HSBC playing dirty, possibly fraudulent?

[citizenB]

I dont know if you have any legal assistance, if not, then you might be interested in the Guides that have been written by the Judiciary for LiPs in the link below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387265-Bar-Council-publishes-guide-for-LiPs

[dustmonkey]

Hi everyone,

 

As I mentioned, HSBC made an application to court to have my claims struck-out, my defence to counter-claim struck-out, to make me liable for their £14,000 of costs so far and also have the court make me pay them the estimated £10.000 outstanding loan account.

 

So here goes.

On the 4 April 2011 at Brighton CC, I spent three hours going through my claims and the evidence I had when the claims were submitted. The basis of my claims were that HSBC were in breach of contract when they registered the default in July 2011 because of the agreements made with me, unfortunately the court's view was that these arrangements were not contractual (No consideration) and so ultimately all my claims were struck out. As was my defence to counter-claim.

 

In his summing up, the Judge stated to the HSBC Barrister, that I had lost on a mere technicality and that in his opinion the whole case stank to high heaven. He went on to say that in his opinion HSBC had been withholding evidence and that at least one email had been edited in an attempt to cover up what had been going on.

 

He then made orders that he was making HSBC fully liable for all costs to date with no right of appeal.

 

I was then instructed to re-plead my defence to counter-claim using all of the new evidence supplied to me since my original application to court, nothing from the original defence could be used. This was submitted to court last week.

 

My new defence is based around HSBC's Negligence when dealing with my complaint, specifically the arrangements put in place on the 13 May 2011 and the registering of the default.

 

I have learnt something quite interesting while investigating things over the last couple of weeks. In the 13 May email, arrears collections are agreeing to a hold on any action being taken against me using the term class 862.

 

HSBC use this term when dealing with a loan account that has been sent to collections. The only way to stop the demand process is to actually take the account away from them, it is held as class 862 which means it is no longer with arrears and is no longer subject to the collections procedures.

My account was in class 862 from 13 May 2011 till a supposed review date of the 13 July 2011. The final demand was posted the 31 May 2011.

 

I will be updating my website with the unedited version of the 13 May email and transcripts from the phone calls so that everyone can read what was being said, discussed and agreed by HSBC management.

 

I am now waiting for the next hearing date where HSBC are going to have to try and explain why they are suing me for the wrong amount, why they have registered two defaults against me for the wrong amounts etc and come up with a good reason for the edited email..

 

I have been talking about re-submitting my whole claim to court based on Negligence.

 

I will let you know when I have the next hearing date, HSBC are still refusing to sit down and talk about the situation to try and resolve things.

[citizenB]

WOW... well done so far.

 

From personal experience I have discovered HSBC to be extremely arrogant and this includes all their employees from top to bottom. Look forward to any updates

[Old Cogger]

WOW... well done so far.

 

From personal experience I have discovered HSBC to be extremely arrogant and this includes all their employees from top to bottom. Look forward to any updates

 

 

 

And that is putting it in a very polite way;

[Old Cogger]

As I was told once:- the staff at HSBC leaves a lot to be desired.

[dustmonkey]

Just a very brief update.

I still have not received anything from court telling me the date of my next hearing yet even though my new defence to counter-claim was submitted at the end of April.

 

I have removed all reference to HSBC from my Crocodile website because at the moment I am in the middle of raising funding for the project. This has a deadline of June 26 2013 so I will be completely revamping the site to include all of the recently uncovered evidence for all to see.

[citizenB]

It wouldn't harm just to check with the court to ensure that nothing has been sent out and gone astray

[Gullyver]

Just a very brief update.

I still have not received anything from court telling me the date of my next hearing yet even though my new defence to counter-claim was submitted at the end of April.

 

I have removed all reference to HSBC from my Crocodile website because at the moment I am in the middle of raising funding for the project. This has a deadline of June 26 2013 so I will be completely revamping the site to include all of the recently uncovered evidence for all to see.

 

Dear friend your case vs HSBC is very interesting and the advises I found here on this thread are excellent especially those of CitizenB on BCOBS - HSBC is pushing me to initiate court proceedings against them as they charged my mortgage with an extra £20,000 to pay fraudulent charges but they are refusing to show any lawful evidence for doing so.

 

If they have made the unlawful decision on the ground of their evidence they claim they have why are they refusing to show it then? Simply because they DO NOT HAVE IT!

 

I will not waste time with the Financial Ombudsman but I will take them to court straight away.

 

Please let us know what happens to your case!

[dustmonkey]

Hi all,

 

A few things have happened that you might find interesting.

 

As you know, I submitted the new defence to counterclaim in April 2013 pointing out that HSBC were pursuing me for the wrong amount meaning that every demand sent to me so far is unenforceable and any resultant default based on this unlawful.

 

We have been waiting for a hearing date for the court to decide if my new DCC should be struck out, when lo and behold, HSBC send in an application to court for a hearing to have my DCC struck out? This application to court also had 14K of costs attached to it.

 

The court decided to hear this application on the 21 June 2013 (which should have been for the actual hearing we were waiting for) and at the hearing the judge pointed out that I had not had the proper 14 days notice to prepare a witness statement in reply to the application and refused to go on with the hearing.

 

As you can imagine, the HSBC solicitor was a bit upset and was trying to convince the Judge that CPR rules allow for the court to ignore that point and just dismiss my claim but the Judge was having none of it. I was given 14 days to submit a witness statement in reply and that was submitted to court yesterday along with a skeleton argument explaining why everything HSBC have submitted to court is unenforcible.

 

One really interesting point. In their application to have my DCC struck out, HSBC admit that I am correct in my defence in that the amount that they are pursuing me for is wrong. Their counterclaim states that I owe them £9,142.4, which is wrong, they have now changed that to £8,887.03, which is still wrong. How can they claim that my defence should be struck out and then admit it is correct?

 

Evidence that HSBC have already submited to court clearly states that my loan account without the PPI should now be £7,091.03.

 

I have cut and pasted the complete skeleton argument below. Many thanks to all Caggers who contributed the information used in it.

 

..................................................................................

 

IN THE BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT Claim No: ############

 

BETWEEN

Dustmonkey Claimant

-and-

HSBC Bank PLC Defendant

First Skeleton Argument for the re pleaded defence to counterclaim on behalf of the Claimant Dustmonkey

In this Skeleton Argument:

References to page numbers are references to exhibit “DCC3”.

Second and Third Loan Defaults

1. The claims made by the Defendant in their counterclaim are that the Claimant owes £9,142.48 on the third defaulted loan. This sum is incorrect.

2. In the recent application to court to have the re pleaded counterclaim defence struck-out, the Defendant has admitted that the Claimant was correct in stating that they are pursuing him for the wrong amount. After another re-calculation, the Defence now puts foreword the figure of £8,887.03 for the third loan. This sum is also incorrect.

3. These figures all stem from the original wrongly defaulted second loan figure of £9,622.09, which is also incorrect.

4. The correct amount for the second loan should have been £7,091.03 once the PPI element was removed. This correct amount was included in the first PPI repayment offer dated 21 June 2011 and was submitted to court by the Defendant. Page 10

5. Both default notices for the second and third loans are defective to the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment Regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

6. To be valid, a Default Notice is required to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure and a prescribed number of days to remedy any such breach.

7. Failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co- (2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage has occurred to the Claimants credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119)

8. Breach of contract has now happened twice in succession, by the Defendant cancelling both the second and third loan contracts unlawfully.

1. Further to the default notices being defective, it should be noted that the second loan was placed into class 862 on 13 May 2011 with a review date of 13 June 2011. Page 2
   

1. The Claimant’s loan account was confirmed as being in class 862 in an internal email between arrears collection and ##### #####. A non-edited un-redacted original copy of this email is on pages 2/3 while a redacted and edited copy sent to the Claimant is on pages 4/5.
   

1. This is a term used by the Defendant to mean that the Claimant’s loan account is no longer with arrears collection and is not subject to the collection procedures as defined in Consumer Credit Act 1974.
   

1. The final demand sent to the Claimant on 31 May 2011 was therefore unenforceable not only because it was for the wrong amount, but also the Defendant had no right or reason to enforce the debt or send any further demands until the agreed review on 13 June 2011.
   

Conclusions

 

1. It is clear why the Defendant desperately wanted the Counterclaim defence struck out; it undermines their whole claim.
   

 

1. Presently, the Defence seem to have no grasp of the actual amounts owed and obviously have no appreciation for the absolute carnage that has have inflicted on the Claimants credit file and financial reputation for the past two years.
   

Statement of truth

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.

Signed………………………………….

Full Name: Dustmonkey

Dated this

....................................................................................

Many thanks for everybody's help and backing.

Speak to you as soon as we have had the next hearing.

Dustmonkey

[dustmonkey]

Just a brief update.

 

At the hearing for my defence to counterclaim, the Judge made it clear that the evidence that I had supplied to court would be an abuse of process as it brought into question the decisions made at the original hearing where my claims were struck out.

 

However, the Judge did concede that the HSBC documents provided did indeed show that my loan account less the miss-sold PPI to be only £7091.03.

With this in mind, he made it perfectly clear to the HSBC barrister that he was unwilling to make out any order for more than that amount and advised him to go and talk to HSBC.

After an hours recess, the barrister explained that HSBC were making a business decision to accept the lower amount in full and final settlement rather than any further court action. This meant that HSBC did not have to admit to pursuing me for the wrong amounts for the past two and a half years.

 

The Judge also refused their claim of £14k worth of costs, and cut that down to £4k.

 

So at the end of the hearing the judge made out a CCJ for £11.5k and said that I should offer them about £1 a week.

 

He did also quite carefully point out that in order to present the evidence that I now have, I would have to make an out of time appeal against the decisions made at the original hearing.

 

So as you read this, I am just finishing up my appeal application which should be at court by the end of the week.

[dustmonkey]

Hi everyone.

 

Ok, here goes.

 

As recommended by the Judge at the hearing for my new DCC, I have been applying for permission to make an out of time appeal against the decisions made at the original hearing. This was done even though HSBC decided to send me a letter threatening to take out a vexatious litigant order against me if I did so with huge costs attached.

 

Anyway, at the informal hearing, the Judge made it clear that permission would not be granted as almost six months had gone by since the original hearing. At this point the HSBC solicitor jumped up and asked that the judge should make out the order to include that the appeal application was made totally without merit.

At this point the judge put her firmly in her place by making it very clear that the only reason it was not being granted was the time issue.

He also made a point of saying to me that my litigation was now at an end.

 

So anyway, I submitted to court an application to vary the order attached to the £11,000 CCJ. In the application I offered to pay HSBC £5 per month, 25% more than the judge recommended. Strangely this was declined by HSBC so the court made the decision that I should pay £20 per month. Should only take around 46 years to clear the debt.

 

Phase 2

 

With the litigation now finished, I have built a website dedicated to showing what has been going on over the past few years including copies of the HSBC internal emails from May 2011 and some of the HSBC phone recordings.

If you go to isthisbankfraud.com you can read all about it and comment on what has been going on.

The main reason for the website is to determine if there is a case of fraud or not via the gosh test. This is a well known test for dishonesty used by the courts.

 

1. Was the act one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest (the objective test)? If so :

 

2. Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?

 

I would love it if CAG members browsed the site and left their comments.

[dustmonkey]

http://www.isthisbankfraud.com

[Klandestine]

Why was it necessary to setup a new loan account?

Couldn't the PPI refund have just paid into your bank account. Then you could use that money to make a payment to Metropolitan.

[dustmonkey]

The first refund offer involved closing down the current loan account with the PPI included in it, setting up a second loan account less the PPI and then issuing a PPI refund. I agreed to this offer and sent back the signed paperwork.

 

The second offer involved paying the PPI refund directly to Metropolitan. The loan account had already been closed and sold to Metropolitan, leaving me with a £9,600 default on my name. HSBC are now trying to use the rule of set-off to pay the PPI refund money held by them to a supposedly independent third party. I refused this second offer as I had already accepted the first one and this one would have only cleared £7,200 of the debt still leaving me with a £2, 400 default and still in debt.

 

The third offer was to set up a new loan account, use the money to buy the debt back from Metropolitan and remove the adverse default marker from my credit file.

 

Obviously, neither Metropolitan or HSBC are going to want to run the risk of refunding all of the PPI in the hope that I pay off Metropolitan, especially as the debt that they are holding was unenforceable.

Edited March 2, 2014 by dustmonkey

[Old Cogger]

metropolitan are HSBC in house DCA = same company different office