Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
    • So you think not pay until DN then pay something to the oc to delay selling to dcas?    then go from there? 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HSBC no CCA


spartathisis
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3408 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The attached is from 1994 I think - does that help ?

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]53764[/ATTACH]

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It is not reopening an account in any way there are clauses in the sale documents of some debt portfolio lots that allow the debt purchaser to return debts purchased within the portfolio as CB said debts with PPI are often traded back in this way.

 

 

It's just a debt no longer an "account" duff debt much the same as returning a duff car to the seller for a refund.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The attached is from 1994 I think - does that help ?

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]53764[/ATTACH]

 

Thank you :)

 

Compared it to the most recent from HSBC, a lot has changed in 20 yrs. No mention of repurchasing, but as Brig points out it is probably contained in the debt sale contract between HSBC & whoever buys it.

 

Old and new refer to 'You have agreed by signing this agreement' to let us etc etc. Not much help really.

 

No doubt the debt sale contracts are a closely guarded secret.

 

Think I will:

1 Contact the Data Controller at HSBC (again) with a S10 Objection to processing notice.

2 Contact the CRA's with the same letter

3 Contact the ICO & FCA after the required time to cease processing data is up, 21 days?

4 Open a new Twitter account solely to 'Troll' HSBC and their poor practices in debt sales/collection etc. Had some success with Twitter & business's in the past.

 

Thanks for the help and the comments guys & gals, I will keep the thread updated.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you :)

 

Compared it to the most recent from HSBC, a lot has changed in 20 yrs. No mention of repurchasing, but as Brig points out it is probably contained in the debt sale contract between HSBC & whoever buys it.

 

Old and new refer to 'You have agreed by signing this agreement' to let us etc etc. Not much help really.

 

No doubt the debt sale contracts are a closely guarded secret.

 

Think I will:

1 Contact the Data Controller at HSBC (again) with a S10 Objection to processing notice.

2 Contact the CRA's with the same letter

3 Contact the ICO & FCA after the required time to cease processing data is up, 21 days?

4 Open a new Twitter account solely to 'Troll' HSBC and their poor practices in debt sales/collection etc. Had some success with Twitter & business's in the past.

 

Thanks for the help and the comments guys & gals, I will keep the thread updated.

 

 

Looking through some 90s data on sale & purchase of debts, debt is merely another commodity to be bought and sold as and when the "owner" wishes.

Many large sales of debt e.g. bank and credit card debts are sold giving the purchaser the option of " returning" debts to the original creditor, reasons given (not my words) " uncollectable" (cause unknown) "defective and or missing paperwork", " improper description of sale matter"? Don't ask me what that means.

 

 

There is no mention of statute barred debts at all, so must presume that it's tough you've bought a lemon!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big issue around all debt is Securitisation. A minefield that has become harder to find info on in the last couple of years, the banks have deleted info that was previously available.

 

Packaged CC and loan debt sold as a special purpose investment vehicle for institutional investors, and very wealthy individuals. The debt is sold to the special purpose investment vehicle (SPV) and managed by the OC, collections, bad debt etc.

I think it is one of the reasons DCA pay minimum % for debts from a OC, they have already previously sold it on to the SPV and can't risk the boat being rocked by asking for too much.

The OC does not actually own the debt they chase us for, it has been sold off to investors and they charge a fee to maintain the accounts, plus the initial one off sum for the 'investment'.

 

A good source of info here:

http://vinodkothari.com/creditcar/

& here

http://www.euromoneyplc.com/images/covers/Asset%20Securitisation%20and%20Synthetic%20Structures%20Innovations%20in%20the%20European%20Credit%20Markets/02Watson.pdf

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. Will delve a little deeper in to this when I haven't had a glass of wine (it is saturday night after all).

 

 

 

 

 

The big issue around all debt is Securitisation. A minefield that has become harder to find info on in the last couple of years, the banks have deleted info that was previously available.

 

Packaged CC and loan debt sold as a special purpose investment vehicle for institutional investors, and very wealthy individuals. The debt is sold to the special purpose investment vehicle (SPV) and managed by the OC, collections, bad debt etc.

I think it is one of the reasons DCA pay minimum % for debts from a OC, they have already previously sold it on to the SPV and can't risk the boat being rocked by asking for too much.

The OC does not actually own the debt they chase us for, it has been sold off to investors and they charge a fee to maintain the accounts, plus the initial one off sum for the 'investment'.

 

A good source of info here:

http://vinodkothari.com/creditcar/

& here

http://www.euromoneyplc.com/images/covers/Asset%20Securitisation%20and%20Synthetic%20Structures%20Innovations%20in%20the%20European%20Credit%20Markets/02Watson.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure that there needs to be a buy back clause in the original agreement.

 

I had thought that securitisation was more to do with mortgages and secured loans rather than those debts/accounts founded on simple contract. I might be wrong and would be interested in any information you can point me to on securitisation of "low level" debt.

 

The buying and selling of debt is not really that complicated an area to understand but is often portrayed as a complex area.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ims21:

 

Have a look at the links above for basic info.

 

It is all debt unfortunately. 'low level debt' that is worth billions per annum go to this link and open either of the pdf's showing the details on one SPV managed by HSBC.http://www.hsbcnet.com/gbm/securitisation/investor-reports/turquoise.html

 

This thread was started 4 yrs ago and is a good start for pro/con argument on securitisation: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244131-Securitization-Discussion

 

I am surprised no ambulance chasing compo firms have latched onto it, the debt is sold to a non credit licensed investment and then the receivables are managed by the selling company, but it has been sold and the seller has received money for it.

 

I have read that the reason so many 0% card balance transfers crop up is because the card company can sell the debt as a SPV to investors. You transfer, they accept your debt and then sell it in chunks, get part of the cash up front and a fee for collecting from you in the future.

 

HMRC don't regard it as a sale for tax purposes so not classed as selling the debt, but I believe that is because the debt/credt market would be a bigger disaster than the last slump if they said Banks etc had sold the debt to unlicensed businesses. It really is a big con and what led to the last financial mess. US investment banks were selling mortgages to folk on welfare, packaging them up and selling as investments, got an up front sum and ongoing fee for managing the account. When folk couldn't pay they took homes off them put them up for sale but no one could afford to buy them and it collapsed. That was the sub-prime bit that is talked about.

 

 

I am sure there won't be a buy back clause, but once the account is closed and sold how can they then say the agreement covers the return if there is no mention in the agreement? In my case there never was an agreement so doubly annoying.

Edited by spartathisis
missed a point

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update time!!

 

Section 10 sent to HSBC, Equifax, Experian and Call Credit regarding HSBC account only, no other data.

 

CRA's very defensive, naturally, but confirmed HSBC had removed all mention of any accounts I had with them (CC & Current Account). HSBC have failed to reply, but as they have removed all references with the CRA's not going to pursue it with them.

 

Checked credit files and nothing untoward showing on any of them. Noddle says I am 4/5 creditworthy!!!

 

I am chalking this up as a success as 18 months ish before SB.

 

3 months until Cabot biggie (£10k) is SB and RBS & Alliance & Leicester in 6 months, none able to provide an agreement that complies with the CCA.

 

Might apply for a mobile phone contract to start rebuilding my credit up a bit.

 

A big thanks to everyone at CAG for help and advice (inc Brig ;) ). I wish I had found CAG a few years earlier as things would have been so different right now.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fantastic read (Except a few posts of course)

 

 

Spartathisis I have thought the same regarding no CCA so how can they process data on CRA's seeing your success has made me decide to try the same thing and congratulations for it seems your persistance paid off

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CRA's used the argument that they only report what is given to them by creditors and do not have to do a thorough check on whether they have permission to process.

This is of course bull*hit. How can you process data if no permission has been given in the first place. The EU are looking to curb their get out by insisting implied permission and a general we can process data through 'legitimate' interests cannot be used.

 

If there is no CCA available then I would press the OC to stop processing your data and use Grace & Anor v Blackhorse Ltd [2014] and similar cases to put pressure on their reporting to CRA's.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grace case is a very important decision and creditors are trying their best to ignore it. It will also be interesting to see how the the EUs view on this will pan out.

 

The CRA's used the argument that they only report what is given to them by creditors and do not have to do a thorough check on whether they have permission to process.

This is of course bull*hit. How can you process data if no permission has been given in the first place. The EU are looking to curb their get out by insisting implied permission and a general we can process data through 'legitimate' interests cannot be used.

 

If there is no CCA available then I would press the OC to stop processing your data and use Grace & Anor v Blackhorse Ltd [2014] and similar cases to put pressure on their reporting to CRA's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya spartathisis, well done it looks like I need to read u p on your success as ive had another ccj form through and I need to sort out maybe your success may help me too, cag has been fab for me in the past and thus now I hope I can get a donation to them as I need help again, they know me too well I keep coming back like a bad penny but everyone is so helpful and looks like your success will help others too, good luck in credit building ciao ... angel

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...