HSBC no CCA

[goodatresearch]

Any updates on this?

[goodatresearch]

Same happened to me with Midland Bank, given CC but no agreement signed and yes, although it can be a judge lottery, the existence of an account doesn't actually mean that a compliant agreement was ever signed.

 

There was a case reported on another forum where a defendant produced a letter from a bank which clearly stated an account was being closed and a new account was opened for them and here's the card. Not an upgrade but a new account.No mention of a new agreement being signed at all.

 

Unfortunately I don't believe your argument that CRAs can't process data because you haven't agreed via an agreement will hold water. Although I do understand and sympathise with your argument.

 

I went into the bank (Midland at the time) and was offered a CC, all I had to do was prove my signature and card came through the post later.

So 'obviously' there was no agreement.

 

An account existing does not make an agreement.

 

 

They cannot prove acceptance of any T & C's, including processing my data, sale of any alleged debt etc.

 

How can they prove that the outstanding balance was not a gift from them?

 

 

That they promised me that I would earn interest of 20% on anything I owed them?

 

 

Without an agreement it matters not a jot, or so a District Judge told me last week in court at my Divorce Final Hearing

(debt discussed as it was incurred during the marriage).

 

2 years to SB. Default date was earlier than the notified by many months.

 

They are reporting to CRA's with no permission.

[goodatresearch]

I do have sympathy Spart with your argument but unfortunately the data controller will state an agreement would have to have been signed for a card to be issued even though many of us know cards were issued some years ago without one. Unfortunately the CRAs don't check accuracy because it isn't their role but take the word of the data controller. Plus it could be argued that even if there was never a valid agreement, the bank would have carried out a credit check which would have required your agreement before giving you the card, do you see the problem.

 

If the OC/debt purchaser takes someone to court due to lack of payment of an account and is unsuccessful due to there being no properly executed agreement, the court will no doubt state that they can still report to CRAs as they're reporting the true status of the account (unless of course they have the wrong account holder or its a case of identity theft). I'm not saying I agree but unfortunately that's how it works.

 

I'd concentrate on trying to establish there wasn't ever a valid agreement in the first place, if possible. You need to choose your battles.

 

 

Simple question " did open account and use the facility" ?

 

 

Knowing or hoping that you could spend and not have to pay pack any money? Illegal activity?

[goodatresearch]

Don't worry, your not the only one who's frustrated by brigs postings as confirmed by an email I received from admin.

 

Look at one of his postings on this thread which stated that there must have been an agreement or you wouldn't have received a card. So all those people who know that they didn't sign an an agreement are wrong and brig is right?

 

My favorite, the insinuation that you took the account out with the sole intention of not paying it back. Where's the evidence you did this? From what I have seen, most people want to pay their debts back but banks ignore their obligations under section 9 of the Lending Code (and various guidelines/rules) so consumers rely on problems with the paper work to protect their position. Let's not get get so misty eyed about the poor banks, if they acted with more integrity there would be no need for CAG.

 

Concentrate on the argument that there was at no time no signed paperwork and we will advise on that.

 

 

 

And people who are trying to help you on here do not need "which part of this don't you understand".

 

A

Perhaps it is the constant disbelief from 'Brig' in any post I make that gets on my wick.

[goodatresearch]

I have tried extremely hard to ignore your comments but unfortunately you take the view that anyone who doesn't agree with you is talking nonsense so you insult them. Not very mature.

 

Tell me, what have I actually said on this thread that is nonsense? Iv said that cards have been issued without an agreement and CitizenB from the site team has confirmed that he entered an account in the same way. Are we both lying or posting nonsense? Don't be shy, issue your judgement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tough if you don't like my posts report them to CAG admiin.

 

 

Perhaps it is the constant nonsense post by some that needs addressing.

 

This constant flow of nonsense gets " on my wick"

 

 

Grow up if you cannot take reasoned criticism don't post nonsense.

[goodatresearch]

I am on you side. Please do not be put off by some posters and if you need help keep posting.I, and others will try and help you if it is possible.

 

 

 

 

goodatresearch:

 

Account opened in good faith and repaid on time until a few years ago, HSBC arsey over a query led to me going down the SAR route and realising when and how I opened the account. To be honest never gave it a thought because of all the CC debt that I am alleged to owe I kept HSBC straight because I had a current account with them. Deducting money from account and taking me into a chargeable overdraft was the last straw and hence this thread.

 

Brig:

 

So my quoting the law is my being 'flawed'? I appreciate advice, but when you either don't read what has been posted, or ignore it, it is tiring. Perhaps a change in attitude might avoid rubbing folk up the wrong way and the friction it can cause.

 

If it was my intention to fleece the banks I am sure there are easier ways to do it, but even if that was my intention so what? If a lender is not abiding by the laws laid down, or the rules in place, they deserve everything they can't get back.

 

I have no sympathy whatsoever, the more folk can avoid paying back to either the banks or debt collectors the better in my book.

 

Alloyz1:

 

Thanks for the input on the CRA's.

 

 

Page 7 of Experian's explanation of what CRA's do:

 

"They can only do this with their customers’ permission. So when a consumer applies for credit, they usually give the lender

permission to share information with other lenders through the credit reference agencies. This includes details about the

application and about any credit the lender then grants. As a result, the credit account information

we hold is simply a copy of the information all the different lenders hold. These lenders

update our database each month. "

 

http://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/consumer/creditRefAgencyExplained.pdf

 

It continues to mention credit agreements and how permission is granted when agreements are entered into.

 

This was a recent Appeal case found in Experians favour regarding a duty of care in the accuracy of information they held. Unless notified data is incorrect they cannot be held liable for compensation, but must make every effort to check once notified of problems.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/108.html

[goodatresearch]

If u want advice don't let brig put u off. Come back on here and I'll try and help you.

I think Brig was aiming his comments at me not you

 

Cheers for the positive support.

 

All the good work CAG have done has come about from different ideas and ways to approach a problem from lots of folk, talk of dismissing valid arguments and discussions may put folk off

trying to get themselves out of the mire. I was paying out to 7 creditors before I came across CAG. I have paid zero out in over 3 years and 5 years, SB begin after Xmas with HSBC the only one longer than 15 months before becoming SB.

 

Not too concerned with Brig, he helps a lot of folk out with the basic stuff on here, but I feel he can be out of his depth sometimes and resorts to the comments above. Life is too short to bother or to report.

 

[goodatresearch]

It must be a regular tactic with HSBC because they say I opened the account in 1996 also, but I know this date is incorrect, but how do you prove it? Unfortunately for them they have accidently confirmed that they have sent out the wrong T & Cs with their s78 response and strangely enough they've stopped their threats for now and are being quite polite. I wonder why?

 

As many consumers do, I was trying to come to a payment arrangement with them, but they ignored all my letters and just sent computer generated threats all saying I had not contacted them. Few nasty phone calls as well, one recorded. Hey ho the HSBC merry go round.

 

CitizenB:

 

Looks to be a similar situation to mine, but mine was mid to late 80's, I know the year & month but won't say in case it gives anyone reading ideas.

 

HSBC state I took out the 'agreement' in 1996, when Access changed to Visa, but I was unemployed and on benefits at that time so am damn sure they would not have granted me a credit card.

 

I opened a current account with them in 1979 and really don't remember signing anything then either, things were done very differently to now.

[goodatresearch]

It isn't just where PPI is concerned. Barclaysshark sold my account and it was passed back to them after they admitted they couldn't enforce due to lack of s78 CCA. They're still saying I owe the full amount although they've charged it off-

[goodatresearch]

I can't post on my tablet but the T & Cs from 1996 on a midland visa are silent on repurchasing, i think. When I get a minute I'll dig it out and check and report back.

[goodatresearch]

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

[goodatresearch]

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.