Please Read If Your Account Was Opened Pre-1995

[Guest bong]

Here is my thread in HSBC

 

bong v hsbc

 

Can anyone advise me please?

[jimfishybob]

I wouldn't, I would use the Supply of Goods and Services Act, (i.e. reasonable pre-estimate), and the recent OFT guidelines. Technically, the UTCCR doesn't apply to contratcs pre-1995 and though you may get away with it, they would have a legitimate defence to your claim.

[Guest bong]

Thanks very much jimfishybob.

 

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THAT I DON'T NEED TO PANIC?

 

I am shocked, to say the least, because

 

1. I only came across this by chance; had I not been thinking of claiming for more than six years of charges I wouldn't have discovered this piece of information, which, as I see it, is VITAL to the success of my claim even if I only reclaim 6 years worth of charges

 

2. How many BAG members with accounts opened before 1995 (and is that 1st January 1995 or some other cut off point?) have unwittingly been quoting these regulations in their particulars of claims? and

 

3. It throws into question the dangers of relying on any of the information or procedures quoted as standard on this site, without being more enquiring and 'fishing' for exceptions to the rule.

 

I know we are advised to buy the recommended books and law packs but I'm not sure that this would contain a comprehensive guide to, or interpretation of, the relevant laws here anyway.

 

Its now quite apparent to me that the guides to filling in your particulars of claim, the faqs section and possibly other parts of the forum need IMMEDIATE updating, before claims start getting thrown out on the grounds that the legal basis for bringing the claim simply doesn't apply. The problem is I have PM'd Bankfodder and Dave and here I am three days later still waiting for a reply from either of them, so I'm not sure how this can be achieved.

 

I am left wondering what else I might need to know about the relevant Acts, Regulations and common laws, and whether I need to be doing a lot more homework before I can entertain taking HSBC to court.

[BankFodder]

It is absolutley clear from the UTCCR that it does not apply to contracts entered into before 1995.

 

If you only discovered this by accident it suggests that you have not conducted a methodical preparation of the material you were intending to rely upon - before commencing your claim. You are advised to do this in several places. Furthermore the pre-1995 exclusion has been referred to and discussed in many places on this website.

 

That said, it is not at all a disaster if your contract was entered into before 1995.

 

The underlying and fundamental reason for the non-enforceablity of penalty charges is because it is contrary to Common Law. If your contract was entered into before 1894 then you might have a problem - but even that would be unlikely as Common Law can generally be said to have retrospective effect.

 

The OFT report refers to the common law and in any event, the principles contained in he provisions of the UTCCR concerning penalties are exacly those contained in the Common Law and in fact it can be said that the UTCCR reinforce and rejuvenate the common law.

In the case of penalties if they are contrary to the UTCCR then they are contrary to commonl law.

There is no problem referring to the UTCCR and the OFT report as a source of principle when arguing against the penalty effect of a pre-1995 contract.

 

If you have failed to appreciate these things then following link may be of use to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cooperative-bank/announcement-center-bankfodder-very-sick.html

 

 

Finally, this site is about self-empowerment and taking responsibility for your own claim and for your own litigation. It is your case, your risk and so it is for you to decide how much of your own effort you wish to invest in it.

[Guest bong]

To be honest I am rather miffed by your reply BankFodder. I think it is defensive and not very helpful.

 

It is absolutley clear from the UTCCR that it does not apply to contracts entered into before 1995.

 

I have re-read the regulations and it is still not at all clear to me - otherwise I would have been able to answer this myself!

 

In any case where does it state in amongst all the many FAQS on this site, or the guidance notes, or the legalities forum, either that these Regulations do not apply to you if you opened your account before 1995 or alternatively that you must read the Regulations, and any other Acts for that matter, and work this out for yourself? As I said before, I've read them and there is no definitive statement in them as you have suggested.

 

The only place this is mentioned is in the question "Can I claim beyond six years" in the FAQS. I would suggest that as it equally applies to people who are only claiming for 6 years, it is in the wrong place.

 

If you only discovered this by accident it suggests that you have not conducted a methodical preparation of the material you were intending to rely upon - before commencing your claim.

 

Not so - I have spent a lot of time reading, and as I said above, it is not there for all the reading in the world.

 

I don't think I can be the exception here.

 

Furthermore the pre-1995 exclusion has been referred to and discussed in many places on this website.

 

This suggests that I knew it would be a problem and I would have been searching for it! Anyway it needs to be in an obvious place, not tucked away amongst thousands of old threads!

 

If your contract was entered into before 1894 then you might have a problem

 

Do you mean 1984?

 

If you have failed to appreciate these things then following link may be of use to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...very-sick.html

 

Sorry BF, I just found this rude. How was following that link supposed to be useful to me? All it reiterates is that you are annoyed with people making mistakes.

 

Finally, this site is about self-empowerment and taking responsibility for your own claim and for your own litigation. It is your case, your risk and so it is for you to decide how much of your own effort you wish to invest in it.

 

Actually BF whatever you may think I do take responsibility for my claim and I am investing a great deal of effort in it and in helping other users where I can. Maybe you misunderstand me - I do not expect you to take responsibility for it, but I do think once you have been made aware of deficiencies in the site it should be acknowledged and corrected for everyones' benefit. I am pretty sure that if I conducted a survey on here there would be an awful lot of people who are not aware of this.

 

I might just do that.

[jimfishybob]

Whoa, i'm sitting this one out.

[Guest bong]

Am I wrong?

[jimfishybob]

Yes.

 

These people are individuals with jobs and families who devote all their spare time, (and not a little money), to helping others. The rest of the users on here, me included, try to help others out wherever possible but know if there is something too complex or something we're unsure of we can go to BF or Dave for clarification.

 

As BF states, this is a self help group. He has taken the time to make all the information you need available, how you choose to act on that information is your own lookout. Further, if you aren't au fait with ALL the arguments applicable to your case, you are not well enough prepared to take on a major financial corporation.

 

With the best will in the world, you are coming across like a spoilt child, you have been given this wealth of information and are stamping your feet because one of the points that may affect you hasn't been displayed in huge capital letters across the front of the site.

 

I have nothing against you and good luck in your claim. Will help where I can.

 

Just my 2 pence worth.

[Guest bong]

Sorry I don't agree. I am not criticizing BF for the work he does, it's fantastic and I take my hat off to him and the others involved in helping others on this site. But that does not justify him taking my genuine query about whether the way in which information is presented on this site is doing it justice and/or 'helping' people when it is not prominent, and turning it around into an excuse for berating me or belittling my efforts.

 

With the best will in the world, you are coming across like a spoilt child, you have been given this wealth of information and are stamping your feet because one of the points that may affect you hasn't been displayed in huge capital letters across the front of the site.

 

On the contrary - why would I be making a fuss about information I now have - the point I've tried to make, is that as I had difficulty finding this information so will others, and not everyone would think to ask "I wonder if the date that I opened my account will affect what I write in my Particulars of Claim?" Unlikely - it just gets copied out word for word!

 

And how was my reply rude? If you let me know I'll try and rectify it.

[Guest bong]

Actually I have realised that I completely overlooked to say thankyou BankFodder for the information you gave me. I'm sorry I didn't say it before and I hope you aren't offended by my remarks.

[Tobes]

Jimfishbob, i'm not entering into the debate but how was Bong rude, exactly??

[Guest NATTIE]

BankFodder is a no nonsense person and so you can read many things into what was said but I read the UTTCR 1999 which is fairly clear that it revoked the 1994 act from 1st July 1995. It was in the Statutes Library on one of the parts of this site that everyone should use and I do not assume you haven't either.

BF did mean 1894- a google search helped on that one.

Good Luck on the claim and have you made any amendments to claim on the basis of the info you now have?

[jimfishybob]

Jimfishbob, i'm not entering into the debate but how was Bong rude, exactly??

 

Apologies, I was tired and that's not really what I meant.

 

Comment removed

[Tobes]

okie dokie

[Guest bong]

Good Afternoon all. Please excuse my rants - for anyone who wants to understand me better I should perhaps explain that I am a recovering people pleaser, someone who has never dared to speak back and is not yet very well practised in the art of self-expression, sometimes employing perhaps too aggressive a manner, but nevertheless someone who is now in recovery from a lifetime of being completely passive, servile and apologetic. And I am of course practising in case I have to stand up for myself in a court of law, Your Honour!

 

So, it's once more to the soapbox dear friends, and may I suggest that the faint-hearted look away now (only joking! )

 

I don't know whether I should be ashamed of myself, or not, for admitting that I read the Regulations and did not deduce that because they only came into effect in July 1995 they did not affect all contracts. Why for instance is it taken for granted that I should know that common law has retrospective effect but legislation does not?

 

This is exactly what worries me - yes we have access to the statutes - but does the average person using this site have the wherewithal to use this information effectively? And I don't accept the argument "we told you to get an experts opinion", this site is all about helping the layperson wherever possible.

 

Would it be harmful to have a clear warning in the preliminary steps section that the UTCCR do not apply to pre-1995 contracts? If it stops people having their claims legitimately defended and thrown out what is the harm?

 

If this point is being and has already been debated in people's threads it is because people aren't sure, want and need to know, and should reasonably expect to find that what has emerged from the debates is being effectively used to keep the site informed and the tutorials updated.

 

I have been made to feel that I should not proffer my own experience or indeed constructive criticism of the site, for fear of being branded a brattish child and upsetting the administrators, who are by now very sick and tired of people not getting it right and crying for help afterwards. (And can I just point out that I am still doing my homework and I haven't yet submitted my claim.) If the aim of the site is to promote self-empowerment, I can think of no better way of achieving this than in sharing with them the basic information they need in the first place. And let me just ask this - if they, the administrators, are not here to listen to me, or you, Mr/s BAG user, who is it all for?

 

Right I've got that load off my chest , I guess I have laboured the point a little, and I now need to get on with the work of addressing my claim against HSBC. God forbid that I should come across any other hitches!!

 

Despite everything said, I wish to say that I am genuinely very grateful for this site.

[meagain]

Indeed 1894 is correct - that is the date of the precedent case. So you're out of luck if you're looking to reclaim charges from over 112 years ago

[Guest bong]

[pward33]

I don't know whether I should be ashamed of myself, or not, for admitting that I read the Regulations and did not deduce that because they only came into effect in July 1995 they did not affect all contracts.

 

Well if you should, then so should I as I'm in the same boat; it was only when I came across this thread that I appreciated the potential (but, it seems from BF's post, far from insurmountable) difficulty faced by those of us who opened our accounts pre-1995, so I thank you for starting it.

 

I can fully appreciate how frustrating it must be for moderators to see people repeatedly making the same mistakes, but I guess the sheer size of these forums makes it easy to miss important information. I consider myself one who takes seriously the "read, read then read some more" mantra, and can generally pick up legal principles quite easily, but I have to admit to missing this one.

 

I'm off to do more reading

[tigerlilly24]

Any news on this yet? I'm in same boat, albeit not quite at POC stage but it would be handy to know so I have time to prepare !

[frankthecabbie]

so after all of that debate , could someone please give me some advice . I opened my account in 1983 . Is my claim dead in the water at this point ,or can I get around this by amending the POC ? . If so , any suggestions on wording ? PLEASE HELP

[tigerlilly24]

Frank, i've been digging around a bit and from what I can tell it's not a major problem to quote UCTCCR 1999. From what I can gather, the banks will have changed your contract to bring it 'up to speed' since 1995 even though you haven't signed a new contract (as I haven't, i don't even have the original one i signed when I was 17 !). I would presume therefore, that you could quite happily quote UCTCCR without any problems and I would also presume that if the banks try to defend on this point alone, they would have to prove that your contract is exactly the same as it was all those years ago when you first opened your account. I'm not an expert though ! I could be very very wrong ! It's just my personal take on it all - maybe someone else could confirm?

J

[Mike220359]

This site is gradually evolving to take into account new knowledge.

 

The UCTCCR 1999 are a good tool to get back unfair cahrges, but the CCA is the best weapon especially on older accounts. Particularly section 85.

 

Mike

[Guest bong]

Hi Mike, have just had a quick look at CCA S.85 - have I got it right - the bit about credit-tokens? Have you used this one yourself? Are you also saying that its still ok to use the UTCCR 1999 on older accounts?

 

thanks

[tigerlilly24]

Hi guys, am working on something on this at the moment - can't say too much ! Will be in touch again soon !

J

[plonker]

So whats the conculsion to this. My bank account was opened pre 1999 and my mcol has been issued you just abit worried now