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

[Falcokeith]

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

[firstship]

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

[ScarletPimpernel]

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!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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 !

[Bazooka Boo]

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 October 16, 2013 by Bazooka Boo
Brigs comment.....

[DonkeyB]

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

[DonkeyB]

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!

[ScarletPimpernel]

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.

[firstship]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.?

[DonkeyB]

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.

[fletch70]

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

[firstship]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

[fletch70]

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

[fletch70]

Oh BTW I have never signed a CCA request or letter to a creditor or DCA and with the exception of RBS (who caved in eventually) I have never been refused a reply

[Falcokeith]

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

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

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.

[citizenB]

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

 

 

[Falcokeith]

So unfortunately for me they can continue to add interest

[dx100uk]

two threads merged on same debt

 

 

please always keep to ONE THREAD

 

 

per debt

 

 

dx

[fletch70]

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

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

[fletch70]

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 .