The Saga: HSBC & Me - Help Needed on Recall of £1500 Overdraft

[johnnymitch]

Difficult to say whether this is favourable or not DHO - but it may be just a receipt for your refund of benefits.

 

However ,I would wait until the letter arrives and come back and let us know what it says before you sign anything......

 

Funny how she knows a letter was sent but can't see what's in it ? lol

 

Meanwhile , carry on with your fence-painting - I've just finished mine about an hour ago, would you believe!

[DHO_2009]

Well, well, well...Just got of the phone to a lovely man from HSBC complaints department to discus the below letter (yes, the amazing essay) in black the original in red, his response in brief.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I would like to make a formal complaint against HSBC, regarding it’s handling of my account issues and subsequent services.

 

I first received a letter from Emma Boardman in November 2008 regarding the dormancy of account XXXXXX-XXXXXXXX to which I replied promptly outlining my circumstances and offered a repayment amount. With no reply from her, I received three other correspondents in December 2008, January and February 2009 to which I reiterated my circumstances and offering a repayment amount.

However, in March 2009 I received a letter from Helen Packwood advising me of my account status to which I reiterated my circumstances and payment plan.

 

Moreover, my circumstances are on record after meeting with the manager at the Covent Garden branch, King Street, London, WC2 in November 2008. I am deeply concerned that this has been overlook on every occasion.

 

 

I am dismayed at how three letters can go unanswered and/or missing yet the fourth, dated 13th March that raised some concerns, was not only received but also passed to Customer Service Improvement Officer Kerrie Sneath.

 

He apologized for that and said that there is no reference to my letters except the March one, but only because it was flagged up as a complaint.

He was confused at how this had happened. I also mentioned that a lady in collections said that HSBC do not correspond with letters, and he said that is wrong and will try track her down.

 

After speaking to a number of people at HSBC Customer Credit Services, I tried negotiating a reasonable repayment per month and subsequently deposited a total of £15 pounds on two occasions. However, each time it was suggested I agree to a managed loan with no agreement to accept my offer. I understand that a managed loan is only a short-term lending agreement and should be suited to my level of repayment. However, I did not find this offer neither agreeable nor suitable and believe on this occasion, you have failed in your duty towards customer care.

 

He said that whilst I am well within my rights to refuse the managed loan, the bank are within theirs refuse the offer. He said that without a formal agreement, a customer could pay in so much and then walk away from the debt. He said that a managed loan has good rates of interest and the advantage of paying it all off without penalty.

 

On the 30th March 2009, Helen Packwood wrote to me again stating;

 

‘We are giving you a further 28 days from the date of this letter to contact us…never the less reserve the right to make a demand…’

 

Shortly after receiving the letter, I contacted Customer Credit Services and tried to offer a repayment plan but was suggested to take a managed loan. Again, I declined this suggestion due to the reasons already stated. Non-the-less, I authorized payment transfer of £10 into the account.

 

 

Cont.

However, on the 10th April 2009, I found that the previous day £152 had been debited from my current account into the account in question. This right of offset included a £93 of payment from the Department for Work and Pensions for Income Support.

Whilst this matter has been dealt and resolved separately, I would like to question the authorisation to include such monies in the right to offset as this is in contravention to the Social Security Administrations Act 1992 section 187 (as detailed below), and such payments are clearly marked as originating from the DWP along with my national insurance number.

 

‘187- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on-

(a)benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;

(b)any income-related benefit; or

©child benefit,

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors’.

 

He said the bank is not allowed to take benefit (FINALLY AN ADMISSION) but the bank has to be aware. I told him that I have said to branch and telephone staff numerous time I am and it is on my notes.

He said that the taking of funds between accounts is automated and the letter telling me about the transfer was delayed due to the easter weekend.

However the acknowledged that the amount was passed back to me the day after.

 

Further more, on initial protest of this on the telephone with manager Kayleigh Busuttil, she informed me this was not correct and refused to refund the amount. I would like to make it clear that such an admission (rather than saying she was not aware and would look into the clause) is considered fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 where by;

 

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2 (false representation), 3 (failing to disclose information) and 4 (abuse of position). Subsection 1b requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property.

 

Whilst you are not obliged to notify me of such debits beforehand, I have not received notification that you had yet you were quick enough to issue a final demand. Under the Banking Code, banks must give customers fair and reasonable treatment. The code says any bank that goes ahead and debits an account without customer authorisation could be fairly criticised.

 

Interestingly, he did not address the fraud issue whilst he addressed all other points out of order (we went from the letters, to the final demand to the offset etc etc).

 

Shortly after making another telephone call to you, I received the final demand on the account. Querying this, I was told that it was a reminder and the 18 days in which to pay in full was inclusive of the 28 days to contact you. However, there is no mention or notice of reminder on such demand. I find the ‘sharp practice’ of this quite unreasonable I would like to question your demand for this before the 28 days from the letter dated 30th March.

 

He acknowledged that this was wrong and is putting the date back to the 10th May. He saw this as quite unfair and unreasonable.

 

Furthermore, I would also like to draw your attention what I believe are breaches in regulations and guidelines. In the final demand letter it states as read;

 

‘ACTION may be taken against you through DEBT COLLECTORS or SOLICITORS if you fail to comply with this demand within 18 DAYS. You may also be taken to COURT’.

 

Cont.

Under the Debt Collection Guidance from Office of Fair Trading July 2003 (updated December 2006) section 2.4 subsection b states that;

 

‘Falsely implying or stating to pay that failure to pay a debt is a criminal offence or that criminal proceedings will be bought’.

 

The implication that solicitor’s maybe involved and being taken to court implies criminal proceedings to the normal person, including myself. Further more, I would like to question the intimidating use of capitalising words such as ‘final demand’; ‘repay in full’; ‘action’; ‘debt collectors’; ‘solicitors’; ‘court’, ‘defaulting debtor’ and ‘credit reference agencies’.

I can only conclude such techniques is not to highlight the importance of the letter, as therefore the whole letter would be capitalised, but to intimidate.

 

Whilst he defended the banks automated letter, saying that it is important to highlight certain points (such as 18 DAYS) the letter has been through the HSBC legal team and he is sure it does not breach anything. However, on a personal level, he agreed with me that certain words are not necessary in capitals. He did say though that COURT and SOLICITORS merely refers to non-criminal proceedings and the passing of the debt to their in-house solicitors.

 

This whole matter has caused me considerable and unnecessary upset and stress, which as you will appreciate is not favorable for someone who suffers from depression and anxiety such as myself. It has also taken me a lot of time that would be better spent on managing my health issues and focusing on getting better.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours sincerely

 

DHO

 

He is sending me a written response, but I am keen to address this fraud issue or shall I just leave it?! Just waiting to hear back about this 'sign and deliver' letter...

[citizenB]

Please be aware that telephone conversations are open to misinterpretation. HSBC caused me no end of grief when I assumed incorrectly that the person I was speaking to was actually listening to me.

 

Are you in a position to open a parachute account with another bank then you can arrange for a standing order to make a small monthly payment to HSBC a Direct Debit in their hands is just giving them a licence to help themselves

[DHO_2009]

Hi ya'll...

 

As to the phone call on Monday I made to follow up refunding charges used from benefit - only a letter came today acknowledging complaint not the one to sign as promised.

 

Phoned them up...and the lady said that it was refereed to the legal team and blabbed on that if it was the case, anyone on benefits could go overdrawn and not be charged. Then she said that the letter I got was the final response and if I didn't like it, speak to the FOS.

 

Spoke to them, they said the letter I got was NOT the final response (I knew this, but I'm so fed up now that I'm playing havoc) and gave me a ref number.

 

So phoned up HSBC again, and asked why the lady on Monday told me the letter to be signed was sent out on Monday, and why the other lady told me the letter today was a final response??!!

 

Absolute thick *******!!

 

Apparently another letter was sent out yesterday that I will receive in the next couple of days. But I am scared that they have declined the repayment and will have to wait even longer to go to the FOS....which I cant really afford to wait!! HELP!

[yourbank]

If you have quoted SSAA1992 then they will be telling you that you are wrong to quote that as charges as defined in the bit you quoted relate to "assignment of a debt", bank charges are not assignment of debt. Hopefully they will come back with something more substantive for you.

[DHO_2009]

Sorry YourBank, but I don't have a clue what that all means - could you make that more simple!

[johnnymitch]

Hi DHO , I would wait and see what the letter they're sending says and come back and we can take it from there if need be ....

 

IMHO, it's a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing which happens when contacts are not recorded by the different people who deal with you..

 

It doesn't matter what caused the debt - they are not allowed to nick your benefits to service it - end of story ....

[DHO_2009]

OK, thanks Johnny...I'm just getting me really annoyed atm as am not well...

Lets just wait and see...

 

Oh, did u see the letter I sent that you were looking forward too?!

[johnnymitch]

Oh, did u see the letter I sent that you were looking forward too?!

 

Yes, DHO - a masterly missive - it certainly ticked all the boxes . If I may, I'll use some of your material from that to help others complaints.

 

It certainly provoked a response - pity it was verbal though - I bet they wouldn't say half of that stuff in a letter ....

 

You look after yourself though , and try not to let them get to you ... you'll get there just the same

[johnnymitch]

btw -thanks for tipping my scales - much appreciated

[DHO_2009]

Hi all,

 

I JUST got a letter back from HSBC regarding charges from benefit -

 

Thank you for you letter......

 

I understand your frustration with regard to the charges applied to your account and have fully investigated your claim that we are in contravention of the SSA 1992. It is your belief that the levying of bank fee's amounts to an unlawful 'charger' on the benefits you receive from the state.

 

Thier (the HSBC Legal Team) considered view is that your argument is wrong as a matter of of construction of the act.

 

They state - 'you have confused charges in the sense of the fee's, to which the act has no relevance and 'charges' in the sense of a propriety right attaching to benefits to which the act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts to not create'.

 

Whilst I acknowledge that you are in receipt of state benefits, your account is governed by the banks stipulated terms and conditions and by conducting your account as you have then charges have been deducted.

 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND A GOD DAMN WORD AND NEED HELP!

[DHO_2009]

Oh, and JohnnyMitch...please feel free to use what ever you like!

[yourbank]

That is what I was saying SSAA1992 is Social Security Administration Act 1992. Best way I can explain it is with a link to a closed number 10 petition.

Sections187and45 - epetition response | Number10.gov.uk

[DHO_2009]

Thats interesting as everyone from the benefits agency, to the lady at the banking code who spoke to a lady from the DWP, citizens advice and legal aid have said they are wrong to do so. Benefits agency are getting back to me about it all...as are legal aid.

 

I did speak to someone at HSBC who told me that they will not budge because the act refers to charges on mortgages and loans secured against property ie. a propriety right.

 

IDK...its all very confusing and feel very angry that i am getting a number of different responses. However, the FOS is sending me a complaint form.

[johnnymitch]

As part of the government's answer to the petition so kindly posted by your bank it was stated :

 

"The Government believes that people should have reasonable access to their benefits.

If charges become widespread, the Department for Work and Pensions has said that it will need to consider the position of vulnerable customers to ensure that they are still able to obtain the full value of their benefit. We will therefore continue to monitor developments in this area carefully as regards possible impacts, in particular in relation to financial inclusion. value of their benefit. We will therefore continue to monitor developments in this area carefully as regards possible impacts, in particular in relation to financial inclusion. "

 

I would say this is why the DWP and the Benefits Agency are (quite rightly and fairly) following the line that these benefits should not be used to pay for bank charges which are not yet designated as lawful....... it is the banks who are skirting round the rulings using spurious arguments designed to confuse the layman .

[DHO_2009]

Just a little update...

 

have sent issue to Financial Ombudsman about the taking of benefits, and have put in complaint letters too to show them what asses they have been but am complaining about their over all conduct too.

 

Thanks to all who have helped so far , esp. JohnnyMitch!

[johnnymitch]

You're welcome DHO - and you've done a lot to help yourself too ........

 

Please keep us informed of how you get on with your FOS complaint - it's all good experience for others.

[DHO_2009]

Hi y'all...

 

Another update...

 

Recived a letter dated the 27th April offering a managed loan with reduced payments of £20pm instead of £24 odd - even though they told me it would be £35 odd.

 

Funny they say in the letter that it will be a 1.50% interest rate, then in the agreement put 7.80%! Never the less, it is being payed off next Saturday so they can shove thier managed loan where they belong. Also was for £1530 but my balance is £1437?! I don't know...but they said that they would not contact me until the 11th when the 28 days was up, and I told the man on the phone it would be paid by the 11th...?!

 

No word back from the Obmudsman as yet but no suprise.

 

Keep y'all updated in due course...

[MayRich]

Hi y'all...

 

Another update...

 

Recived a letter dated the 27th April offering a managed loan with reduced payments of £20pm instead of £24 odd - even though they told me it would be £35 odd.

 

Funny they say in the letter that it will be a 1.50% interest rate, then in the agreement put 7.80%! Never the less, it is being payed off next Saturday so they can shove thier managed loan where they belong. Also was for £1530 but my balance is £1437?! I don't know...but they said that they would not contact me until the 11th when the 28 days was up, and I told the man on the phone it would be paid by the 11th...?!

 

No word back from the Obmudsman as yet but no suprise.

 

Keep y'all updated in due course...

 

The more I read these threads the more I despise these banks - this trick of offering a loan with two rates is very sly. But the bit about them taking your benefits and then quibbling about it really makes my blood boil.

 

Glad to hear you've found another solution anyway.