Don Leocornay Vs HSBC

[johnnymitch]

Hi Don,

 

I've found out my neighbour's a solicitor as well so I'm going to forward him the whole story, he'll get a barrister mate of his to review it and advise what my best course of action is

 

That's a bit handy ! Keep us posted - be interesting to see his view......

[don leocornay]

Nice one fiddled!

 

Not sure I'll phrase it in that way but I'll certainly be putting in a paragraph about the message his judgement sends to the public, especially in today's economic climate.

[don leocornay]

definitely will johnnym. i have to pay for him/her though but it's definitely the best way forward.

[hsbcfiddled]

Nice one fiddled!

 

Not sure I'll phrase it in that way but I'll certainly be putting in a paragraph about the message his judgement sends to the public, especially in today's economic climate.

 

 

 

 

The way I read that he had dealt with your case it certainly wasnt your interests that he was addressing.

[don leocornay]

As promised, here's the FOS letter (I'll omit the intro):

 

Complaint

 

Don's complaint concerns the loan that was provided to him in 2004. He feels that this was mis-sold as he was not asked to sign any documentation whatsoever, and was not given any documentation to look at after the loan had been granted. Furthermore, a managed loan was all that was offered to him in irder to put his finances in order.

 

Furthermore he feels that the inability of HSBC to provide a copy of the signed agreement is in contravention of the Consumer Credit Act, and the loan is therefore unenforceable and should be put aside.

 

Circumstances

 

In 2003, Don applied for and was accepted for a credit card. However, by 3 September 2004 the amount owing on this card had risen to £2,190.17, which was more than £1,000 in excess of his credit limit. The interest rate applicable to this debt was 18.9%.

 

His overdraft on his current account was also £2,213.77 as at that same date. The interest rate applicable to this debt was 18.3%.

 

In addition, Don had taken out a loan which commenced 24 March 2003, for an amount of £8,569.16. Regulard payments has been maintained for this loan until August 2004, by which time the amount outstanding had been reduced to £5,304.78. The interest rate applicable to this debt was 7.9%.

 

It is clear that Don needed to place his finances in better order, and made an approach to HSBC on 23 August 2004 with that end in mind. I have enclosed copies of the evidence provided by HSBC (as requested by you), and you will note the telephone note dated 23 August 2004 refers to his request for a managed loan.

 

A loan for an amount of £9,730 was granted on 3 September 2004, an amount whoch almost exactly matched the debts referred to above.

 

Findings

 

Before I specifically deal with this complaint it may be helpful if I explain the approach of the Financial Ombudsman Service when assessing cases such as this. We are impartial and independent of both firms and complainants. We give equal consideration to the information provided by both sides.

 

Furthermore, you should be aware that the Financial Ombudsman Service was not established to replicate the court system but, instead, to find a quick, efficient and cost effective dispute resolution mechanism.

 

Therefore, where there is a dispute about what happened, we base our decisions on the balance of probabilities - in other words, on what we consider is most likely to have happened in light of the evidence.

 

As you know, HSBC has been unable to provide you or us with a copy of the signed loan agreement. however, it has been able to provide you with a 'true' copy of the terms and conditions of the agreement, whic shows all relevant information other than the start date of the loan (whoch we know to be 3 September 2004) and the signature of Don.

 

The view of the Financial Ombudsman Service is that a complaint cannot automatically suceed simply because a bank is unable to provide a copy of a signed agreement (as in this case) and it is sufficient to enable us to consider a complain when a 'true' copy, such as the one provided in this case, is available.

 

I note Don's statement that he never signed any documentation, and that all of the arrangements were dealt with over the telephone. however, I believe this is unlikely to have been the case. Banks will not generally agree to offer such a large amount to a customer who was clearly in some financial difficulty (based on his financial circumstances immediately prior to the granting of the loan), without his signature on the appropriate documentation.

 

Furthermore, having been in such a position, I consider it unlikely that Don would have decided on the amount of the loan (in conjunction with an HSBC employee), and the loan repayment (£157 per month), without asking the term of the loan and how long he would have to pay that amount for. It is also most likely that he would have asked for the interest rate on which his payments were based.

 

As far as the loan itself is concerned, I have looked at the circumstances to consider whether or not, in my view, it was reasonable. Clearly Don needed to consolidate his debts, and this matched his indebtedness to HSBC to within several pounds.

 

He was also in a position of having to pay £203.03 towards his existing loan (which was clearly affordable to him), but was also having to pay 18.9% per annum on his credit card of £2,190.17 and 18.3% on his overdraft of £2,213.77, the overall effect of which that needed some for of financial assistance.

 

The interest rate charged to Don clearly reflected his financial situation. As you know the more at risk a bank feels when lending money, the higher the interest rate is charged to reflect that risk. In this case the interest payable was based on the Bank of England base rate plus 9.15%. The rate payable at the time the loan was arranged was therefore 14.8% per annum, which I do not consider to be excessive under the circumstances.

 

Conclusions

 

Initially, Don was clearly happy with the loan arrangement, as he was able to repay his other debts. Furthermore, he also appears to have been happy with the monthly amount payable as he continued to make payments for some time after the loan had been arranged. It is not clear what prompted him to make the complaint in the first place.

 

However, as stated above, I have seen no reason to suggest that the loan was inappropriate in any way, and I have also seen nothing to suggest that the loan was set up inappropriately.

 

I note that you made other points in various complaint letters to HSBC, which have not been repeated in the complaint form completed for the FOS.

 

These concern the conduct of HSBC in attempting to obtain payment of the outstanding credit card debt. You stated that HSBC contacted him every two to four days with a view to obtaining repayment of the entire amount due. I believe that this level of contact is not at all excessive, bearing in mind that Don had exceeded his credit limit by over £1,000 after having had the credit card for around a year.

 

Furthermore, I do not believe that HSBC was necessarily demanding the entire amount be repaid, as it is unlikely that HSBC would have entertained the prospect of a managed loan at that time unless it was prepared to consider Don's financial situation sympathetically.

 

In addition, whilst I also believe it unlikely that a managed loan was the only option offered to Don, I believe it was most likely to have been his best option.

 

Because of this, I regret that I am unable to recommend that Don's complaint should be upheld.

 

 

A bit of condescending guff at the end

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr B End

Adjuducator

[don leocornay]

Here's my response so far (random comments in red):

 

Dear Mr End,

Thank you for your letter, highlighting your judgement of my complaint against HSBC.

Obviously I’m very disappointed with the outcome and considering the serious nature of your judgement, I am replying to ask you to reconsider. This letter contains my responses to points stated in your letter and additional information which will prove helpful when you reconsider your judgement.

Response to Circumstances:

In your letter you state that by 3 Sept 2004, I was over my limit by more than £1,000. This is incorrect. My credit limit at the time was £2,000 therefore I was only over my limit by £190.17

The overdraft on my current account contains bank charges (£210 worth from Oct 03 to Sept 04) and was interest free up to my overdraft limit (£2250)

The graduate loan taken out on 24 March 2003 (£7,500 excl interest), was only to purchase a new car. I was not in arrears of this loan.

My telephone call on the 23rd of August 2004 was following a year of harassment by HSBC, I did not ask for the Managed Loan. I was making monthly payments to my credit card and if I hadn’t been harassed and threatened with court action, I would have been back within my limit and able to operate my account in normal fashion. It was following the emotional distress caused by such threats made by their outbound team that I called HSBC customer services for help to stop them calling and threatening me. There were a number of calls made to HSBC prior to the said date. No help was offered by HSBC at any time. The only options they provided me with were to take the Managed Loan, settle the credit card in full or face court action. I did not want to take the managed loan because there were no problems with either the graduate loan or the overdraft (a large proportion of my indebtedness to the bank). It didn’t seem reasonable to consolidate my products when there was only an apparent problem with approx 20% of total indebtedness. The only ‘problem’ was with the credit card and if HSBC had shown some patience, I would’ve been back within my limit.

HSBC have phone records to confirm all of this and I find that they are being very selective with the information they provide to you. As a bank, HSBC have full knowledge of the products and services they offer and therefore have a duty of care over me as a customer, who is not as aware. Practices such as this show that HSBC are abusing the trust I should have in them.

I shall be submitting a Subject Access Request to HSBC in due course asking for full disclosure of all records they hold for me. HSBC clearly cannot be trusted to give an accurate portrayal of events.

As a result of these points, it is NOT clear that I needed to place my finances in better order. Even if it was (which, I don’t believe to be the case), your statement appears to indicate that counts against me. If true, it is completely unfair.

Rebuttal to findings:

You state that the FOS doesn’t replicate the court system. However there are rules, procedures and regulations in place with regards to documentation that must be adhered to. In order for your ruling to be fair, these should be taken into account.

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, in particular Practice Direction 32 it states that

 

Quote:

13.1 Photocopies instead of original documents may be exhibited provided the originals are made available for inspection by the other parties before the hearing and by the judge at the hearing.

13.2 Court documents must not be exhibited (official copies of such documents prove themselves).

13.3 Where an exhibit contains more than one document, a front page should be attached setting out a list of the documents contained in the exhibit; the list should contain the dates of the documents.

 

As neither you nor I have had access to the originals any other version cannot be considered.

According to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b).

 

As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

 

This interpretation fits in with Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21) - of particular significance is sub-paragraph (6) which states:

 

"The duty to preserve records under this paragraph includes a duty to preserve all supporting documents relating to the items mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)."

 

 

Finally, key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended. This is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007.

All of this information falls in line with the three main parts of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which are:

Section 61 (1) (a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states:

 

A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner

 

Once again, I maintain that I never received ANY documentation for this agreement and, as a result, have never signed anything. In fact I even have a letter dated 17th May, 2007 from XXX XXXXXXXX – My Branch Manager – stating:

 

‘I am unable to attain as to whether paperwork of this nature was documented at the time’

 

The fact that HSBC have not been able to supply the paperwork requested, and cannot confirm whether such an agreement exists confirms that no such paperwork exists and, as a result, the agreement was improperly executed and the statement made by HSBC that the papers were lost in an office move (or is it due to condesation as stated in another letter) cannot therefore stand.

 

1.2 Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states:

 

(1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the

debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.

(2) A retaking of goods or land to which a regulated agreement relates is an

enforcement of the agreement.

 

1.3 Section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states:

 

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section

61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether

or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1))

itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or

hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

I also add that HSBC have been able to supply you with information, which has clearly been scanned and stored electronically. In particular, my graduate loan, executed a year earlier. It is clear that their policy is to maintain scanned copies of all documentation. In fact they have a department dedicated to doing so. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to provide the agreement for the managed loan that holds my signature (if it exists), which I requested more than a year ago. The only conclusion is that one never existed in the first place.

Your assumptions and conclusions made have been based on HSBC not providing you with detailed information and documentation.

I stand by my statement that I never signed any documentation regarding the Managed Loan. This point is backed up by the fact that:

1/ There are no records of an appointment being made at any branch for me to come in and sign the agreement in person.

2/ There are no records to confirm receipt of such documentation in the post. Neither does there exist any letters chasing an agreement.

I would ask you to take into consideration that in 2004 I was a recent graduate and not used to the updated T & C’s of any agreement or the act of consolidation. With hindsight the T &C’s I was under at the time were more favourable than the ones they moved me to with respect to interest rate and length of term. I was not aware of the necessity for documentation to give me to opportunity to review all information.

It cannot be deemed ‘clear’ that I needed to consolidate my debts based on the points previously raised.

Rebuttal to Conclusion:

Under no circumstances was I happy with the managed loan, as there was no problem with the other products held. I was not in any arrears with my graduate loan and there were no problems with my overdraft. I was bullied into this agreement after a year of harassing phone calls threatening court action over my credit card, which was the only product I needed help with. I only asked for help with my credit card. None was given. Of the three options given to me (namely, take the Managed Loan, pay off credit card balance or be taken to court), the Managed Loan appeared to be the best of a bad lot. But it clearly left me worse off with regards to overall interest rate and length of payment term. Had I been allowed to stay as I was, the graduate loan (car loan) would have been paid off in September 2006. However, the managed loan would not have been paid of until 2014 – 8 years later.

Following the media spotlight being placed on bank charges I decided to delve deeper into my own circumstances. Following media articles and online forums, I was made aware of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) and realised that I had been unfairly treated.

I initially thought that the telephone conversation was sufficient as I had previously made a telephone complaint in 2005 and was told by HSBC that there was nothing I could do. This was a result of starting online banking where I viewed the amount of interest applied each month (approx £100 per month against monthly payments of £157). This seemed abnormally high to me. HSBC have telephone records of my complaint, which they have not made available to you.

I acknowledge that there are some points missing from the initial complaint and thank you for answering them. They should have been included. (thanks to my solicitor)

Considering that I was only £190 over the credit limit on my credit card. I am of the opinion that the level of contact and the pressure tactics applied to me was excessive and unacceptable.

Unfortunately, the telephone records that would have highlighted my conversations with HSBC have not been made available to you and therefore it is difficult for me to accept your conclusion that I was offered the best option without knowing what alternatives were available because no alternatives were made available to me.

My Conclusion

HSBC have painted an inaccurate picture of the circumstances in order to obtain a favourable judgement.

HSBC have misled you about the whereabouts of an original agreement because they know that no such agreement exists.

With hindsight, it looks like HSBC wanted to take me out of an agreement at 7.9% and transfer me to a loan at a higher percentage. The Managed Loan benefited HSBC with respect to rate and length of term. The total amount paid under the managed loan is considerably higher than had I been left alone.

As a result of the points raised, the only fair judgement is to find in my favour and declare the ‘Managed Loan’ unenforceable.

Considering the current economic climate, the message your judgement gives is a worrying one. That anybody in financial difficulty is open to being taken advantage of by their bank, who will fabricate documentation where it does not exist and the Financial Ombudsman Service will side with them. As a result I implore you to reconsider.

I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,

Don Leocornay

[hsbcfiddled]

Very good- only I would get that subject access off now if I was you.

[Docman]

Hi Don

The response from FOS is typical of the responses I have had from them on a three referrals on various issues I have sent to them over the last four years. Hence my view that FOS is a waste of time.

I regret to say that I would expect their further response to your very valid points in your letter above to be along the lines of (1) we do not deal with anyone who has instructed a solicitor; (2) we can and do ignore any rules of law; and (3) there is f*** all you can do about it.

I admit I am critical of FOS and I genuinely do regret being in such a position. The organisation should be one that impartially handles cases. Unfortunately, it seems not to understand that impartially doesn't mean treating both sides as being equal parties. HSBC is a large global bank. You and all complainants are small individuals and therefore there is always a 'David & Goliath' scenario. If, as you say, the bank hasn't got a copy of the agreement, the test that FOS should apply to HSBC is one that says because the bank is what it is and SHOULD have kept a copy (for various legal and business reasons) but cannot produce one, then they fall at the first hurdle and the complaint should be upheld. Regrettably, FOS does not apply such a test.

[hsbcfiddled]

Hi Don

 

The response from FOS is typical of the responses I have had from them on a three referrals on various issues I have sent to them over the last four years. Hence my view that FOS is a waste of time.

 

I regret to say that I would expect their further response to your very valid points in your letter above to be along the lines of (1) we do not deal with anyone who has instructed a solicitor; (2) we can and do ignore any rules of law; and (3) there is f*** all you can do about it.

 

I admit I am critical of FOS and I genuinely do regret being in such a position. The organisation should be one that impartially handles cases. Unfortunately, it seems not to understand that impartially doesn't mean treating both sides as being equal parties. HSBC is a large global bank. You and all complainants are small individuals and therefore there is always a 'David & Goliath' scenario. If, as you say, the bank hasn't got a copy of the agreement, the test that FOS should apply to HSBC is one that says because the bank is what it is and SHOULD have kept a copy (for various legal and business reasons) but cannot produce one, then they fall at the first hurdle and the complaint should be upheld. Regrettably, FOS does not apply such a test.

 

 

Full Of Sh**:grin:

[don leocornay]

I just find his arguement laughable. Basically he's saying that because the bank is supposed to do something that it's likely that they did.

 

What nonsense!

[hsbcfiddled]

I just find his arguement laughable. Basically he's saying that because the bank is supposed to do something that it's likely that they did.

 

What nonsense!

 

 

I agree ...its a joke.

By applying the same principal to football...John Terry in the Champions league final must have scored that penalty because that is what was supposed to happen. Being that premiership footballers -as they are paid all that money - they must be infallable experts and would certainly have scored.

Therefore it was a goal.

 

Like I stated in my earlier post we all know what FOS stands for.

[Castlebest]

Like any organisation the FOS, FSA and OFT hire people who know about their field of business which is banking to deal with banking matters. These people by definition are bankers (no pun intended).

 

They have been trained by and worked for the banks and therefore the majority of these people have been fed on "company bull****" all their lives and cannot see how these "fine upstanding" organisations are doing anything wrong .

 

Do everything you can to resolve your dispute but at the end of the day the only way to make them listen is by issuing court proceedings.

 

pete

[don leocornay]

I just find it riduculous that if I'm stating categorically that I didn't sign anything and they say it's likely that I did. They're basically calling me a liar, which is completely out of order.

[don leocornay]

My lawyer came back to me on my reply and said that the AML and other laws mentioned aren't relevant in this case.

 

She suggests that the court will do the same as the FOS and use balance of probability to determine whether it is more likely than not that I signed. On that basis, she doesn't think I'll win.

 

Here's her updated letter. Any thoughts would be gratefully appreciated.

 

 

Dear Mr End

Don Leocornay

Further to your letter of 28 August 2008 I can confirm that I have now had the opportunity to take my client’s instructions in relation to your findings into his complaint against HSBC Bank.

Response to Circumstances

In your letter you state that by 3 September 2004 Don was over his limit by more than £1,000.00. Upon reviewing this with my client it would appear that in fact this is incorrect. At the time in question Don had a credit limit of £2,000.00 and was therefore only over his limit by £190.17.

The overdraft on his current account contained bank charges (£210.00 from October - September 2003) and was interest free up to his overdraft limit of £2,250.00.

The graduate loan taken out on 24 March 2003 was to purchase a new car. It is correct that he was not in arrears in relation to this loan.

My client still maintains that his telephone call on 23 August 2004 was following a year of, what he has described as, harassment by HSBC. It is not the case that he simply called and asked for a Managed Loan. He maintains that his call on 23 August 2004 was a response to the emotional distress that was being caused to him by the bank’s outbound team advising that he either entered into the Managed Loan or they would call in the full amounts outstanding in relation to the loans, credit card and overdraft.

My client is of the view that no help was offered to him by HSBC at the time and he was left with either two options, one to take out the Managed Loan or two to face Court action. My client’s view is that had HSBC acted responsibly and with some level of patience then he would very soon have been back within the credit card limit which was in fact the only area of his finances in which some difficulty had arisen.

Our client does not accept that the phone records provided to you account for a true record of all of the calls made to him and by him at that time. Please could you return to the bank and ask them for their written confirmation that the information provided to date includes all of the printouts of their telephone logs whether this be by way of information recorded on their computer database or hard copy file.

My client does not accept that by entering into the managed loan that he was put in a better position in terms of his financial circumstances.

Would you please confirm whether or not HSBC have been able to provide to you any documentary evidence to show that the loan agreement was ever sent out to our client? We are aware that the bank’s position is that the original signed Manage Loan agreement no longer exists but we would have expected that there would be some sort of computer database to show that the papers had been sent out to him whether this be by way of record of a standard letter that would normally accompany the letter being sent out or otherwise.

Our client advises us that HSBC have been able to supply him with information which has clearly been scanned and stored electronically. In particular his graduate loan executed a year earlier was provided to him. His understanding is that it is the bank’s policy to maintain scanned copies of all documentation and that they have an entire department dedicated to doing so.

Perhaps investigations could be made as to whether or not there are any records of appointments being made at the branch for my client to come in and sign the agreement in person. My client does not accept that in 2004 that he was unaware that the Terms and Conditions he was entering into under the Managed Loan were less favourable to him than the loans etc that he already had in place in particular in relation to the interest rate and length of terms. In particular he rebuts the statement that it can be deemed “clear” that he needed to consolidate his debts based on the points raised within your letter.

My client was not in any arrears with his graduate loan and there were in fact no problems with his agreed overdraft. The only possible area of contention was that of his credit card. The Managed Loan option was in his view the best of a bad lot i.e. to enter into the Loan or pay off the credit card balance in full or else be taken to Court. This does not necessarily mean however he was being put in to the best possible position. The Loan clearly left him in a much worse position with regards to overall interest rate and length of payment term. Had he been allowed to stay as he was in relation to the loans and credit card facilities etc that were in place then his graduate loan would have been paid off in September 2006 whereas the managed loan will not be paid off until 2014. Following the media spotlight being placed on bank charges my client decided to delve deeper into his own circumstances and it was only at that stage that he realised that he had been treated unfairly.

He initially thought that the verbal agreement to enter into the Managed Loan was sufficient and you will be aware of the telephone complaint made by our client in 2005 in which he was told that there was nothing more he could do.

My client maintains that as he was only £190.00 over the credit limit on his credit card that the level of contact and pressure tactics applied to him by HSBC was excessive and unacceptable. It is for this reason that we would again suggest that all necessary steps available to you to ensure that you have been provided with all telephone logs from the bank should be actioned.

My client is keen to ensure that a fair and open investigation of his complaint has been carried out. We would be grateful if you could consider the content of this letter and carry out the necessary steps to ensure that the available paperwork and appropriate questions are raised with the bank in order to properly satisfy our client that all such avenues have been exhausted.

We would urge you to reconsider your findings as our client is adamant that no Managed Loan was entered into in that no paper work was ever provided to him and that he was not asked to sign any Terms and Conditions.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Don's Lawyer

[car2403]

Your solicitor wants shooting, in that case.

 

[don leocornay]

now, now car. (love the sentiment, mind!)

 

It all boils down to this. If I take this to court, what will the judge do, when HSBC say they can't produce the original signed agreement. Will he:

 

1/ Chuck the case out and award in my favour

2/ Use balance of probability because it's my word against theirs.

 

If 1/ awesome, I win, if 2/ it's a lot more iffy.

 

If there's been a previous case where this had happened I'd be laughing.

[johnnymitch]

Strange , Don - for someone who doesn't think you'll win she seems to have put up a damn good argument........

 

Also, as your lawyer ,shouldnt she be looking for a precedent........

[hsbcfiddled]

Sorry Don but why do you need to take them to court?

[car2403]

now, now car. (love the sentiment, mind!)

 

It all boils down to this. If I take this to court, what will the judge do, when HSBC say they can't produce the original signed agreement. Will he:

 

1/ Chuck the case out and award in my favour

2/ Use balance of probability because it's my word against theirs.

 

If 1/ awesome, I win, if 2/ it's a lot more iffy.

 

If there's been a previous case where this had happened I'd be laughing.

 

I think 1, which is why I think her advice about the result is a lot of poo.

 

Mind you, I bet she would instantly be given a role as District Judge, should she wish to make an application to her local County Court. They seem to like employing numpty's that don't know or understand the law or how precedent works.

 

Or, maybe she could get a role as litigation manager for a creditor - even worse, a ****** DCA. Plenty of them to go around, too...

 

(Call me cynical...)

[don leocornay]

thanks johnnymitch, she's just put 'lawyer talk' on my earlier letter so it doesn't sound like a big old rant.

 

In terms of precedent, you'd think she'd want to make a name for herself but she's a trainee and is probably just doing what one of the partners tells her

 

fiddled - I want them to:

1/ declare the ML unenforceable because I never signed it.

2/ refund every amount I paid under the ML (plus interest)

3/ remove all black marks from my credit file.

4/ I've been turned down for finance and a mortgage and had a credit card suspended by another bank because of this. There's a possibility of compensation (see kphoraror vs woolwich) but it's a long shot.

 

I've posted the FOS response so far.

 

 

car- me call you cynical? never! it's a true thing that you expect basic compentencies to be shown at work, unfortunately it's humans we're dealing with.

 

 

Spoke to lawyer today and instructed her to mention Wilson vs First County in the rebuttal. If I do decide to go to court, I'll not be using this firm.

[hsbcfiddled]

[

 

fiddled - I want them to:

1/ declare the ML unenforceable because I never signed it.

2/ refund every amount I paid under the ML (plus interest)

3/ remove all black marks from my credit file.

4/ I've been turned down for finance and a mortgage and had a credit card suspended by another bank because of this. There's a possibility of compensation (see kphoraror vs woolwich) but it's a long shot.

 

Ok Don and the ML included bank charges yeh?

[don leocornay]

the overdraft they consolidated as part of the ML contained bank charges, so you can say the ML does as well.

[don leocornay]

about 200 up to that point. (march 03 to aug 04)

1,200 up to May 07.

Quite a few applied when I stopped payment. so they bounced the S/O and charged me.

[hsbcfiddled]

about 200 up to that point. (march 03 to aug 04)

1,200 up to May 07.

Quite a few applied when I stopped payment. so they bounced the S/O and charged me.

 

I have been advised that any case containing bank charges would not be able to proceed in court whilst the OFT case is ongoing.

[don leocornay]

oh, may keep that bit quiet ;-)