HSBC v Pipster - Court Tomorrow!! *****Discontinued*****

[citizenB]

What year are they claiming you opened the account?

[citizenB]

judgment-carey-v-hsbc.pdf

 

Be sure to note points: 95 - 105, 112, 116 and the conclusions

 

[citizenB]

Pipster, did they say on the SJ application form that they would be relying on a Witness statement or.. did they say they would be relying on what you posted earlier ? If they said they would be relying on a WS, I think it should have been attached to the SJ Application !

[citizenB]

Wishing you all the best tomorrow

[citizenB]

Have you downloaded the proof of receipt for the SAR, from the RM website ?

 

Did you send the fee by check or postal order ? If you sent by postal order, and have time before you leave.. telephone 01246 542091 and ask them if the PO was cashed and on what date

 

HTH

[citizenB]

Well done Pipster, I am really pleased for you..

 

and a:clap2: for DB

[citizenB]

Pipster, if they dont file.. they will probably be given some more time

[citizenB]

I dont think this type of behaviour is restricted to DG solicitors, Pipster.. However, I do believe that they use this trick more, when it is a LiP who is defending..

[citizenB]

AGUEMENT = Argument.. I am just going to have a read back over your thread..

 

What date in 2009 is the DN you have managed to obtain a copy of ?

[citizenB]

HSBC are always trotting out Carey as if it were their own personal saviour.

 

1: The Claimant in Carey were the detors themselves.

 

2: CAREY

 

Carey did nothing to deal with enforcement in my opinion, it primarily sought to clarify compliance with s78(1) which it did very very well.

 

If you read carey properly you can see that HHJ Waksman did not address the issue of "proof of proper execution" and he actually went out of his way to tell us that this judgment deals with s78 not the issue of actual enforcement therefore, s78 is for information purposes only as clarified by Carey not for enforcement purposes, so a creditor CANNOT under carey enforce a reconstruction which simply complies with s78(1)

3: HSBC are taking a huge leap of faith by saying that if they can rely on a reconstruction/reconstituted document for an agreement, then the same should be allowed for a Default Notice.. especially with Brandon, Harrison and Kotetcha cases (all dealt with in Higher courts) saying otherwise.

[citizenB]

I think you have covered everything, the assertion that no agreement was ever signed therefore, they cannot EVER comply on that score.

 

The DNs issued by them at that time didnt comply with statute and 3 high court judgments have since repeated the importance of a properly issued Default notice before further action can be taken.

 

I wonder if DonkeyB or andyorch are around to maybe comment.

 

BTW, have sent a pm

[citizenB]

Lets see if we cant hunt down andyorch..

[citizenB]

Thanks Andy, much appreciated

[citizenB]

Looks like you have things under control now..

 

You are very welcome and if a Witness statement is required to go along with that document.. I am more than happy to provide one

[citizenB]

OMG, yes.. tis £18.00 per hour now.. for goodness sake, change that one

 

Pipster this is brilliant news and I am so pleased for you:cheer2:

[citizenB]

 

Case No: XXXXXX

 

IN THE XXXX (CCBC) county court

 

B E T W E E N:

 

HSBC Bank (Claimant)

 

-and-

 

(Defendant)

 

DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS

 

After discontinuing by the claimant.

 

Costs Payable by the Claimant

 

CPR 38.6 and CPR 44.12(1)(d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Claimant commenced proceedings in relation to an alleged agreement regulated under The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The proceedings were defended.

 

On 9th January 2012 the claimant wrote to the defendant to advise that they were discontinuing the application for strike out of the defendants defence and the claim that was to be heard in the XXXX County Court on the 12th January 2012 at 11:30am. Judge XXX advised on15th December 2011 that the hearing on 12th January 2012 would involve costs.

 

At all times the Defendant was a Litigant in Person within the meaning of Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 and time spent by the Defendant is charged herein at hourly rates of £18.00.

 

After receiving the Claim form The Defendant was required to spend time in researching case law, contacting the Claimant and the Court both by post and telephone.

 

The Defendant was obliged to spend time in considering and understanding numerous strands of law including the law of consumer credit, the law of limitation and practice and procedure in the County Court which he achieved through internet and library research.

 

The Defendant was obliged to spend time in drawing his defence, witness statement and skeleton argument out in a way which complied with the relevant rules and practice directions of the CPR. The Defendant was further obliged to consider his consequential rights and obligations to include his rights and obligations upon the matter of costs and the relevant rules and practice directions of the CPR in reference to the detailed assessments of costs as applied to Litigants in Person.

 

The following is a statement of the work done in the course of the proceedings. Where there is a charge for time spent, the amount of time recorded as spent represents the Defendant’s fair estimate of the amount of time spent by him.

 

 

Receiving and considering the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim (3 hours) = £54.00

 

Acknowledgement of Service (1 hour) = £18.00

 

Research regarding consumer credit law (5 hours) = £90.00

 

Preparing Defence (3 hours) = £18.00 - I think you mean £54.00

 

Research regarding detailed assessment proceedings and Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (5 hours) = £90.00

 

Preparing Witness Statement (5 hours) = £90.00

 

Preparing Skeleton Argument (5 hours) = £90.00

 

Preparing bill of costs (2 hours) = £36.00

 

Time off work to attend hearing for Summary Judgement of 8th December 2011 = £80.00

 

Time spent in telephone costs and letters written and received (4 hours) = £72.00

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

Costs payable by the Claimant £638.00

 

Dated: 11/01/2012

 

Signed

 

 

I dont see any travel costs there either ?

 

 

 

Mealing-McLeod v The Common Professional Examination Board 2000 All ER D 436.doc

 

Bill of costs for forum.pdf

 

Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250 (8 February 2.pdf

[citizenB]

Pipster, I hadnt increased the original total after pointing out you had done yourself out of £36.00..

 

So the total on the original sheet would have been £674.00 + the amounts above = £680.40, I think !!

[citizenB]

12. The witness states that a blank agreement form was provided 11 June 2009, but later claims that this complied with the judgment in Carey v HSBC. It should be noted that the Carey case only occurred in December 2009.

 

 

This one is priceless

[citizenB]

Have amended post #196.00 for you

 

Then it is ok to send..

[citizenB]

You would also be charging them for the cost of the application for putting it to the courts !!

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?138357-HSBC-CCA-received-what-next/page7

 

Hi Pipster, if you are not still busy celebrating, could you please spare a few moments and look in on sam on the above link..

 

HSBC issued the claim in 2008 and have made an application (hearing on 26th of this month) to lift the stay. I think Sam could do with a bit of moral support..