CCA from HSBC credit card.

[SabreSheep]

Ok, A few months ago while i was tying up my other two claims, I checked the paperwork for this pre 2007 credit card with HSBC.

 

Sadly not enough charges to make a reclaim worthwhile.

 

However something always niggled me. HSBC Via metropolitan offered a 40% discount previously. I thought something had to be wrong with it.

 

I checked the material from the SAR and could not spot something.

 

So I did CCA request.

 

2 months go by and today it arrived.

 

Their interpretation of a recon includes.

A generic T+Cs booklet "at time of signing"

A Blank application form with no details

A +T+C of variation

A updated T+C booklet

A Credit card request form with name and one of my previous addresses. Somehow HSBC married me off and neglected to inform me as according to this sheet I am now married!!!!

2 statements ftom the last 2 months.

 

More interesting in the letter was the following

 

"With regard to the Signed Application form that you made a request for, we have conducted a reasonable search, and at the time of the request, the document could not be located. It was in our control but is no longer in our possession. Therefore I have enclosed a reconstituted copy along with two certified statements duly stamped and signed for your records validating any debt outstanding.

 

 

NB HSBC still own this debt. Being paid £1 a month.

 

So thoughts and comments?

[caro]

Recon for pre 2007? Certified statements? What's all that about then?

[SabreSheep]

This is their response to my CCA request for the credit card debt I have.

 

A "Blank" Reconstructed agreement, T+Cs from original generic booklet and updated ones. Also 2 statements for the last 2 months stamped and signed by them..

[caro]

This is their response to my CCA request for the credit card debt I have.

 

A "Blank" Reconstructed agreement, T+Cs from original generic booklet and updated ones. Also 2 statements for the last 2 months stamped and signed by them..

 

I'm no expert but that doesn't sound like a valid response to me.

[dx100uk]

nope , prob the reason for the discount then.

 

 

as I always say, a discount 9/10 usually means theres something wrong

they ain't gonna tell you, but, if people keep digging

they find it.

 

 

I wonder now if they'll sell this on....????

 

 

dx

[theoldrouge]

they should know what to supply

 

the case was Carey v HSBC:lol:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 

1. The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:
   
   (1) 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;
   (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;
   (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;
   (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;

   
   

[Peterbard]

Well to me it sounds like a valid response to the cca request (section 78) as long as they had your address at the time of the credit agreement was made out. Carey held that a true copy could be recreated in this manner. It was also held that the copy did not have to be a document that, when signed would be a properly executed agreement, it just had to contain the same information which was present when the document was signed.

 

However what may be more important is they seem to indicate that the signature was on the separate application form , presumably separate to the terms and conditions at execution of the agreement.

 

Now in order to enforce they generally need a copy of the signed agreement, I say generally because there have been a couple of cases where agreements have been said to be compliant even though they were not produced, the rationale being that the they would on "balance of probabilities" been signed and were compliant with section 61 in form and content(containing the prescribed terms).

 

In your case you can state that not only was the signed agreement not available, but even if it was it would be none compliant under section 61 of the consumer credit act because the signature was not on the same document as the prescribed terms. This would make it unenforceable in any case under section 127(3) via section 65 and section 61.

 

not that you would need it but if you had to defend you should throw in the section 78 compliance issue as well, but i think that this would not be successful.

[theoldrouge]

agreed and

 

yes its the address at time of execution of the agreement that is important for s78 compliance

 

the seperate signature /prescribed terms issue is very similar to the early Capital One and Monument reply cards/applications

 

where s61/65/127(3) are also the relevant defence

[Old Cogger]

Most Capital One so called agreements did not have the T&Cs present at inception = pre 2007