This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Just received a letter from SLC stating I must repay and asking me to complete an income & expenditure form and make an offer of repayment!!! Do they believe they are exempt from the limitations act? reminder letter on the way to them

HI I am still receiving letters regarding this overdraft/bank charges now been passed to Moorcroft/Midas. Is a CCA request applicable to bank accounts/overdrafts? or should I re-issue the LBA to HSBC (original one was sent befor the test case started). Any advice appreciated.

No they go back about 4/5 yrs but i'm fairly sure the default notices were not correctly executed

I had an overdraft which had court ptoceedings issued and then cancelled (see post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?132884-HSBC-NCO-amp-now-IND**WON**) This has now reared its head again in the form first of DG then, MCS now Moorcroft. Can anyone point me in the direction of templates asking them to prove the account was defaulted correctly etc

This has now reared its head again in the form first of DG then, MCS now Moorcroft. Can anyone point me in the direction of templates asking them to prove the account was defaulted correctly and anything else that may throw a spanner in their wheel?

Finally i have received the following reply from the FOS: Any thoughts on next steps as the FOS appear to have completly ignored my amended complaint particulars?

The FOS replied to this letter with: "Thank you for letting me know that you wish to proceed with your complaint, albeit, on amended grounds. I would like to explain that this service is unable to investigate the 'new' grounds of your complaint until the bank has been given the opportunity to carry out its own investigation. Therefore, I would suggest that you contact the bank. You will of course be given referral rights to this service once the bank's complaints procedure has been exhausted. To which, again with Govan's help, I replied : write in response to your email advising that I must contact my bank with respect to the 'new' grounds of my complaint, so that it may 'investigate' these. Please note these are not 'new' grounds, rather I have been required to amend or update my existing complaint to take on board a change in the law from the case of OFT v. Abbey National plc and others [2009] UKSC 6. In light of the Supreme Court's decision, I have simply alerted you to what I now understand to be the relevant law which applies to my complaint, and which provides authority for the proposition that these charges were unfair. In determining a complaint , I understand that the Ombudsman will have reference to what is 'in his opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case'. DISP 3.6.4 of the FSA's Handbook provides that in considering what is fair and reasonable, 'the Ombudsman will take into account: (1) relevant law and regulations'. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could now proceed to determine my complaint, having regard to what I now understand to be the applicable law which supports my view that these charges were unfair. If any further information is required please let me know. I look forward to your written reply. They then proceeded to review the complaint as a new one.

And so on to the next piece of the saga. Following the SC ruling I sent the following letter courtesy of the Govan law centre: I write further to my outstanding complaint concerning unfair bank charges applied to my current account which had been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court test case of OFT v. Abbey National plc and others [2009] UKSC 6. I understand the FSA’s waiver has been lifted and you can now proceed to determine my complaint. Although the OFT lost this case under regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), the Supreme Court stated that this did “not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges” (para 61 of the court’s judgment). In particular, the Supreme Court made it clear that “it remained open to question whether bank charges were fair” in relation to regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR (para 80 of the Supreme Court’s judgment). Accordingly, in consideration of my existing complaint, and in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, please ensure that you have regard to the following amended grounds of complaint: (1) I seek a refund of overdraft charges (with interest thereon) applied to my current account because these charges were unfair in terms of regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR as – (a) the charges were set by reference to the overall costs of providing current account services to all of my bank’s customers, rather than the costs incurred by my individual conduct which occasioned the charges; (b) at no time did my bank ever inform or adequately explain to me, that I would be paying bank charges in order to cross-subsidise the costs of providing the vast bulk of their customers with ‘free if in credit banking’; © my bank’s charging structure was designed or created the potential for rolling or multiple charges, with charges and interest being applied and/or occasioned by ‘charges on charges’; (d) the way that charges were imposed and accumulated in terms of my bank’s charging structure was unclear, unpredictable and complex; and (e) the main providers of current accounts in the UK operated a similar charging structure to my bank, and in so doing restricted market competition, resulting in my inability to obtain an alternative current account with a fair charging structure; (2) Separately, I also seek a refund of overdraft charges (with interest thereon) applied to my account because these charges were unfair within the meaning of section 140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the reasons as set out in paragraph (1)(a) to (e) above, and in relation to the following additional reason: the charges were excessive in relation to the level and/or cost of the borrowing which triggered these charges. Please note this is not a template letter as my letter contains specific factual information which relates solely to my personal circumstances. I would ask you to have regard to the following examples of detriment which I have suffered as a result of my bank’s unfair and punitive charges: · As a result of HSBC applying charges to the account we were entered into a cycle of debt. · HSBC reduced our overdraft by £500 3 weeks into the month despite us asking them to wait another week until we had been paid and were able to cover the reduction in the overdraft limit. · Having not been given the one weeks grace we requested charges were applied for unpaid direct debits, had the overdraft been left at the £2000 level for 1 more week we would have been able to pay the direct debits without exceeding our overdraft limit and as such avoid incurring any penalty fees. · As soon as fees were applied to the account because of the situation described above we were in a cycle we could not break where HSBC were applying penalty fees every month. · Since we took the step to change Bank accounts we have not incurred any penalty fees on the new account despite our income and outgoings remaining the same. This clearly shows that the initial actions of HSBC pushed us into a cycle of penalty charges. I would be grateful if you could please acknowledge safe receipt of this letter, and confirm that in determining my complaint you will have due regard to my amended grounds of complaint.

Hmm, just received a letter telling me that unless I contact them they will issue court proceedings. As far as i am aware statute barred is a complete defence or am I wrong and SLC have re-writtain the law:-?

So Lloyds is going for the mass strike out option BBC News - Lloyds to ask local courts to dismiss overdraft cases wonder who else will follow

I wonder how many in the supreme court have been offered tasty jobs with the banks

No this is the first one I have received

Looks to me as though they are trying to say this is some form of agreement with them?? Any thoughts on action I should take?

Not sure but their figures don't add up, I sent £1 for the CCA on 2 accounts and they have taken that as a credit. the opening balance is allegedly £639.6, they have writtain off £540 and then re-debited it added 2 sets of fees and come up with a total of £133 and a closing balance of £854.64 even the opening balance plus £133 doesn't add up to £854.64 or is it my maths??????

Just received this, any thoughts???? Looks to me like they have made a statemetn up so they can try and justify how the sum outstanding is allegedly made up :? [/url] And from the court

No they sent a local solicitor who had to admit Largo had lost ( allegedly ) all documentation when an employee left over 12 months ago and did not leave his password.

:grin: Case Dismissed !!!! They could not prove they owned the debt, how the sum outstanding was made up or that the account had been defaulted in the prescribed manner.

Hi aa, I already have all the info relating to the loans, I don't have an issue with the Loans themselves as they are paid off but the PPI that was added to them. They are refering to the statute of limitations act 1980 which I know has influence over the age of bank charges that can be claimed. What I wasn't sure about was whether after recent findings by the OFT and FSA EGG can hide behind the limitations act when it comes to PPI?

Hi, I have put a claim in for the PPI on 2 Egg loans. Egg have writtain back saying that as the loans are over 6 years old under the statute of limitations act they do not have to look at the claim, does the act apply to mis-sold PPI? or should I forward the details to the FOS?

So, now got a court date of 5 Oct. Have received from Phoenix copies of my statements and a not particularly legible credit agreement which does not have a signature for the bank on it - oh yes and print outs of this thread

even though HSBC have told me and the FOS they will put the account on hold until the outcome of the test case they have now issued a final demand - no sur[prise there! Also just had a long and irrate call with collections during which they threatened debt collectors and legal action etc ... oh well at least they are consistent they lie to everyone.

That's how Litigation executives spell it don't you know

what signature of yours is it I'm supposed to be using?

This is the defence I am proposing to send does it look OK? Also the CCA they sent has not been signed by HSBC so is it legal? Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - The claimants’ particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant’s claim. b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and do not know what case I have to meet Further to the case, on 12/05/2009 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a list of charges applied to the account. To Date the claimant has ignored my request under the CPR, which was received and signed for by the claimant on 13/05/2009 and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested 7. The courts attention is drawn to the fact that the without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules I have not yet had the opportunity to assess if the documentation the claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable The courts attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in point 7 it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by s127(3). The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced Notwithstanding points 7 and 8, any such agreements must be signed in the prescribed manner by both debtor and creditor. If such a document is not signed by the debtor the document cannot be enforced by way of section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 The claimant is therefore put to strict proof that such a compliant document exists It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant. Notwithstanding point 11, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119) Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contains the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974 In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant’s statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16. Alternatively, I respectfully request a stay in proceedings until such time as the claimant complies with the requests outlined in paragraph 5 above or until the court orders its compliance with the same. I will then be in a position to file a fully particularised defence and counterclaim and will seek the courts permission to amend my statement of case accordingly. 17. In addition it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect since the agreement is alleged to have commenced before 6th April 2007 the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.