Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, let us know if they honour the agreement to pay.   Thanks for Donation made and anything further you can make - it helps us keep helping !
    • Mark Bauwens from France takes us through his week during the coronavirus pandemic. View the full article
    • Thankyou very much i will be around all day it would be appreciated Below is another attempt :     IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ***************                 CLAIM NO:**********     BETWEEN:   LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD CLAIMANT   and   MRS *********************** DEFENDANT   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******************   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   I, ******************************************* WILL SAY as follows:   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim.     INTRODUCTION   1. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed 10p to 15p in the £1 and to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Lowell Portfolio I Ltd issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.   2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   BACKGROUND 3. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank   4. Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers, and the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant.   5.The defendant made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the 27th August 2019 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order to which the defendant received a reply dated 6th September 2019 putting their account on hold whilst they tried to gather the information.   6.The defendant received a reply dated 24th October 2019 with no CCA attached other than the documents which enclosed a statement, default notice, notice of assignment from Vanquis to Lowell & a reconstituted copy of an agreement which the claimants have already provided in their witness statement dated 3rd August 2020.   7.On 15th January 2020, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £******. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £********* in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no ******************* pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Vanquis to Lowell on 24 June 2015 with notice given.   CONCLUSION 8.To date no valid full true copy of the executed credit agreement or the terms and conditions have been disclosed .the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt.   9.The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application. The screenshots are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.   10.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78 6a of the CCA1974 the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   11.For the above reasons the claim bought by the claimant is without merit and an abuse of the court process. It would be far more gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that they do not have possession of the correct valid paperwork and this is an attempt to mislead and convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on. It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out pursuant to the above.   STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I, ************** the defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: …………………………………………… Print Name: ************* Dated: 4th August 2020
    • Allen Blue, who co-founded professional network LinkedIn, reveals how start-ups can achieve growth. View the full article
    • for want of clarity   this potential £5k is only available in England.    
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies

Managed loan closed 12.2002....Mmmmhhhh

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3200 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi there,


I had a Hsbc managed loan account which was closed in December 2002. where do i stand with it?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , hotdog, technically it's outside the 6-year limit , and they'll probably have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit they've got anything back beyond that ...... especially as it closed before that......


I think you're probably on a hiding to nothing with that - but someone may beg to differ ...... :) that' s what this forum is for ......:D

Nemo me impune lacessit



Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.



If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, Understood Johnny Mitch

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pls have a look at this and advice - i found whilst searching the new...issued Jan 2010


Consumers who try to wriggle out of their credit card debts based on a technicality have been dealt a blow after one loophole was closed by the High Court, it is claimed.

Legal experts insist the decision means the argument that debt cannot be enforced when a lender cannot provide an exact copy of the original credit card agreement, or where the agreement contains a minor error, has been blown out of the water for many (see the Write-off your debt? guide).

This route, often put forward by claims management firms, has proved a relatively successful avenue for claims and MoneySavingExpert.com has seen limited evidence of lenders no longer chasing borrowers for debt in such circumstances.

The ruling does not mean an end to the debt-avoidance industry which has grown rapidly over recent months as other avenues may still exist, the Judge in the case said.

The verdict

The High Court trial, held at the Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court, involved eight separate claims by consumers against lenders to determine certain legal principles of when a credit card debt can be deemed unenforceable.

Even if unenforceable, a lender can often demand payment and register non-payment with a credit reference agency which can hit your credit score. It cannot, however, seek a court order to ensure payment.

Judge Waksman said last week in his ruling:

  • Lenders do not have to provide an exact copy of the original agreement. They simply have to provide "a reconstituted version... which may be from sources other than the signed agreement" under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.
  • As a result, he says lenders will usually be able to supply copies even if not within the required 12 working days.
  • He also agreed with an earlier ruling in October that stated even if a lender cannot provide a copy, the debt is only unenforceable until a copy is provided. And, even while temporarily unenforceable, it does not stop the lender from reporting non-payment to credit reference agencies or from sending letters demanding payment (see the Debt write-off blow MSE News story).
  • In any case, he said the lack of credit agreement alone does not mean the relationship between lender and consumer is "unfair".
  • Where an agreement has been "varied" (eg, where the interest rate has risen), a copy of the original and the varied terms must be produced.

Upshot of the ruling

Some claims management firms, such as Cartel Client Review, one of the most aggressive firms which charges an upfront fee, declared the ruling a "victory".

Carl Wright, from Cartel, says: "The High Court has ratified



Emma Carey v HSBC Bank plc, Shafeel Yunis v Barclays Bank plc, Samantha Conniff v Barclays Bank plc, Mohammed Adris v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Brian Backwell v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Rajan Mandel v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Andrew Light v MBNA Europe Bank Ltd and Robert Atkinson v Bank of Scotland plc.

Queen's Bench Division, Manchester Mercantile Court 23 December 2009

These cases arose from concerns at County Courts over the deluge of claims being made via Claims Management Companies (CMCs). Various CMCs were asked to put forward cases which could be taken together to the High Court. The OFT was also represented during the hearing.

The CMCs raised a number of different issues which were covered in the judgment, covering mostly whether copy agreement rules were satisfied in relation to credit card agreements (s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974). In summary, the findings were:

(1) s.78 is satisfied if a reconstituted version of the agreement is provided, even where this generated using sources other than the agreement itself;

(2) the s.78 copy must include the name and address information as per the original agreement;

(3) the document provided under s.78 need not comply with the form of the signable agreement;

(4) the creditor must under s.78 provide a copy of any changed terms, or a copy of the amended agreement, in addition to the terms in the original agreement;

(5) a breach of s.78 does not on its own generate the possibility of an unfair relationship;

(6) it is up to a court whether it makes a declaration that s.78 is breached, depending on the circumstances which it finds;

(7) it is a matter of fact whether an agreement is complete with all its prescribed content, but is acceptable for there to be more than one sheet comprising an agreement;

(8) those cases claiming an unfair relationship should be struck out as merely speculative. There was no evidence on which a claim could be made.

For full judgment, see here.

[Comment: most of the issues here just confirm the clear provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Some of media comment has focused on the ways in which a creditor could now go to court using a reconstituted agreement, and without ever producing the original signed agreement. However, it remains the duty of the claimant to provide "best evidence", so evidence will be required to justify the use of any other than the signed agreement. See CPR 31.16.)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


In 2006 Ian McCartney MP, basically trashed the defence that creditors use, and at the same time almost pointed out that they only tend to use this when they can find the agreement.


For your information:






On the 29th of December 2006 in response query Ian McCartney MP replied to a letter in his then role as minister for the department of Trade and Industry he stated this, “Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement”


This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.”


This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.


Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:


Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;


And more importantly


Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.


You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.


Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.


The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);


It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, what is being overlooked is the part highlighted, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.


The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1557 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.


Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.


It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.


It is understand that under section 3 (b) of SI 1983 /1557 a creditor may omit the signature box from the copy , I would point out that not having the original document it would to be impossible to verify the validity of such a document as an exact copy.


I therefore would suggest that a true copy include a signature.


Therefore until such time as a creditor complies with providing a true copy of the original credit agreement which complies fully with the terms of 1974 section 77 act that the debt remains unenforceable.




And further:






LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29


" The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order."


"If the claimant cannot produce a credit agreement in the prescribed form signed in the prescribed manner by debtor and creditor, the court is precluded from making an enforcement order under s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is requested that the court use its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 to declare the agreement unenforceable"



So no signature = unenforceable

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

both of these issues have got many threads from months ago when the news first broke.



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..


if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Hopw you are good,


Could you pls point me in rightr direction for these threads? asi really would like to know how this affects me.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..


if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Will Check It Out

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personaly I dont believe in avoiding debt just because of a loophole in the law and I have always posted such... because a debt is uninforceable it doesnt mean you shouldnt pay back money you have taken and spent... thats theft.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites













Informal Overdraft arrangement fees £50.00

Additional service charges/included return fees £25.00

Total to be deducted: £78.39




Debit Interest6.81

Informal Overdraft Arrangement Fees10.00

Additional Service Charges

This includes:

Return Fees 25.00



Total to be deducted :41.81






Moderator's Note.... Please do not post all in capital letters. It makes the post difficult to read.

Edited by Rooster-UK
Libellous comment removed. Also bad language. Edited libellous thread title.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hotdog,


I too am getting monthly charges, I complained & got the standard test case letter then got the sod off letter after dodgy supreme court ruling.


Do you know how much you have been charged over the last few years, you should check internet banking - goes back to 2005.


Anyway I think you should check out the new moneysavingexpert guide & see if any of the ombudsman criteria fits you (eg. charges are disproportionate). You can always go to court if ombudsman says no (only downside is that FOS take a good few months to decide).


If you don't fancy that or the criteria doesn't fit then you could send a complaint letter to your bank outlining the new legal arguments & basically saying you are not going to lie down & take it!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive actually started to claim under financial hardship, i didn't realise i fell under it, only after checking my statements then the penny dropped.


Heres the letter i sent them, even though they said no. Although within the time of sending the letter below i managed to take my services to another bank, whilst i try to clear these 2 spiralling accounts with HSBC. This shouldnt affect my claim should it? as they actually made my situation worse.


I am writing to reclaim all bank charges on my accounts xxxx & xxxx. Charges applied are a total of £3xxx.xx which I am requesting you pay back. It is has come to my attention that my claim should be treated as one of financial hardship.


I am unhappy that these charges have been applied to my account and in this letter I am registering my complaint and I request that you immediately stop applying further charges to my account.

I am a single parent and the only incomes I receive are my salary and working/Child tax credits (goes on nursery fees). I am stuck in a cycle of charges which I cannot break out of, I am snowballing and effectively means I’ve had charges on charges, so I’ve been stuck in a trap of not being able to clear charges before new daily or monthly fees are added on top. I am struggling to meet my commitments each month; however this is further compounded by HSBC adding interest and charges for late/over overdraft limits or missed payments.

For the past year, I believe it is evident that every month I’ve gone over my overdraft limit trying to make ends meet. Total charges clocked up for 2009 on both accounts are £19xx.00 and HSBC will typically charge over £25 a time. This has added up to huge amounts over the last year, yet these charges are unlawful. I believe the bank charges have hurt my situation, and have contributed to making my financial hardship situation materially worse

I need you consider my case as a matter of urgency as I believe I am in financial hardship. This is because:

 I am repeatedly exceeding overdraft limits without agreement

 my income is constantly being eaten up by repaying charges

 I’m continually living off credit.

 I’ve received more than £500 per year in bank charges

 items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;

 failing to make repayments or other commitments;

 regular repeated rescheduling of debts;


Enclosed is evidence to show my monthly income and outgoings, and a schedule of bank charges with interest


I therefore request that you repay all my default charges since December 2004 which total £3xxx.00


I look forward to receiving a full response to this letter within 14 days

I trust that you will deal with my case within this period. If not, I will refer the matter to the Financial Services Ombudsman.



Yours faithfully,




Without prejudice


The charges and interest I have claimed above total £xxxx.xx. However, if you are prepared to pay to me £xxxx.xx within 14 days of the date of this letter, I am prepared to accept this lower figure in full and final settlement of my claim and interest as I am suffering severe financial hardship.

Edited by Hotdog77

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,


the the above letter was sent 14.2.10, of which i got a reply from them to contact thier specialist team ...blah blah blah! so i sent them a reply 27.2.10 of which i have posted part of it below. I heard nothing after a few days, so sent them an email 4.3.10, to express my concern that they havnt contacted me, i got an email back to say that its been passed to the correct dept. Up to now, i've heard nothing.


Firstly thank you for your letters in which you state you will be ''not upholding your complaint and we will not be refunding the bank charges.''

My understanding is, that there should be an 8 weeks timescale for you to address my complaints, or in this instance my application.

Therefore, I consider your 30 day deadline to be somewhat confusing.

You have stated that this is due to the Supreme Court Judgment ''confirming that the bank charges are not capable of amounting to penalties at common law and that the level of them cannot be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.''


Whilst I recognise that this is the case and that the banks terms are unable to be assessed in terms of price under regulation 6(2)b of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), and as indicated in the Supreme Court judgment the terms are not precluded from the assessment of fairness under regulation 5(1), I still consider the overall contract including terms which allowed you to impose charges on my account to be unfair by virtue of regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR. I also consider the terms to be in breach of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act.


Your letter also states that ''If you believe that the charges are unfair on grounds other than the level of charges, or that we have failed to address all the issues raised in your complaint, you may escalate your concerns by contacting us setting out the details so that we can consider this further''.


Please find the details of my concerns set out below:


I consider there was an imbalance in the contract to my detriment as consumer because;

  • I consider that HSBC by virtue of the contract can choose which service they offer without consideration for or confirmation of what I intended. For example you could consider a request for overdraft and pay or simply reject payment on grounds of lack of funds. In performing these services you act as agent for the myself and therefore should have had regard to the Consumer‘s intent. The Consumer‘s intent may be for the request to be facilitated if there are sufficient funds, to be rejected if there are not or to be asked for confirmation (where practicable) otherwise. However the contract denies the Consumer the opportunity to express that or any specific intent other than that determined by the Banks.
    I consider that a request to pay is not necessarily a request for overdraft except by virtue of the non-negotiated contract terms. The overdraft assessment is not optional, additionally there was no opt out possibility at commencement of the contract and therefore it acts contrary to good faith and is therefore unfair.
  • I suggest that if an 'overdraft extension request' was declined, there is no reason why the Bank's answer for any subsequent requests should be any different if the account balance has not changed other than by virtue of the Relevant Charges being applied? The Consumer could therefore not intend subsequent payments to be requests for assessment, and it would be to their detriment for them to be regarded as such. If the fee was argued to be for checking the Consumer's account, the Banks would actually be providing the same service as they otherwise provide for free and therefore no further consideration should be required unless the circumstances are materially different.
    This is evidenced by in December 2009 I contacted the bank to request some help as I knew had fewer funds in my account than necessary to fulfil my transaction obligations - HSBC denied this request, however you subsequently honoured the transactions taking me into 'unauthorised' overdraft and in addition imposed charges totalling £187.93 to my accounts, attracting a greater rate of interest. This in turn led me to struggle the following month attracting further charges. Had the bank accepted my request for a temporary extension to the overdraft facility I would have met my obligations successfully and incurred a single overdraft assessment fee, and the cycle of debt, created in the most part by the bank, would have been much less likely to occur.

I have already furnished you with my income and expenditure sheets, I consider that this gives you an overview of my financial position, and therefore should allow you to process my claim under hardship status without any undue delays.

I’d also like to add that on the 16th December I called the specialist team at HSBC on 0845 600 6423 and spent over an hour on the phone which cost me £28 discussing my income and outgoings, at the end of this conversation I was told “Unfortunately at this time we cannot offer you any help” even though my income is was negative by around £350, and I was up to the max on both my overdrafts. I merely made this call because you deducted money from my tax credits to offset and overdrawn account without notifying me, i had put the money into my saving account to pay my children’s nursery fees for January 2010. Due to HSBC’s act i could not fulfil the full nursery fees. So at this time only 2 months later, I find no faith in seeing how you will view my case differently.

Further to the above, I currently have no desire to call HSBC, as you can understand, I’m a single parent to 2 young children and the only phone I have access to is my mobile of which is not cost effective in my situation to call an 0845 number. So I suggest that the specialist team at HSBC call me, or look back on your records going back to the 16th December 2009 as well as looking at the recent financial expenditure sheet sent to you on the 14th February 2010.

Therefore I request you continue to consider my complaint and refund charges imposed under the FSA’s waiver for financial hardship as I sincerely fall within this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget they have misled you into believing that the nature of these charges were "Administrative Costs", however, at Supreme Court their true nature has been exposed as a "Cross Subsidy for free (if in credit) banking" and under UTCCR (5)(1) misleading you is contrary to good Faith.


This Letter would have helped you but you now have another account. Keep it anyway it may help you with that bank at some point

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006





We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation


All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.


However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,


I must say that i dislike HSBC with a passion.


I have an account with hsbc of which my overdraft was only for £200.00. back in november 2010 HSBC informed me that they were not renewing the overdraft on this account. I wasnt in the position to pay the balance in ful which was only abot £180.00 so i agreed to pay £20.00 a month, infact for about the first 2 months i paid £100.00. Then i sent them an email to inform that my circumstances were dire and i couly afford £20.00, of which i have been paying every month.


so early august i received a letter from them, telling me that they have been trying to call me (Bull shhh) with regret and i should contact them with regards to this account before firther action is taken. So i calls them, and the advice said the letter that was sent was standard proceedure and that i could ignore it, as i had been sticking to the agreement.. i was rather adament that i ddint want any come.


Last week i received a letter from MCS asking my to pay the £50.12 on this acount in question. funny thing is, since eveyday last week i received a call about 3 times a day from an 0845 number, so i called it today, and it was MCS.


This has pee'd me right off, especially as HSBC didnt send me any letters to inform me that they were passing the debt on, or they wanted to have from me an up to date budget plan....NADA.....nothing....especially when an agreement is in place they are passing on the debt.....im pee'd off.


I called HSBC this evening and the overseas advisor said that a note was made on my account 24.8.11 that i promised to pay £352 by 8th september. Now im no genius but on the 24th september there was £50.12 still to be paid, why on earth would i promise such a round about figure...more that what was owed on this account (I didnt) firstly i didnt promise anything of that sort and have always been adament that i could only afford £20.00 on the 8th of each month.


Please can you help with some advice


Now that its gone to MCS i very much so want to complain ot the OFT and FOS about thier actions.

HSBC dismissed my claims for Bank charges on this account and another, can i claim even though they have wrongfully sold the debt on?


Can I sars MCS/HSBC?


i need recordings off all phone calles that i had with them since March this year,



just a little help pls as im furious

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your debt has not been sold MCS( Metropolitan Collection Services) are the in house debt collection arm of HSBC.


If you SAR HSBC it will produce statements,and all data covering your account(with luck) I doubt that they will supply recordings of telephone conversations.they will say I expect they dont have them


Continue to pay the £20,and I suggest you only deal with MCS/HSBC in writing your possible help from OFT/FOS would have a lot more strength if all communications where in writing


Very doubtful that you will recover bank charges.Where does the £352 come from (unless they are adding huge charges)


Regards FS

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a letter from HSBC to say that as a good will gesture they will clear the balance of the account, and they have done nothing wrong by passing the debt on without informing me.


about a week later after i received this letter, i got another with the date of 3 months before hand which was informing me that they were going to pass the account on. they siad that the amount i was paying was not enough, opf which i find strange when both parties agreed that the minimum payment i was making was sufficient enough due to my income/outgoings.


not sure if i should leave it as is or refer on.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would leave it,just carry on with the £20 per month


They have cleared the balance I trust?



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The joke is the balacne on the account was only £50.00 and they cleared it, so i owe nothing

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hotdog nice result, account clear, even though they only cleared the £50 outstanding




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...