HSBC Loan PPI

[citizenB]

Hi Moose,

 

responding to your S.O.S:D sorry for the delay, have been away for a few days.

 

Righto.

 

I appreciate it may take a bit longer as they appear overwhelmed with PPI reclaims.. but do you not think the FOS would be the best way to go ? If you dont win in court you wont be able to go to the FOS afterwards, but if you go to the FOS first then if you are unhappy with their decision then you can go to court.

 

I dont know of anyone on CAG who has gone directly to court for a PPI reclaim so am unable to direct you.

 

With regard to the early repayment rebate. I am not quite sure how it works, but I think it is calculated in quarter parts of the overall term. eg if the loan was taken out over 4 years.. if you pay up after one year then you get a % rebate, less if you pay up within 2 years, etc, etc. If you have the original agreement, there should be something mentioned about rebates if they were applicable.

 

I will however, flag your post for site team attention.

[moose73]

Hi Moose,

 

responding to your S.O.S:D sorry for the delay, have been away for a few days.

 

Righto.

 

I appreciate it may take a bit longer as they appear overwhelmed with PPI reclaims.. but do you not think the FOS would be the best way to go ? If you dont win in court you wont be able to go to the FOS afterwards, but if you go to the FOS first then if you are unhappy with their decision then you can go to court.

 

I dont know of anyone on CAG who has gone directly to court for a PPI reclaim so am unable to direct you.

 

With regard to the early repayment rebate. I am not quite sure how it works, but I think it is calculated in quarter parts of the overall term. eg if the loan was taken out over 4 years.. if you pay up after one year then you get a % rebate, less if you pay up within 2 years, etc, etc. If you have the original agreement, there should be something mentioned about rebates if they were applicable.

 

I will however, flag your post for site team attention.

 

I did go to the FOS first, but they sent back all the forms and said they couldn't help due to the PPI being taken before July 2001, when they got their juristriction. So basically, I'm on my own and so court is the only route left for me.:-| Anyway I filed at court last week, so clock is now ticking.

 

As for the rebate, there is nothing in the T&Cs from HSBC, but I don't know if they are the full version, as it just seems to list exclusions for the policy. SAR didn't provide anything what so ever in relation to PPI, yet the agreement and t&cs were sent to me as I had asked for a refund! (maybe as it is more than 6 years and paid off?)

Edited June 7, 2010 by moose73

[citizenB]

Ah, right.. sorry I didnt realise that the FOS had declined to assist. Good luck with your claim.

 

Have you looked on the PPI threads, perhaps there is someone on there who can advise further.

[moose73]

Recived a letter from HSBC inhouse solicitor (Sharon Mattu) saying they will be defending in full and a copy of the N9 form was attached. (Defendants Acknowledgement of Service)

 

is this normal for them to send this to me rather than the court?

 

is the AQ next?

 

Also recieved the Notice of Issue from the court a few days ago, and attached was an automatic orders, which had 3 orders that applied:

 

1. and party who doesn't file an AQ within the time period, the defence/claim/counterclaim will be struck out.

 

2. something about if you are in fast track and a pre trial check list and as 1 above (but this wouldn't apply as its below £5k)

 

3. and the claim can be stayed for 1 month if indictaed on N150/151 if required.

Edited June 15, 2010 by moose73

[moose73]

I was going to use this for the draft order of directions with the AQ, any comments/changes?

 

 

_________________________________

 

 

 

Draft Order for Directions

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

 

 

1. The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

 

a) A schedule setting out the amount of PPI and interest which is sought, showing the date and amount added to the loan;

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that the amounts have been added to the loan; (I don't have any bank statements as this is older than 6 years and they won't send them to me under SAR, but I have the original agreement)

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that PPI was mis-sold and that financial industry regulations and guidelines were breached in so doing;

d) A statement of evidence to show that in breaching FSA regulations and guidelines and consistently failing to take reasonable care in the sale of PPI to its customers, HSBC has incurred fines. (this was actually HFC, but is part of/owned by HSBC)

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

2. The Defendant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Claimant and the Court:

 

a) A signed and dated Needs and Benefit Statement strictly relating to the policy in question;

b) A copy of the Payment Protection Insurance Schedule;

c) Statement of PPI premiums paid and any interest charged thereon;

d) Proof HSBC Bank Limited advised of alternative insurance with other providers;

e) Certificate of Competence or Training relating to staff issuing PPI policies.

f) Provide evidence of all bonuses and commission based incentives offered to the employees of the defendant in relation to the sale of its products or services and in particular that of payment protection insurance;

g) Provide the sales targets of the employees of the defendant in relation to its products or services and in particular that of payment protection insurance;

h) Disclose if the Defendant employs or operates any system, either automated or manually operated or otherwise, which is used to monitor, check or supervise the sale of payment protection insurance to ensure that errors omissions and misrepresentations are noticed.

 

2.1. If copies of any of the above documents are to be relied on in Court rather than originals, a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1) (b) of the Act, including but not limited to:

a) A copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents;

b) A copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s);

c) Copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with;

d) Copies of Quality Assurance Accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate standards.

Edited June 15, 2010 by moose73

[AMIN-AZ2]

moose , any updates on your case mate, i am in similar situation to you, and have been studying your thread. hope you find a good samaritan here who will guide you , and then i can follow in your foot steps aswell, fingers crossed

[moose73]

Not yet, waiting for their defence and then the AQ. Just been paid out on one of my other claims in full with MBNA. Didn't even get to the AQ or defence on that one. I wish HSBC was like that....

[moose73]

Update -

 

Just spoke to the court and they say HSBC have filed a defence (at the last minute), so AQ stage next.

[moose73]

Defence from HSBC:this was direct from HSBC not had it from the court yet. thoughts? (see post 22 for POCs)

1. Save where otherwise stated, references below to paragraph numbers are references to paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim.

 

2. Where the Defendant denies allegations, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all matters as alleged.

 

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted. The Defendant avers that it entered into a loan agreement with the Claimant numbered xxxxxxxxxxxx on xx xxxxxxx (Loan Agreement), a copy of which is exhibited at Annex A.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied. the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to set out fully:

i) The full content and length of the discussions which took place;

ii) Exactly what representations were made; and

iii) By whom.

 

5. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant avers that the granting of loan agreements is never dependant upon the taking of PP!. It is denied that the Claimant was informed that the PPI was compulsory for the loan to be approved and / or that PPI was a requirement of the Defendant providing credit. Specifically it is denied that the Claimant was informed that the PPI

was compulsory. The Defendant relies upon the content of the Loan Agreement and the fact the PPI is set out in a distinct section of the Loan Agreement. The Defendant again puts the Claimant to strict proof to set out fully:

i) The full content and length of the discussions which took place;

ii) Exactly what representations were made; and

iii) By whom.

6. Paragraph 5 is denied. The Defendant avers:

i) The Claimant was given the necessary information relating to the PPI at the time the Loan Agreement was entered. The Defendant relies

upon:

ii) The Customer Protection Declaration signed by the Claimant

and dated xxxxxx 2001, a copy of which is exhibited at

Annex B which states:

"I have decided to take loan protection.

I have received a copy of the loan protection policy

document.

I am aware of the eligibility criteria, terms and conditions and

exclusions applicable to the policy. "

b) The Policy Document which was given to the Claimant at the time the PPI was taken, a copy of which is exhibited at Annex C.

These documents confirm the PPI was optional and was fully explained to the Claimant at the time the Loan Agreement was entered. The Claimant was accordingly not misled into purchasing the PPI.

 

7. Paragraph 6 is denied. The Defendant avers they did not advise the Claimant with regard the Loan Agreement or the PP!. The Defendant relies on the Policy Document (Annex C), which reminds the Claimant of his duty to give information and to check his eligibility for the PPI. The Defendant submits that as a contract of insurance is a contract of the utmost good faith, the Claimant was under a duty to disclose any relevant matters and he is put to strict proof as to whether or not he did so. The Defendant denies any breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. For the reasons set out above, the fact the PPI was optional, the fact full details of the PPI were given to the Claimant and because the cost of the PPI was clearly shown on the face of the Loan Agreement, such an allegation is denied.

 

8. Paragraph 7 is denied and paragraph 7 above is repeated.

 

9. Paragraph 8 is denied. The Defendant has various systems and audits in place. However, the Defendant denies making any error / omission or mis- representation to the Claimant. Paragraphs 4-7 above are repeated. Further or alternatively, any misrepresentation made by the Defendant's representative was corrected by the terms of the Loan Agreement and

Customer Protection Declaration signed by the Claimant, where he stated his intention to opt for PPI (Annexes A and B).

 

10. Paragraph 9 is denied. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 4 and 5 above and avers the PPI was optional.

 

11. Paragraph 10 is denied. The Defendant submits that it was only in a position to offer one brand of insurance product and was not in a position to offer financial advice on other products available on the market. Further and in any event, the Claimant was free to make his own enquiries in the market should he have wished to do so. The Defendant further avers that the Claimant has entirely failed to particularise the allegation at paragraph 10 and the Defendant is unable to plead to this paragraph until he has done so.

 

12. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are denied. The Defendant relies upon the face of the Loan Agreement (Annex A). The PPI including its cost and the fact interest was payable on the PPI sum are clearly set out on the face of the Loan Agreement.

 

13. Paragraph 13 is denied. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of such an allegation. Further, if the Claimant had, following a review of the documents believed the PPI was not appropriate, he could have exercised his cancellation rights under the cooling-off period which would have entitled him to a full refund of the PPI amount within the first 30 days after the Loan Agreement was entered (see page 2 of the Policy Document at Annex C). The Claimant failed to exercise this right. The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant was entitled to cancel the PPI at any time, but did not exercise such an option as he was entitled to do.

 

14. Paragraph 14 is noted. The Defendant contends that they did not advise the Claimant with regard the Loan Agreement or the PPI.

 

15. Paragraph 15 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of such accusations. The Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particulars to this allegation and reserves the right to re-plead this defence following a fully particularised allegation being made by the Claimant.

 

16. Paragraph 16 is denied and paragraph 15 above is repeated.

 

17. Paragraph 17 is denied. The Defendant submits:

i) The Loan Agreement was completed on 19 December 2001 and a statement of account to confirm the same is exhibited at Annex 0;

ii) The unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Act) do not apply to the Loan Agreement because it was completed in December 2001;

iii) With regard section 138 of the Act, the Defendant denies that the Loan Agreement was an extortionate credit bargain. In support of its position the Defendant relies specifically upon the documents contained within Annexes A, Band C and the Defendant relies upon:

a) The Loan Agreement which clearly and separately sets out the principal loan from the PPI; and

b) The terms and exclusions of the PPI which are contained within the Policy Document;

iv) The Defendant does not understand the Claimant's use of "Agreement A and Agreement B" in paragraph 17 and avers that no mention of Agreement A and Agreement B has been made in any other part of the particulars. The Defendant avers that if the Claimant wishes to make allegations about different loan agreements, the same need to be fully particularised.

 

18. Paragraph 18 is noted. The Defendant denies breaching the terms of the FSA Handbook, puts the Claimant to strict proof of the same and requests theClaimant fully particularise his allegations as to breach. The Defendant reserves the right to re-plead its defence following further particulars.

19. Paragraph 19 is noted. The Defendant avers that the matter has been investigated by the Defendant's internal complaints department. However, the final response was not as anticipated by the Claimant and therefore these proceedings have been issued. The Defendant further notes that the Claimant referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in April 2010, but has not waited for their determination prior to issuing these proceedings.

 

20. With regard paragraph 20, the Defendant submits this is not a correct use of CPR Part 18 and is not a satisfactory Part 18 request because the request is not confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the Claimant to prepare his case. Any Part 18 request will be answered by the Defendant provided the request complies with the formalities as stipulated in Part 18.

 

21. Paragraph 21 is not fully understood. However, the Defendant denies that the amount of the PPI premium is part of the total charge for credit and will rely on the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 (Total Charge Regulations) for their full force and effect. The Defendant avers that Regulation 5(l)(h) of the Total Charge Regulations provides that optional insurance should not be included in the total charge for credit. The charge for credit on the Loan Agreement was therefore correctly stated and therefore the Loan Agreement contains all the terms prescribed for the purposes of section 60 and 61 of the Act and complies with the requirements of Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. The Loan Agreement is therefore not improperly executed under section 61 of the Act. The Defendant denies the Claimant's allegations in their entirety.

 

22. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the relief pleaded in paragraph 22 or to any other relief sought. Further the Defendant denies any breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the same together with the relevance of the provision. The Defendant specifically denies the Claimant's entitlement to interest.

 

23. Paragraph 23 is accordingly denied.

 

24. Further and alternatively, the Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is statute barred due to the Loan Agreement having been completed in December 2001. The Claimant relies on sections 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 and pleads that the Claimant is time-barred from bringing his claim because the Loan Agreement completed over six years ago and therefore contractual or tort based claims are both statute barred.

Edited July 8, 2010 by moose73

[moose73]

Point 19 is interseting, as it states I didn't wait for FOS for their determination, yet the FOS wrote back and said they could help as they didn't have juristriction at the time (it was prior to July 2001).

 

Point 24 - is this correct. I thought it wss 6 years from when you are aware of being mis sold?

 

There is a lot of "claimant to Prove" in this defence.

 

 

Should I carry on with this or withdraw? I have to pay anther court fee to file the AQ soon. I really could do with some help with alll this now.

[citizenB]

Moose, I will flag your post for the attention of the site team. When do you need to get your AQ filed ?

[moose73]

Moose, I will flag your post for the attention of the site team. When do you need to get your AQ filed ?

 

I assume it will be 14 days, I am expecting it in the psot today from the court.

 

There are 2 areas of confussion for me at the moment. first is this 6 year rule (para 24) the second is the CPR18 (see para 20)?

[moose73]

26th July for the AQ

[moose73]

Want to send the AQ in tomorrow, so could do with some advice please.

 

Should I fill in the AQ as per the section on this site here:

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/125-allocation-questionnaires-a-guide-to-completion-

 

What should I put in section G?

Edited July 11, 2010 by moose73

[citizenB]

Can I suggest you private message someone like pompeyfaith, Castlebest, they may be able to assist.

 

Other than that, all I can suggest you do is have a look through the PPI threads.. in the stickies section (at the top of the PPI forums) there should be something similar which will help.

[AMIN-AZ2]

thanks mate i will check

[moose73]

wrong thread?

[moose73]

AQ has gone in and I have attached some draft directions. Will wait and see what happens next.

[moose73]

In another turn of events, I got a phone call from FOS saying they are looking into this case now:confused:

 

I might have cocked this up myself by thinking they couldn't deal with my case as its was before July 2001 which they told me about my MBNA case, but this doesn't seem to be the case:confused:

 

I told her that it was in court and I was frustrated with FOS as I wanted to go that route. She asked for a copy of the emails I had received from FOS, so we will see what happens:-|

[moose73]

FOS have now asked for the court action to be suspended while they look at the case. How do I do this?

[Old Cogger]

Check but FOS told me they would only deal with back to 6 yea=ears from my original complaint date, and they were no use then.

[moose73]

Check but FOS told me they would only deal with back to 6 yea=ears from my original complaint date, and they were no use then.

 

just had FOS deal with Egg which was from 7 years back and that went ok?

[Old Cogger]

O.K. but as said for Crap one that was their reply to me. From the time my 1st complaint to HSBC as per below posting/

Edited July 19, 2010 by Old Cogger

[royalscot]

I assume it will be 14 days, I am expecting it in the psot today from the court.

 

There are 2 areas of confussion for me at the moment. first is this 6 year rule (para 24) the second is the CPR18 (see para 20)?

 

 

The six year rule applies to when you first realised you were missold the loan NOT the date you applied for the loan

 

So your first correspondance with HSBC would be the acknowledgement of the complaint

 

regards

rs

[steven4064]

FOS have now asked for the court action to be suspended while they look at the case. How do I do this?

You may have to make an application for a stay using a form N244 and paying a fee. However, in the first instance write to the court, copying the FOS letter and ask for a stay