part of the price or remuneration for the banking services provided and of which direct debits are an integral part. HSBC Bank had restrict and refuse to provide those services when they had received a significant price and continue to receive it. The defendant contends that HSBC Bank Plc was in breach of their contractual obligations in providing the services as within the terms and conditions. The defendant request damages for breach of contract, distress, inconvenience and embarrassment to be assessed by the court.
  5. I have made a formal complaint to HSBC and the Chief Executive, but have been fobbed off. I wish to make a complaint to SRA, but the court documents and other correspondence does not identify the qualified solicitor. Lloyds defended them self with the following. "It pointed out that every letter sent out bore the name of a solicitor within the department who took responsibility for that letter. The correspondence also confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor's registration number." But this does not seem the case with DG Solicitors, have they not acted illegally.
  6. If this is the case then one should be able to claim for psychological damage coursed from the third party insurer. I am assuming this is what is coursing one to have further accidents in the future. How much is this worth then !!!
  7. Most of these companies make you think you are a criminal for not paying the debit. When in fact they don't abide by the law, regulations or any guidance set by the regulators. Why should one have to pay any more than one us legally required to do so, I am sure they will not
  8. I was hoping someone could clarify a few points. Who can take you to court, as I was taken to court by DG Solicitors (not a law firm) and the court document where signed by the Litigation Officer (not a solicitor). Is this legal and also if this person then acts dishonestly who does one make a complaint to. I presume you can't make a compliant to SRA as neither the firm or the person is regulated by them.
  9. But there is nothing stoping you holding 6k and using that to pay of the debit. I thought there was a 6k allowance for capital.
  10. They can not place two defaults on you CRF for the same debit. You need to make a complaint to Experian, Equifax and ask for the second default to be removed. If that does not work you need to compliant to the ICO. When did you hand in the car and when was the default notice sent (dates).
  11. What relevance does section 12/13 and 21 have in the facts of this matter. The OP clearly states that he handed in the car in 2009 and made no further payment towards the outstanding balance, he then received a default notice. Once the time on the notice has expired then a default should be on the CRF and not 3-4 years later.
  12. I have read the full guidance, what is quit clear is that a default cannot be placed 3-4 years later.
  13. Read the following. This is incorrect. Even going back to Wilson v First County Trust (2003) UKHL 40, the Lords said that there must have been an agreement, signed by the debtor, however the Lords did not say that if the bank doesn’t have this agreement then they cannot enforce. There have been a series of judicial rulings which address this point. HHJ Langan in Lloyds TSB vs Mitchell that the creditor did not have to produce the original signed agreement, he pointed out cases such as the Iron Mountain fire where thousands of credit agreements were burnt and pointed out that if the creditor lost his agreement because of the fire, then it would produce an absurd result that would have left the creditors unable to enforce compliant and enforceable credit agreements. That was never the intention of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In Carey v HSBC Bank Plc HHJ Waksman QC made it clear that the creditor does not need the original agreement to produce a true copy, he can rely on records held in computers and other sources to produce a true copy of the agreement, the only caveat is that the copy must be honest and accurate. The Courts have also set down some guidance on the issue of unenforceabilty and who shares the burden of raising such arguments relating to unenforceabilty. In HFO Services vs Kirit Patel HHJ Platts made it clear where a debtor wishes to raise an allegation of unenforceability, he cannot just say “its unenforceable guvnor” he needs to say why. For example, its unenforceable because the amount of credit is misstated and therefore a prescribed term is missing and therefore the agreement does not comply with s61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  14. Read the following. I would also point out that no where in the 1974 Act does it state the “Original actual signed piece of paper” must be brought to the Court. It would no doubt be accepted by the Court if a member of staff working for the bank in their archiving department gave evidence that there was a credit agreement recorded on the banks archives, and that the type of credit agreement in use at that time was “X” and the computer records show that “X” % rate of interest would have applied and the credit limit was “£XXXXX”. The Court is likely to accept such evidence unless there is a positive assertion coming from the debtor as to what he did or did not sign. Now i would also point out that making a positive assertion that you didn’t sign an agreement when you know you did, is not only likely to get found out and make you look foolish, if you make such an assertion in a Defence and sign such with a statement of truth knowing it isn’t true, then you may well end up facing contempt of court too.
×
×
  • Create New...