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

[Pipster2797]

Might have found an ace card!!

 

There WS states I was defaulted on a certain date for a certain balance, yet the info on my credit file says a different date and a different balance

[DonkeyB]

Can we see the T&Cs they sent?

 

Ta.

[DonkeyB]

Might have found an ace card!!

 

There WS states I was defaulted on a certain date for a certain balance, yet the info on my credit file says a different date and a different balance

 

Minutiae. Bigger issues to sort.

[DonkeyB]

I’m going through this as fast as I can – need to counter the WS, and do a quick skelly.

 

The judge should rip their arses for delivering the WS on the day of the hearing – it should have been issued with the application.

[DonkeyB]

...and their rep has the cheek to suggest your most recent WS should not be allowed!

[DonkeyB]

Afternoon Briefcase. See you are looking in. Have you issues with this lot?

[DonkeyB]

OK, folks, WS in response to their pile of rubbish done. All a bit quick, but hopefully coherent. It was a bit of a combined WS and skelly as it included the relevant case law and statutes.

 

Save to say we found an example DN from the time, exact same wording, and it only allowed 14 days to rectify. Ooops. Anyway, Pipster never received it. Amex v Brandon is therefore a bar to enforcement.

 

Also, we can show they have not – and cannot ever – comply with a s 78 request, as a contract or application form was never, ever signed. It was done over the phone. So Carey – which they rely on – blows them out of their own paddling pool. Phoenix v Kotecha 2011 means it’s therefore unenforceable.

 

Some of it sensitive and we know the oppo look in, so done off forum as the hearing is in a short while.

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

[DonkeyB]

And given that Pipster only received their WS at 11am, they won’t be expecting what’s they’re getting. Two can play at that game.

[kurvaface]

:|Fingers crossed

[DonkeyB]

Judge lottery time.

[DonkeyB]

Briefcase, it seems odd that someone joins CAG then just sits on one thread for ages. How’s the weather at DG in Edgbaston?

[kurvaface]

Briefcase, it seems odd that someone joins CAG then just sits on one thread for ages. How’s the weather at DG in Edgbaston?

 

Well things could be worse. At least by being here, soemone else is being saved some nuiscance:roll:

[DonkeyB]

Gone now. That was it. Joined today, looked at this thread, left.

 

Maybe a mod could do some checking for trolls...

[kurvaface]

I sent a message

[DonkeyB]

That’s nice.

[kurvaface]

I mean I sent a message to the visitor who immediately bu**ered off!

 

I wonder how Pipster's getting on..?

[Pipster2797]

Well thank you firstly to Donkey B for all the help with this. He saved my bacon on it as think i would of lost had it just been my WS

 

Not a loss but not a win either.

 

Basically I got there and HSBC Sol was already there. Had a quiet word with me. I gave her the new WS. She read through it and mentioned that she had brought the Carey case with her. I said I was already aware of the case and I’ve also read it. Tried to explain again to her that a recon may suit a s78 request but to enforce then the signed agreement has to be there.

 

Got in to the room with the judge, first thing he commented on was the length of time this case had took as claim was first brought in May 2010 and he started straight away at her not so much that they had served the WS on me as LIP today but that they had served it on him today, she then gave him a copy of the Carey case and he asked her if she expected him to read the full case within 30 minutes on top of her WS and my amended WS. She tried to pick the bones out and gave him the gist but I kept piping up and repeating that it does fulfil a s78 request but to enforce you need the signed CCA and HSBC were trying to enforce here so different from Carey. She kept repeating Carey, in the end the judge got a bit annoyed and bit at her that I wasn’t disputing the findings of the Carey case but I was actually saying sec 127 of the consumer credit act was applicable, he then asked her to explain to him why sec 127 wasn’t relevant as per their WS, she couldn’t answer him. He also said that this was going to have to go to trial. Thought I was about to get what I wanted at this point. She waffled on about Carey again but avoided his questions.

 

He brought up about the DN and I was trying to get my point across that I only got it this morning and done some research and found a one on the internet that was word for word and the dates didn’t give enough time for service etc and to remedy the breach. He asked her how long it should give and her reply was 14 days I think?? Couldn’t believe what I was hearing. She then tried to get the judges mind off the DN by going on about Carey and thought she was going to bring up about the DN not being relevant as it wasn’t in Carey. Was ready with my reply but again she kept bleating about s78 from carey.

 

Thought it was all going my way and going well but he decided to relist it for a 2 hour hearing for the strike out. He said my WS today would be used as my defence in light of recent docs i.e. the DN. They admitted there was no DN just the template and no CCA either. Judge said I can’t order for docs to be sent when there isn’t any. Wasn’t happy I had put directions in when I know there aren’t any docs. I got away with it by saying to be fair the draft directions were wrote up before I got HSBC’s WS this morning and I had worked all morning on it rather than ask for an adjournment as the case has dragged on long enough. He seemed ok with that and asked me if it was all my own research or had I got the info from the internet. I said it was all my own work but I did research from the internet.

 

So he has ordered that 14 days from the order HSBC have to write a skelly argument and serve it to the court and me and then I have 28 days to put my skelly to the court and the claimant and then the first date after that for a 2 hour hearing.

 

Not a loss and gives me some time to get the Skelly in place and make sure everything is perfect and HSBC can’t play funny beggars as they have to get their skelly in place first. He did try and scare me by saying that as I am LIP I won’t have any costs but if I lose HSBC have hired and I will have what could be considerable costs. Bit my lip but felt like saying so you think I should just roll over and give in despite what the law says?

 

So don’t know if it’s a stalemate or round 1 to me.

[Pipster2797]

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

 

 

Well you did do enough and more than you should of. I can only thank you again.

 

I spoke to the solicitor outside and discussed and she was trying to batter me down to admitting the money and I told her the full story of how it had went, why I originally requested the CCA but HSBC done everything they could to stop me from checking charges etc and trying to push my debt down. Think she may have realised at that point that my intention was not to avoid the debt but to lower it through possible PPI (turns out there isn't any PPI) and charges. Think she realised that HSBC's main aim was to avoid me knowing there was no CCA when that wasn't what I was after and just information to lower my debt. As it still is. I'm hoping that with charges and interest I can get a full and final settlement on the account and haggle for the default to be removed.

 

Anyway's I'm going to relax with my little boy now and play toys and watch cartoons because over the last week I haven't spent enough time with him. May also have 1,2 or even more beers tonight.

 

Thanks again to everyone for their comments but again to DonkeyB for a huge help and a debt I probably never be able to repay to him.

[kurvaface]

Well done so far...

[DonkeyB]

That’s a fair result given the amount of sh*te the judge had to take from them. As we said at the start, these tossers do not play fair. This judge saw through that. They blast away at Carey to cover the fact they have no evidence. They send witness statements in late to try and hoodwink the judge and the defendant. They lie to you and tell you that you are not entitled to a witness statement. In short, they cheat. You have to be wise to their tricks.

 

It may well be worth you trying to negotiate with them – if they’ll listen, and if that’s what you want. The aim of today was to stop them getting a ridiculous summary judgment.

 

My view now is that as they have gone for you tooth and nail, you are entitled to fight back. They cannot win this on Carey. I imagine their rep started to realise that.

 

Let’s see what the judge’s order brings.

[DonkeyB]

And, if you do negotiate, I think any amount you were willing to pay has just fallen significantly...

[NewToTheFight]

Well done Pipster, with Donkey's support you have won today - they did not get what they wanted.

It is for them to prover their case, they have no documents

How can they prove you signed something? Because Marge in accounts specifically remembers your application from umpteen years ago?

 

I think not

[coledog]

Well done Pipster and DB! You are in a stronger position now Pipster, hopefully!

[DonkeyB]

The point is quite simply that Pipster signed nothing – the card was arranged over the telephone.

 

Their argument is that, as their systems are wholly reliable, the likelihood is that he WOULD have signed a contract.

 

Our simple counter argument is that if their systems are so reliable, how come they don’t have a copy of the contract he signed?

 

They can’t rely on the efficiency of their systems, then deny that efficiency in the same breath, simply to suit their case.

 

The judge said as much in the Harrison v Link Financial case – Link produced an MBNA employee who swore that certain things must have happened because that’s how things were done. Luckily, Mr Harrison had proof to the contrary. Too often the judiciary believe these well-meaning fibbers – oh it’s a bank, they must do things properly. Well, no, they do not.

 

There is no signed document with Pipster’s scrawl. Never has been.

[NewToTheFight]

You are right Donkey, I also have a HSBC account which I did not sign an application for