HSBC no CCA

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The whole point is that the CRA's are processing data without explicit permission. When a contract is signed there are

conditions on third party data processors i.e. CRA's, but with no contract & no permission they are breaking the DPA 1998.

 

HSBC insist they have permission, but cannot even state correctly when a card was given, so I still fail to understand how either HSBC or the CRA's can get away with processing my data.

They are complicit in illegal data processing, without permission that is what it is, and are in effect damaging my 'good name'. Tongue firmly in cheek there

 

I have informed 1st Credit I will be reporting them to the ICO for processing my data illegally and intend writing to each of the CRA's too.

HSBC have been contacted in the past on a number of occasions and they have never replied to a S10 notice, perhaps a more strongly worded notice may achieve more.

 

I am thinking Kpohraror v Woolwich BS & Durkin v HFC/PC World with regard to damage to credit etc.

 

 

I wish you luck I think you will need it, such " crusades" have been tried over the years and alas have gone nowhere.

 

 

In particular you were asked " to prove your signature" How by signing some thing??

[spartathisis]

I wish you luck I think you will need it, such " crusades" have been tried over the years and alas have gone nowhere.

 

 

In particular you were asked " to prove your signature" How by signing some thing??

 

Not sure which bit of no agreement exists, nor no contract signed you don't understand.

 

A piece of paper checked against my signature they held on file. Destroyed in front of me afterwards.

 

'Crusade'? So you condone the CRA's knowingly processing data illegally?

Without such 'crusades' CAG would not exist, holding authority to account over their actions and the actions they should be abiding by is not a 'crusade'.

 

Your comments suggest rolling over and accepting illegal activity by banks and other data processors.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not sure which bit of no agreement exists, nor no contract signed you don't understand.

 

A piece of paper checked against my signature they held on file. Destroyed in front of me afterwards.

 

'Crusade'? So you condone the CRA's knowingly processing data illegally?

Without such 'crusades' CAG would not exist, holding authority to account over their actions and the actions they should be abiding by is not a 'crusade'.

 

Your comments suggest rolling over and accepting illegal activity by banks and other data processors.

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?

[Alloyz1]

The whole point is that the CRA's are processing data without explicit permission. When a contract is signed there are

conditions on third party data processors i.e. CRA's, but with no contract & no permission they are breaking the DPA 1998.

 

HSBC insist they have permission, but cannot even state correctly when a card was given, so I still fail to understand how either HSBC or the CRA's can get away with processing my data.

They are complicit in illegal data processing, without permission that is what it is, and are in effect damaging my 'good name'. Tongue firmly in cheek there

 

I have informed 1st Credit I will be reporting them to the ICO for processing my data illegally and intend writing to each of the CRA's too.

HSBC have been contacted in the past on a number of occasions and they have never replied to a S10 notice, perhaps a more strongly worded notice may achieve more.

 

I am thinking Kpohraror v Woolwich BS & Durkin v HFC/PC World with regard to damage to credit etc.

 

The agreement that a CRA and the DCA or OC have, is that the reporter will check the data is accurate prior to submitting.

 

It is not for the CRA to check its accuracy. That is the fact, like it or not.

 

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

 

A

[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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The agreement that a CRA and the DCA or OC have, is that the reporter will check the data is accurate prior to submitting.

 

It is not for the CRA to check its accuracy. That is the fact, like it or not.

 

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

 

A

 

Thank you A!!

I have to strongly agree A, the CRAs have to rely on the accuracy of the data provided by their client it would be a monumental task for them to verify every item post by the clients.

[spartathisis]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

 

 

The fact that you believe that all you say is so and must be so is flawed, these things do not change because spartathisis thinks it should.

 

 

If you don't like my posts report it to admin, your privilege.

[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.

[citizenB]

I can see what Sparthethis is saying as this happened to me - In 1998 - Went to set up a Midland Current account and they sent me a credit card in the post along with my debit card -therefore there was NO agreement - I hadn’t even asked for a CC. I admit I used the credit card and run up a debt however, there was NO agreement and HSBC discontinued their claim when this was pointed out to them.

 

For reference, when I submitted my defence, I admitted that I had used the card, but was insistent that I had never signed an agreement and had never given them permission via the credit card to process my data. I am assuming that if someone has other accounts, eg current account, mortgage account then it is likely a person has given their permission via those.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

[ims21]

This thread has been brought to our attention due to some of the recent posts.

 

I think it would benefit all if the sarcasm and jibes were to stop please.

 

For the OP, this thread has been rumbling on since 2011 so we are some 3 years down the line.

 

As this agreement was so long ago, if this came to court then the claimant would need a copy of the original signed agreement to enforce. Maybe that is why they haven't gone to court...they perhaps know that it is not enforceable.

 

Am I right in saying that your issue now is the processing of your data without having an agreement?

 

If that is the case then after all this time maybe a more pro-active approach is needed.

 

The Credit Reference Agencies rely on data being supplied to them by their clients. You have already challenged the lender on these issues and received their final responses (if I have read the thread correctly). It seems that you have been involved in letter tennis with various outfits on the other side for some considerable time.

 

So here are the blunt questions...forgive me but they do need to be asked I feel.

 

1. Having received final responses, and if you feel that you have a valid complaint, why have you not escalated the issues to the governing bodies for them to investigate?

 

2. I gather your credit file is perhaps not showing the rosiest of pictures at the moment. Are you in the process of applying for credit? If not, how is the reporting on your file affecting you directly at this time?

 

3. What is your ultimate objective with all of this?

 

4. If you feel that you have a strong case, what are you doing to move that forward?

 

You are of course right that CAG would not exist if people had just rolled over and accepted bank charges way back when so there is nothing wrong in standing by your convictions and giving it your best shot. The fact that some will take a different view is inevitable and they are of course entitled to their opinion. It is you who must decide what course you now want to take with this.

 

If you could answer the questions I have posed I think it may be of help.

[spartathisis]

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]

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

[spartathisis]

IMS21:

 

Indeed it has rolled on.

 

The HSBC default is the only one showing on my credit file. Some have dropped off due to 6 yrs passing. No litigation from any OC or DCA.

Cabot x 2, Robbers Way, A & L, RBS + 1 other to remain nameless have stopped all contact. Some admit no CCA's, others have closed the accounts. All with help from folk on CAG over the years.

 

Yes, within the next 12 months I wish to apply for credit

 

Not progressed as other more urgent and pressing matters have taken precedence.

 

HSBC default off my credit file.

 

I wanted advice from anyone who may have had experience and could offer constructive advice as to the likely outcome and procedure that may follow.

 

Complaining to the regulators is a last resort and I have preferred in the past to just grind them down, in the past it has clearly worked. I once complained to the ICO on MBNA processing my data 10 years after selling the debt on, they judged they were doing nothing wrong.

[spartathisis]

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]

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.

 

[spartathisis]

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.

Edited October 17, 2014 by spartathisis
spelling error

[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.

[spartathisis]

Away from the CRA questions.

 

No agreement, sold to 1 st Credit and they have 'reassigned' it back to HSBC. How can this be done? What law covers this area?

 

Account defaulted & closed when sold to 1st Credit, with no agreement in place, can't understand how it can then be given back.

[citizenB]

I think there must be something in the regulations or perhaps within their own Debt purchase/sale contracts that allows for the debt purchaser to return the account to the original creditor.. because.. Barclayshark and Capone are definitely doing this where Payment Protection Insurance refunds are made.

 

Apparently once a debt has been sold then the original creditor has no interest in the account and any monies recovered goes to the debt purchaser. However, it would appear that when PPI claims are being against the original creditor, they are saying they can offset the refund against the account. Which of course they cannot do if it has been sold to a 3rd party. So they are simply having the accounts reassigned and offsetting the refund.

 

Aside from that, when they sell the accounts in the first instance, the Debt purchaser is not provided with a copy of the agreement (even if one exists) - all they get is a name, address, account reference and balance outstanding.

 

You will see from threads posted that when a CCA is requested from a 3rd party where the debt has been assigned, they very nearly always advise that either they need to request a copy from the original creditor, or return the statutory fee and suggest the debtor makes the request from the OC.

[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-

[spartathisis]

This is what I can't understand, they close the account, tell me they have nothing to do with it anymore and then it can be shipped back to them.

 

Account closed must surely mean they cannot come back for another bite of the cherry?

 

Worse when there is no agreement in place re selling to a 3rd party, having it back etc.

 

Anyone have T & C's from 1996 for a Midland Bank/HSBC Visa card they can post up? I would be interested to see what their conditions of closing an account and reopening it again are.

[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.