Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HSBC 1997 Credit card - Is it possible to get a default removed


Falcokeith
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3397 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I recently requested a CCA from HSBC for my credit card.

 

They answered with

"I regret the bank is unable to act upon your instructions for documents under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the following reason.

.Missing signature "

 

I thought i had read on a different thread that i did not need to sign it?

 

Advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You are correct in that no signature is required. HSBC like to play this silly game, perhaps because many of their early agreements are hopelessly compliant, but they have painted themselves into a corner.

 

Send them something like this:

 

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxx, the content of which is noted.

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 imposes no requirement upon you to require a signature in order to fulfil a request under s.78, nor does it impose a requirement upon me to provide one. I am therefore at a loss as to why you claim to be unable to act upon a request without one.

 

If it is your case that the issue is one of confirmation of identity, I remind you that the Office of Fair Trading, in its Debt Collection Guidance (with which, as holders of a consumer credit licence, you are obliged to comply) is clear that collection activity should not be undertaken unless you are certain as to the identity of a debtor, and also requires you not to communicate in a misleading fashion. Since you have sent me demands for money, I can only conclude that either you are certain of my identity and are seeking to mislead me, or that you are not certain of my identity and are engaging in non-compliant activities in breach of your licence.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, I will not provide a signature because none is required where you are certain of my identity, in which case you should either comply with my request promptly, or confirm that you do not intend to do so and understand that any debt is unenforceable whilst you remain in default. If you are uncertain as to my identity, you should not have demanded money from me in the first place and should cease all collection activity at once. If you do not intend to comply with my request, I require you to return the statutory fee.

 

I trust that my position is now absolutely clear. If you do not understand any part of this letter, you may like to seek professional advice.

 

Yours etc.

 

Don't sign it, of course!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any point in refusing to sign a lawful request or letter, if someone can show unequivocal proof of signature 'lifting' I will change my mind. Old wives tales excluded !

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct no signature is required,however to save delays just sign it,but use a slightly different signature,keep a copy in case they paste the signature on documents in the future.FS

 

NO NO NO!

The ICO is very clear on the use of signatures to obtain YOUR own information,

Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s

identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a per

son’s identity. For example, if a

person with whom you have regular cont

act sends a letter from their known

address it may be safe to assume that

they are who they say they are.

There is NO requirement for you to sign any documents/letters with a signature, you can sign it with an X for all it's worth!

 

This is a proven delaying tactic employed by the more unscrupulous financial industry's out there, mainly because they know they have nothing to fight back with.

 

And as for changing your signature for the somewhat mythical 'copy & paste' tactics that seems to put in an annual appearance, this is wholly unfounded, any such corporation employing such fraudulent tactics would (should) be closed down and custodial sentences handed out.

 

The time in which to confirm your identity is before they sent their first threat letter, and shouldn't be used to frustrate the legal process of finding out what is your legal right.

 

IMHO, seeing Brigs post above, is that, why should I do something I am not legally required to do?

There is no requirement to sign letters/requests/ or documents, therefore I don't, less for computer generated signatures.

And when they respond with "We need your actual signature" I know I have them on the run as they are trying to exploit any lack of knowledge I may have surrounding what is and isn't required, the DWP do this on a regular basis with me.

I will not be bullied into submitting or complying to anything I know I don't have to, so if they want to play sirrirriots let them crack on.

Edited by Bazooka Boo
Brigs comment.....

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any point in refusing to sign a lawful request or letter, if someone can show unequivocal proof of signature 'lifting' I will change my mind. Old wives tales excluded !

 

Oh, there is proof, Brig – RBS, I think, pretty much admitted to it in a newsletter! But otherwise you are right – I’ve never actually come across anyone else of any stature trying it on.

 

See post #253 here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377380-Lowell-again-)&p=4346176#post4346176

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, there is proof, Brig – RBS, I think, pretty much admitted to it in a newsletter! But otherwise you are right – I’ve never actually come across anyone else of any stature trying it on.

 

See post #253 here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377380-Lowell-again-)&p=4346176#post4346176

 

Well, apart from Mike_hawk’s case with... ah, same people!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any point in refusing to sign a lawful request or letter, if someone can show unequivocal proof of signature 'lifting' I will change my mind. Old wives tales excluded !

 

Nor is there any point in refusing a lawful request because it doesn't have a signature that isn't needed in any case.

 

As my letter points out, the bank is clearly seeking to mislead in this situation, and shouldn't be encouraged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, there is proof, Brig – RBS, I think, pretty much admitted to it in a newsletter! But otherwise you are right – I’ve never actually come across anyone else of any stature trying it on.

 

See post #253 here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377380-Lowell-again-)&p=4346176#post4346176

 

That was internal fraud on contracts inventing loans or some such other banking fraud.?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was internal fraud on contracts inventing loans or some such other banking fraud.?

 

No,they were simply reconstituting CCAs they could not find.

 

Mike_hawk’s case did, I believe, involve an actual dodgy signature on a supposed loan agreement. Well documented in national press –

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

 

This story also recounts their habit of recreating agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all seem to have agreed in one form or another NO Signature is required,so if you are making a CCA request just sign it,HSBC are renowned for this delaying tactic,after all you want the result of the the CCA request sooner rather than later.so sign it

 

FS

Once they have received the lawful request the clock starts ticking. 12+2 working days then S78(6) kicks in

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fletch Hi

 

 

I am aware the clock is ticking,

 

 

my point is simply,

 

 

you send of a CCA request and require an answer ASAP so cover all potential excuses

and the lack of signature is the most common one,

 

 

so sign the letter in the first place,

 

 

it's up to you whether it's your exact signature or a variation of the same

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No,they were simply reconstituting CCAs they could not find.

 

Mike_hawk’s case did, I believe, involve an actual dodgy signature on a supposed loan agreement. Well documented in national press –

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

 

This story also recounts their habit of recreating agreements.

 

Apologies yes it was NW creating loans.

 

I have seen no data proving signature lifting other than the 'in house' example as described.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still disagree with providing the signature.

We all know the lies and cheating that goes on within the financial industry, after all that is what a lot of this and other forums is about yet you say oh just sign it, there is no proof.

 

If a bank can not enforce a credit agreement without complying with a lawful CCA request, why oh why should I provide something I am not required to do.

Most people that send off a CCA request are in difficulties anyway and are seeing how their agreements stand up, if they don't comply , don't pay ..simples

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Hi all,

 

I have had a reply from HSBC stating they cannot comply with my CCA request.

They confirm they know they cannot take action in court to seek recovery of debt.

 

Are they still able to charge interest on this account?

 

Any help would, as always, be appreciated

 

Mcguffick v RBS confirmed that where there is a breach of s78 the creditors rights are not extinguished but are merely unenforceable.

 

Without the ability to comply with s78 the creditor cannot enforce therefore per Carey v HSBC Bank he cannot obtain a judgment he cannot make the debtor bankrupt. They can of course add interest, charges subject to compliance with s86C & E CCA and they can report your activity to the credit reference agency.

 

I hope this assists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please follow the instructions below so that we can see your image :)

 

 

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

Scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all personal info including barcodes etc. using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

Go to one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new message box here

hit go advanced below the message box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB: you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

Then hit reply button

 

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

two threads merged on same debt

 

 

please always keep to ONE THREAD

 

 

per debt

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter if they continue to add interest.

 

 

They have said they can not fulfil your request and as such they can not enforce.

 

 

Stop paying and wait 6 years, then it will be statute barred.

 

 

Before that they will probably sell it on at which point you just send the new owner a copy of the letter saying they can not enforce

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter if they continue to add interest. They have said they can not fulfil your request and as such they can not enforce. Stop paying and wait 6 years, then it will be statute barred. Before that they will probably sell it on at which point you just send the new owner a copy of the letter saying they can not enforce

 

Not sure this is an ideal advice.

 

 

Firstly only a Court can declare an agreement unenforceable.

Secondly if you stop paying and they sell it to a third party,

under the terms of the assignment will be an indemnity clause which the bank is unlikely to want triggered,

so it is likely that while they cannot fulfil your request for the "Original agreement"

they may reconstitute and discharge the burden, many banks seem to have adopted this approach.

 

 

I have seen a Judgment recently that there was no signed agreement,

and yet the creditor still got judgment as the findings of fact meant that the lack of agreeement didnt matter,

as the Judge said he found as fact that the Debtor "DID" sign an agreement,

that the agreement "DID" comply with the requirements of s60 & 61 CCA 74, and

he based his findings on the creditors records and procedures and

the fact the Debtor was a truly unreliable witness.

 

 

Stopping paying is something which must be considered very carefully against all the facts

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a recon is produced firstly it is to satisfy a section 77/78 request under CCA '74.

 

If a creditor can show that the recon is what the debtor would have signed, and there is evidence to show the credit facility was used by the debtor, what is left for a judge to consider is 'does the balance of probabilities show that a liability subsists and should the debtor pay the debt', in most cases the answer will be yes the facility was used (we have proof of this from statements showing payment made on the account/drawings made etc.

 

It will be become increasingly harder to refute liability.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way that wasn't advice , it was a question with what is a reasonable likely scenario although as you say nothing is a certainty in this world

Was the case you refer to a pre or post April 2007 agreement. After that date it is indeed true that no agreement has to be produced and S127(3) was repealed.

I would be interested in seeing that judgement as it is little use to anyone saying "I saw a case wherexyz"

 

Of course if you continue to repay the debt even at £1 a month you will never be rid of it and at some point in my opinion it is worth considering how best to deal with it.

 

Of course a truly unreliable witness is never a good thing .

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...