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

[Pipster2797]

The one I use is:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re xxxx account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I was somewhat bemused to receive your letter dated xxxxxxxxx, received today, xxxxxxxxxxx. This account remains in lawful dispute with xxxxxxx, the details of which are none of your concern.

 

However, while I have your attention, I note that you have been instructed by your client, xxxxxxx, to recover the outstanding balance on the above account and the fact you also have now formally demand immediate payment of the full balance, on behalf of your client following their own attempts to ignore the legal process.

 

As xxxxxxx have passed this account to you for collection, you will no doubt be in possession of all of my past correspondence to them, that should have appraised you fully of the dispute, however I will explain the situation again to you.

 

xxxxxxx are aware that this account is in dispute and the reasons why it remains in dispute. xxxxxxx have not supplied a credible response to my s78 request. Despite this, HSBC and now yourselves, seem determined to ignore the Law.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt on your part, let me explain the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in dispute and xxxx remain in default, which now also applies also to your organisation.

 

• xxxx may not ask for payment against this account.
  
• I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  
• xxxx cannot register any data with a third party.
  
• xxxx cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  
• xxxx cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  
• xxxx cannot sell the account.
  

I have written to xxx on many occasions, pointing out the facts above and detailing the relevant laws that apply. I have no intention of listing them again and again here. It appears that xxxx ignore these letters and intend to ignore the Law, now further confirmed by their latest actions involving yourselves.

 

Following xxxx’s previous threats of legal action, they have again failed to supply a true copy of any alleged agreement under CPR 31:16, as I have requested.

 

I am formulating official complaints to the OFT, Trading Standards and my MP. I will request that my MP passes my complaint on to the relevant Minister for advice\action. I am sure that the regulatory bodies, will take better notice of a minister, rather than just an individual such as myself.

I suggest that your organisation, passes this matter back to xxxx to resolve, thus avoiding a further complaint regarding your organisation.

 

I confirm any further costs you incur in this matter will be of your own and xxxx’s making, due to failure to read my correspondence and take heed of the current legal situation that exists and therefore will be at your own liability.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

any success with it?

 

I'll send that one and see what happens with it

[johnnymitch]

sorry ,I thought that was the one you were referring to in #54 pipster

[Pipster2797]

I had a more polite one but vints seems better

[Castlebest]

Don't be rude or emotional in letters but there is no reason to be polite either, just tell it how it is .

 

pete

[vint1954]

any success with it?

 

I'll send that one and see what happens with it

They did respond, but only to say that they were asking their clients for further advice. They responded with their clients letter of a couple of months previous stating that they had given their final possition on the matter. That was a document filled in by hand, by them, wrong name wron DOB and address incorrectly spelt.

[vint1954]

Don't be rude or emotional in letters but there is no reason to be polite either, just tell it how it is .

 

pete

Didn't think that one was rude Pete, but stand to be corrected.

[johnnymitch]

Originally Posted by Castlebest

Don't be rude or emotional in letters but there is no reason to be polite either, just tell it how it is

pete

 

Hee-hee! This from the man who said :

 

I confirm any further costs you incur in this matter will be your own fault for being too stupid to read my correspondence and take heed of the current legal situation that exists and therefore will be at your own liability.

On this thread ......

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/125577-metropolitan-collection-services-action.html#post1311983

Have you mellowed a bit then pete ?

[vint1954]

[/i]

 

Hee-hee! This from the man who said :

 

[/font]

 

On this thread ......

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/125577-metropolitan-collection-services-action.html#post1311983

 

Have you mellowed a bit then pete ?

 

:D:D

[Castlebest]

Don't be rude or emotional in letters but there is no reason to be polite either, just tell it how it is .

 

pete

 

I rest my case

[johnnymitch]

Surely , by definition pete - if you're not polite - you're rude ? No ?

 

[Pipster2797]

**UPDATE**

 

New letter this morning from Central saying that they are calling me (Dunno if they mean by post or phone, even though they dont have my number) on Monday 26th Oct between 8am and 9pm!! If I do not want them to call then I must call them??

 

I think its an idol threat to come out to be honest, too late to send the letter off saying do not call as I have no intenion of seeing them etc, due to the postal strike tomorrow and friday. I'm not worried if they do come as I will just chase them. However I will keep the letter and when it comes to a matter of costs after court it will prove a day off work for this!!

 

Also had a letter from MCS this morning regarding my letter I sent from Johnny Mitch's letter

 

"PLEASE NOTE that unless otherwise stated by yourselves and if the above documents are NOT provided, it will be CONFIRMED that you are unable to reproduce/provide in any way shape or form any copies of the above requested documents. You are reminded that you have a duty to inform me if you do not have the above documents. This is confirmed in High Court Law - Ezsias v Welsh Ministers - [2007] All ER (D) 65 (Dec) "

 

Saying that they refer to their letter dated June 09 saying it was their final response and I have the usual 6 months to refer it to the FOS.

 

Does anyone think this may be the route I should go down? I know they won't look into it. After reading alot of threads, it seems they don't look into the CCA problems. However if it goes to court I don't want to seem of doing nothing.

[johnnymitch]

I think I'd pass what you've got onto FOS ,pipster - that way you're seen to be pursuing it through the normal channels ,even if FOS are a bit slow, or negative ... it will look to a court that you are making every effort to resolve a dispute .....

 

They(MCS) are also blatantly ignoring the above directive that they must tell you if they haven't got the agreement .. FOS can't ignore that I wouldn't have thought......

[vint1954]

Keep a copy of the do not darken my doorstep by the door, just in case they do call.

[Pipster2797]

**UPDATE**

 

 

Letter this morning from DCA to say thanks you for your letter dated 1st October, I had sent it to HSBC. In their letter they say I have not provided a legitmate signature so they cannot answer my letter. Yet they have wrote to me?? :confused::confused: The letter I had sent was

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

With regards to your latest letter dated 19th September 2009, HSBC are unable to pass this debt on to an outside Debt Collection Agency as they will be acting outside the regulations of both the Consumer Credit Act and the Data Protection Act.

I have still not received a copy of the credit agreement for the above account. In your letter dated 10th September 2009 you state it was previously sent on the 11th June 2009. However both letters DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CREDIT AGREEMENT!

Also as per my letter dated 2nd September 2009 you have still not sent me the following that I requested under CPR

1) A true copy of the executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of default and at the time the account was opened. Please note that a "true copy" as defined by the Consumer Credit Act will not be acceptable in this case, and a copy of the actual executed agreement, including signature, is required.

The documents that you have previously sent to me have not included a credit agreement.

2) All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to

1. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, payments and both the amounts of credit and any repayments made to the account.

2. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations

3. Where there has been any event in the account history over this period that has required manual intervention by any person, disclosure of any indication or notes that have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to the account held by me with HSBC Is required.

4. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you sent to me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

5. Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable).

6. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge

was calculated, and what the charge covers.

7. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

8. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998.

9. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

10. Copies of statements for the entire duration of the credit agreement.

I make this request to ensure that each party has equal footings which can allow action to proceed speedily fairly and without undue costs or waste of courts time, as defined within Pre-action Practice Directions -Protocols 4.6 of the Civil Procedures Rules.

I will give you 14 days to respond with the above, failure to comply will result in a complaint being made to the Court. In addition to the FOS for any breaches of OFT and CCA codes. This includes breaches as a result of initiating a Country Court claim where failing to provide or produce documents make litigation improper..

Specifically this relates to one or any number of the following;

* demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* add any further interest or charges to the account.

* pass/sell the account or outstanding balance to any third party.

* register any information in respect of the account with any of the credit reference agencies.

* issue a default notice related to the account.

Furthermore, I reserve my right to make a copy of this letter available for inspection to the Court and Financial/Consumer regulators should you fail to comply with this request.

I await your response, and should you need further clarification on any of the above points, then I suggest that you direct them to your legal department.

Yours faithfully,

I haven't had a knock on the door today from the DCA so waiting for them to knock. Although I do think it is just a bully tactic from them.[/font]

[johnnymitch]

The signature thing is just another time-wasting tactic because they have no answer to your previous letter, pipster.

 

You could write and tell them what you've said above about them being quite happy prior to this that they are dealing with the right person - point out again that they have a duty BY LAW to inform you if they haven't got the documentation you're looking for .... and tell them that you will enter into no further dialogue with them until they do .......

 

Keep FOS up to speed with the bank's shenanigans ... and let them have a copy of the letter you send .... at last it keeps you in their(FOS's) mind .

 

I wouldn't worry about knocks on the door , they have to go to court to get an order to do that ..... and they won't get one without the CCA . As you say , it's a despicable , bully boy tactic which they use to frighten less aware customers into submission ....

 

Then you can either start court action yourself to force them to produce or confirm they haven't got it .... or just sit back and let them sweat .....

[Pipster2797]

This is a case for a credit card taken out 8 years ago. Ive been dealing with it for a few months but havent posted because Ive felt confortable with it to be honest and due to other cases I don't want praying eyes on what I was doing.

 

Just to give a brief insight as to what has happened.

 

• Late 2008 I asked for a copy of the CCA, never got it.
  
• early 2009 sent a SAR to HSBC and never got the CCA or a DN
  
• A few months ago got a very vague POC with no CCA or DN attached.
  
• Wrote CPR letter asking for info, never got a reply
  
• Filed an embrassed defence due to vague POC and no DN or CCA
  
• Letter from court to say claimant has 28 days or case will be stayed.
  

Thats where I'm upto as the case is stayed. What would be the best way to try and get this thrown out as they haven't got any paperwork at all?

 

Thanks

Pipster

[Pipster2797]

*bump*

 

Anyone help with this?

[Ganymede]

If the claim is stayed then the claimant will need to apply to the court to re-instate it and will need to have some good reasons for doing so, otherwise the claim is effectively dead in the water.

[Docman]

If it is HSBC, then they have a track record of only responding to a defence when they want to. In my case, they waited for 10 months and then went for an order lifting the stay and asking for a SJ all in one. The court allowed the stay without any questions but did draw the line at the SJ as HSBC did not produce the CCA or DN.

 

You could always apply for a strike out of the claim but prodding HSBC like that means you run the risk that they will wake up and pull their digit from wherever it is. Perhaps you might want to wait until you have any other matters sorted before taking HSBC on.

[Pipster2797]

Should I just sit back and see what happens? Im unsure of what to do for the best

[Pipster2797]

Well I'm in court tomorrow as HSBC have issued proceedings against me. I hadn't wanted to put anything up on the boards because of praying eyes. So just going to post a summary of where I'm at because HSBC have confirmed in writing today that they don't have the signed agreement and they are relying on a reconstituted agreement with no sig and no prescribed terms, they say the prescribed terms are in a separate leaflet with the original T&C on it and that Carey v HSBC states that T&C can be on separate page or pages. The reconstituted agreement doesn't refer to the T&C being on a separate document and the pages aren't numbered.

 

A History.

 

- Early 2010, DG Solicitors issued claims form through Northampton County Court.

- I sent off CPR requests for docs and never got them.

- I put in an embarrassed defence

- Case Stayed as claimant didn't respond

- Very late 2010 got a letter with statements and reconstituted agreement and wrote back explaining that credit agreement nor default notice was in there. In this letter they quote Carey V HSBC case about reconstituted agreement

- Letter early this year repeating previous letter, wrote to again saying I info was not there.

- May 2011 and they have tried to lift the stay and go for summary judgement and striking out my defence.

- Case set for summary judgment tomorrow.

- Sent my witness statement off to the court and the claimant last week and copied below.

- Sent a without prejudice letter for HSBC to withdraw claim and each side bear its own costs, also pointing out why Carey v HSBC is not relevant in this case.

 

Got a letter today from them that states that it is relevant because “a creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself". I’ve pointed out in my witness statement that while this may be correct my request for the credit agreement is not under a s78 request and that a reconstituted agreement does not have a signature so cannot be enforced in court as things stand on agreements entered into dated before April 2007.

 

In the letter today they state "our client is currently unable to locate a copy of the original credit agreement form and therefore a reconstituted agreement containing your name and address together with terms and conditions at account opening has been provided to you utilising information from our systems. So they have finally confirmed they don't have an agreement.

 

They go on to refer to the prescribed terms in the T&C leaflet.

 

They finish by saying that in my letter for them to discontinue and each side bear its own costs that they have not received my witness statement. I sent it proof of delivery and have the signature when it was received. Printed off and ready for court tomorrow to prove they did get it. Needless to say I haven't got their witness statement.

 

Here is my witness statement

 

1. I, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, being the Defendant, am a litigant in person in this case.

 

 

2. I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence against the Claimants claim against me.

 

 

3. I make this Witness Statement from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true.

 

4. I neither admit or deny that I signed a Credit Card Agreement, as mentioned in the claimants Particulars of Claim, between HSBC and myself. I do not have a copy of any alleged agreement and HSBC has not provided me with a copy of an original agreement including a signature.

 

5. On the 21st October 2008 I wrote to HSBC requesting a true and signed copy of any alleged agreement. This is my right under legislation contained within Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 77(1) for rolling sum credit). I paid the appropriate fee of £1.00

 

 

 

6. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s78(1) and its associated Regulations state that, inter alia;

1. 78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s78(6) then specifies that the consequences of failure to comply with such a request are that the creditor is not entitled to;

78

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

7. In an effort to gain a resolution to this matter, on 23rd February 2009, I made an application under The Data Protection Act 1998 for a full Subject Access Report. This I believed would produce a copy of any agreement that was alleged. Also within my request I asked to be supplied with information regarding any documentation that had not been retained along with HSBC’s method used for disposal of such information to comply with the Data Protection Act stating the name and contact information of their Data Controller and Code Compliance Officer. This information is still outstanding and is crucial to my defence in relation to HSBC being able to satisfy an audit trail.

 

8. The response from HSBC, of June 2009, did not include a copy of any original Credit Card Agreement.

 

9. On or about 1st May 2010 I received The Particulars of Claim from the Northampton Bulk Centre. The claimant's statement of case fails to comply with the requirements of CPR part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that this claim is based upon a written contract namely a regulated credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as such the Civil Procedure Rules requires that a copy of the written contract be served with the claim. However the claimant still has not supplied the defendant with a copy of the agreement which the claimant bases this claim upon.

 

10. I again requested a copy of the actual executed agreement including signature on the 1st May 2010, along with the default notice dated 7th March 2008, the termination notice and any statements of account under a CPR 31.14 request.

 

11. I subsequently made a defence as the claimant hadn’t supplied all of the documents to me and additionally completed an Allocation Questionnaire.

 

12. The claimant never responded to my defence and the case was stayed.

 

13. I received a bundle of information from HSBC dated 16th December 2010 in response to my defence dated 26th May 2010. It included a reconstituted Credit Card Request Form, Terms and conditions at account opening, important changes to your credit card, current terms and conditions along with statements of the account.

 

14. The claimant states in their letter of the 16th December 2010 that the letter also includes a default notice. Unfortunately this wasn’t included.

 

15. In the claimant’s letter of the 16th December 2010, page 2(A copy has been provided marked as Exhibit A), paragraph 10(highlighted) they disclose that it is their intention to rely upon the recent Judgement of His Honour Judge Waksman QC in Carey v HSBC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB). This judgement relates to the creditors obligations under S77/78 requests only and does not change anything on enforceability issues’ would like to draw your attention to the Judges introduction on page 4 para 1as this will show that this judgement only refers to requests for copies of credit card agreements pursuant to section78. This is not the claim being made

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

1. This judgement deals with two matters concerning requests for copies of credit card agreements pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”) and the consequences of non-compliance with that provision. The first matter is the determination of six preliminary issues of law, arising in a number of selected cases. The second is the application by two of the Defendant banks to strike out or to obtain under CPR 24 the summary dismissal of certain claims brought against them on the basis of no reasonable grounds and/or abuse of process and/or no real prospect of success (“the Applications”).

 

A reconstituted agreement does not have a signature so cannot be enforced in court as things stand on agreements entered into dated before April 2007. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to mislead both the court and myself by misquoting and omitting key words, sentences and phrases.

 

 

16. The claimants statement of case still fails to comply with the requirements of CPR part 16 insofar that this claim is based upon a written contract , namely a regulated credit agreement , regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as such the Civil Procedure Rules require that a copy of the written contracts be served with the claim. However the claimant still has not supplied the defendant with a copy of the agreement which the claimant bases this claim upon.

 

 

17. I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

 

18. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

19. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

 

20. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

 

21. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched

 

 

22. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

 

 

23. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed

 

 

24. If the claimant cannot supply a document signed by the creditor and debtor, easily legible and containing the prescribed terms per schedule 6 column 2 of SI 1983/1553 the agreement cannot be enforced. If the claimant asserts that it can provide proof that the monies have been used by the defendant and therefore even in the absence of the credit agreement the debt should be repaid then I quote the House of Lords in Wilson -v- FCT "lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable" this clearly outlines that even if it is the case that the lender has loaned the monies to the debtor, if he does not comply with the CCA 1974, he cannot seek and equitable remedy and stands to lose the monies loaned

 

25. Further more I refer to Sir Andrew Morritt's judgment in Wilson and FCT [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal at Para 26

In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;

 

 

26. Should the issue of the repeal of section 127(3) be brought before the court, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3 of Consumer credit Act 2006 prevents section 15 of the CCA 2006 from having effect on agreements made before 6th April 2007 such as this one

 

for the attention of the court I reproduce schedule 3 section 11

 

 

11The repeal by this Act of-

(a) The words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© The words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act, has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

 

To be honest I feel confident going in tomorrow because they haven't got the signed agreement and have now confirmed this in writing, which I will take with me.

 

I just think it will boil down the lottery judge and how it will go with him. HSBC are going to go into it with Carey v HSBC and feel I have to keep pointing out that the case was brought against HSBC for not supplying the credit agreement under a s78 request whereas HSBC are trying to enforce this account based on a written agreement they don't have.

 

I'd welcome any advice and know it is short notice and done everything off my own back but any thoughts or words of encouragement would be nice.

 

Thanks

[citizenB]

What year are they claiming you opened the account?

[kurvaface]

It makes you wonder what the point of an agreement is if they feel they don't need one to take you to court...

 

Good luck tomorrow:|

[Pipster2797]

late 2002. I know I didn't sign anything

[DonkeyB]

Is your whole defence based on their not having a signed agreement? Were there any other disputes on the account, such as PPI or charges?