HSBC Harassment phonecalls and time delay tactics...

[CelticStorm]

I write this on behalf of my fiancee, together we recently took the step to sort out our financial problems, by consulting a debt company who have worked with us to sort out troubles out. We started this last October and it took a few montsh before all the debts were organiosed properly, we are maintaining the one montly payment, no problem with that, thew companies concerned are even accepting the payments, that is all but one company, HSBC.

 

My fiancee had a loan, the outstanding amount would be less than £7K, she had kept up with the repayments, she also had a credit card close to its limit of £10K. HSBC accepted the amount offered by the debt company, but are apparently refusing the amount offered on the loan, stating the offer is less than 1% yet the amount accepted on other HSBC debts is less than 1%.

 

I believe this to be a delaying tactic so that further interest can be accumulated to the account before they eventually send it to one of their debt collection companies so that our own debt consolidation company can sort out the details.

 

However, this is causing extreme distress to my fiancee, many times sher has broken down in tears asking wqhy they are being so awkward about this, when all wer want to do it, pick up the pieces.

 

What makes this so much worse, the constant PHONECALLS, 08007 numbers, 3 or 4 times a day, neither of us answer the phone, I cant becuase I am now working away, but my fiancee is scared to, she has been advised that any contacvt should be directed to our debt consolidation company, but HSBC will not back off, they keep phoning up, they never leave a message and I mean, NEVER. so when you think that we have been getting these phonecalls since October/November time, almost every day (they do it every day for a couple iof weeks then leave it a few days before starting again for another few weeks), that is a lot of phonecalls and unnecessary stress, when they are still accepting the payments made, but not agreeing to the payments. We have already changed the number and dont really want the hassle again, so any advice would be really appreciated on how to deal with this.

 

Many thanks

Rick

[Castlebest]

Hiya Rick and welcome to the HSBC forum . This thread should sort out your harassment problems

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/99361-you-being-harassed-telephone.html

 

Have you asked all of your creditors for details of any charges on your accounts and loans? its amazing how these build up over time and a recovery claim can drastically reduce what you actually owe.

 

I recommend you look into this avenue by sending them all an SAR letter and send a Consumer Credit Act s77/78 letter to your credit card and loan companies .

 

pete

[Dougal16T]

Good morning everyone...

 

I have used Money Claim Online and found it very good - unless you need to get a warrant issued........!

 

Just a general thought...why are we not looking at the problem as far as regaining our charges and the information relating to them from another angle....see The Fraud Act 2006.....!!:grin:

 

Copy of letter sent today to Mackenzie Hall....

 

Thomas Lloyd

Mackenzie Hall

30 The Foregate

Kilmarnock[

KA1 1JH 20th May 2008

 

 

First Class recorded delivery

 

Re: M XXXXXX

 

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person

 

I have today received your unsigned letter dated 9/5/2008. I will not be making any payment to you.

I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing.

It is necessary to draw your attention to my letter to you dated 9th May 2008, sent by recorded delivery first class mail.

Royal Mail have confirmed receipt by you of this letter.

This letter required certain information from you – that information is still outstanding.

In the meantime, the contents of your letter dated 9th May 2008 constitute an offence under The Fraud Act 2006 .

 

The appropriate sections read:

 

Section 1. Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for the offence. The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud.

 

This section makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of "false" in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of "representation". A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person's state of mind.

Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

Subsection (5) provides that a representation may be regarded as being made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that fraud can be committed where a person makes a representation to a machine and a response can be produced without any need for human involvement.

 

Section 3. makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

"7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it."

 

Section 5. defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost".

 

Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. This wording draws on that of the existing law in section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 24 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (These provisions make it an offence for a person to "go equipped" to commit a burglary, theft or cheat, although they apply only when the offender is not at his place of abode.) The intention is to attract the case law on section 25, which has established that proof is required that the defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with the offence, and that a general intention to commit fraud will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA), the court said that:

"In our view, to establish an offence under s 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word 'any' in s 25(1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to prove that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else."

Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this new offence is 5 years.

 

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. For example, a person makes devices which when attached to electricity meters cause the meter to malfunction. The actual amount of electricity used is concealed from the provider, who thus makes a loss. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years.

In the Magistrates Court the sentence for a single offence may not exceed 12 months. However, Section 78 of Powers of Criminal Courts Act (Sentencing) Act 2000 imposes a maximum of six months. This was due to be changed in November 2006 and will change if Section 154 Criminal Justice Act 2003 is activated. As at 16 January 2007 it has not been activated so the maximum penalty is restricted to six months.

 

Section 8: "Article"

Section 8 extends the meaning of "article" for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. Examples of cases where electronic programs or data could be used in fraud are: a computer program can generate credit card numbers; computer templates can be used for producing blank utility bills; computer files can contain lists of other peoples' credit card details or draft letters in connection with 'advance fee' frauds.

 

Section 12 repeats the effect of section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that if persons who have a specified corporate role are party to the commission of an offence under the Act by their body corporate, they will be liable to be charged for the offence as well as the corporation. By virtue of subsection (2)(a) and (b) this offence applies to directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of companies and other bodies corporate. Subsection (3) provides that if the body corporate charged with an offence is managed by its members the members involved in management can be prosecuted too.

 

Itis now too late to reverse your position, as a report has today been passed to the OFT.However, I am conscious of the possibility that their enquiries may be protracted and so therefore I have today made a formal complaint to the Police, providing a S.9 Witness Statement, together with first generation copies (taken by the Police) from the documents you sent to my address. My request for this matter to be investigated under the Fraud Act 2006 has been accepted and enquiries are today commencing.

 

Sorry this post is a bit lengthy...but does anyone have any comments? I think Section 3 applies particularly to ALL Financial Institutions.

Best wishes to you all

Dougal:cool:

[rdm2006]

hi Rick

 

this may also help you

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/37006-harassment-telephone-response-letter.html

[upsidedowngirl]

I began to get HSBC 0800 phonecalls the other week (them ringing me about 5 times a day every day). I went into the branch and sorted everything out (which was simply that I had not paid any money into my overdraft for two months(I was not over the limit though), and I requested they do not correspond with me by telephone which they agreed to. It didn't stop the phonecalls.

After a few more days of getting VERY annoyed, I answered the phone and told them I have never heard of the person they were asking for and that this was not the correct phone number and I was extremely annoyed at the continual harrassment of phonecalls from this number. They were very apologetic and I have had no more phonecalls since.

[CelticStorm]

Thanks rdm2006 (is that your initials, if so, we share the same), your advice is just wanted I was hoping for, hopefully it should do the trickm but we may just go to OFCOM as well with this as it has been going on now for so many months, when by all accounts, they shouldn't even be dealing with us anymore, but the debt consolidation firm.

 

All the best

Rick

[rdm2006]

Looks like we also share our first name

[PGH7447]

Thanks rdm2006 (is that your initials, if so, we share the same), your advice is just wanted I was hoping for, hopefully it should do the trickm but we may just go to OFCOM as well with this as it has been going on now for so many months, when by all accounts, they shouldn't even be dealing with us anymore, but the debt consolidation firm.

 

All the best

Rick

 

Celtic, is this one of them firms you pay a percentage to? if so you can get the same help and advice for free from the CCCS

 

CCCS - Free Debt Advice from the UK's Leading Debt Charity

 

Just a thought! but it would save you and yours money

[CelticStorm]

We had considered an IVA with one company, but for some really insane reason, the repayemnts they wanted us to make would have ended up with us paying actually a lot more than we owed, so didn't understand that at all, the company we are with now, Churchwood, have been absolutely brilliant, got everything organised with the exception of this one loan account with, but that's HSBC for you, always been problems with them. But Churchwood have suggested that is we keep up repayments like we are doing, then an IVA with them may be considered later this year once my own business is sorted out.

 

As it was, our final alternative was bankruptcy, which we didn't want, but it was a last resort, but Churchwood were there and they helped us both a lot, so would recommend them anyway.

 

RDM, thanks, we have also contacted Churchwood this afternoon and they agree the approach to OFCOM would be justified for us, so we shall be following that through.

 

All the best

Rick

[PGH7447]

OK if you are happy with them Good Luck

[mailmannz]

If you have online banking, log in and remove all your contact phone number details.

 

Also demand that they remove phone contact details when they next call.

 

I did this, and now only get letters from them. Havent had a phone call from HSBC in over a month!

 

Mailman

[bidstermeister]

Mailmannz's advice works - Went I was with HSBC, I changed my online banking profile to include an un-used VoIP number that saved voicemails as MP3 files and logged all calls etc. It appears that their dialer feeds of those details and takes effect almost immediately.

 

Alternatively, the "I will only communicate with you regarding this matter in writing..." line repeated until they hang up is always a good'un.

[mailmannz]

Of course you could also put down a premium rate number or one of those dodgy 0900 sex lines as your contact phone number

 

Mailman

[CelticStorm]

My fiancee would, and as much as that idea does raise an eyebrow for amusement factor, she hasn't logged into her bank account for almost 8 months when we did the debt consolidation, she was advised to change banks, which she did, so has since forgotten her log in details.

 

It is distressing to her and I am very tempted to answer the phone and just have a blast at them, it's ridiculous when they should generally just be dealing with the consolidation company, but it would appear that they are trying to hold on for as long as possible, whihc is also adding more interest to the loan no doubt.

 

I have contacted OFCOM twice using the online forms, but fear this wont do much, so might just write a letter to HSBC as advised above, they must be in breach of something for this.

 

I do appreciate everyones feedback, it's been great and certainly useful.

Thanks

[CelticStorm]

Change of Tactics now:

It would appear that HSDBC may be changing their tactics by trying to get my fiancee to call up someone by the name of Mr Ellison on 0161 972 4170

 

Why dont they just deal with the debt management company instead of this constant harrassement? Had my fiancee in tears this morning, but at least they left a friggin message for once.

[johnnymitch]

Hi CS

Did you send the Telephone Harassment Letter that RDM put on #4 ?

 

If so you shouldn't be getting those calls - if your fiancee is on a different number then consider sending the same letter from her....

Then if they persist - report them!

[freakyleaky]

Then if they persist - report them!

Hi Johnny. Just to clarify who should they be reported to if they persist?

Thanks bud.

[johnnymitch]

There you go freaky -

 

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/37006-harassment-telephone-response-letter.html

[freakyleaky]

Thanks Johnny. You are a diamond geezer. (I don't care what everyone else says.)

[johnnymitch]

Thanks freaky -nice to see you back - Hey! who have you been listening to .......??????????

[freakyleaky]

Thanks freaky -nice to see you back - Hey! who have you been listening to .......??????????

LOL:lol: Its that PD spreading rumours again. I don't seem to get much time these days. I just look in when I can. Its a good job you are here keeping things in check.

 

Back to the topic for a second, this is also a very useful link How to complain to a financial firm.

[johnnymitch]

Thanks freaky - it's nice to be appreciated - but pete's doing a grand job as usual................ and you are missed

 

I've copied your link above ........ cheers

 

PS I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when PD gets here........

[pinkduchess]

Its that PD spreading rumours again.

 

:o :o :o

 

as if i'd do that!! ......lol

[CelticStorm]

I reported them to Ofcom twice, then Office of Fair Trading who have now passed it over to Trading Standards.

 

Trading Standards are now on the case and should be getting back to me within the next 5 working days.

 

Obviously I shall keep updating the progress, but again this morning, my fiancee had another message asking her to call this Mr Ellison on the same number. She has been advised not to.

[johnnymitch]

Did you get any response from OfCom, CS ? Be nice to know if they're interested ...........

 

This Mr Ellison seems to be a persistent.........er ... fellow ....needs to be told firmly (but politely LOL!) to back off.... I think the only effective way is to put it in writing and send recorded delivery - so somebody has to sign for it.

Keep us posted on Trading Standards response, that'll be another learning curve..........