Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Bizarre Refund Letter including a cheque received from HSBC....Scam ?or dangling a carrot for fishing? confused...


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1214 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

Ive today received the same letter and same amount, but the issue I have is the sceptic in me makes me wonder a couple of things.

 

I had an very old account with HSBC connected with a business account so not relating to me personally, it's a very long story but basically they attempted to get me to pay the companies overdraft, and I have argued the issue ever since. The supposed debt is potential statute barred as far as it relates to something that happened in 2010, however there are also mentions that as it relates to a bank overdraft that 12 years is the limit before statue barred, but i'm not 100%.

 

However the reason I am sceptic, is how does HSBC "apparently" know all my details and more interestingly my full name, account and now my current address (after 3 addresses and current address still not fully registered on credit files). I have remained away from any recorded data as much as I can, I have never corresponded with them, or any debt collector.

 

So is this £25 cheque a fishing exercise to confirm I am who I am at the address I am at? It could be legit and maybe they have had a slap on the wrist and told to compensate a bunch of us I don't know, but after having to play the debt collection game for over 10 years now, I'm aware of every trick possible.

 

Does banking the cheque trigger a confirmation, by banking this cheque, it confirm the name and the address they have are correct, ie they have found me!!

 

Or am I being over sceptic, I don't care about the £25 enough to potentially open pandoras box for them, the wording seems very pushy "simply bank the cheque", "yes please bank the cheque"

 

This all relates to a business account, and is not relevant to me personally, so any compensation should be paid the  limited company which is now gone, so why are they trying to pay me personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2020 at 21:39, theoldrouge said:

Just bank the cheque 

100% genuine 

Banked mine, cleared,

money in account ready for a bottle of something on HSBC for Christmas 

Have written to HSBC requesting details of their "failure "

and will decide on the details of their reply whether to press for further redress 

 

I'd be interested to hear potentially where this goes, the whole thing sounds a little to fishy to me, I don't care enough about £25 in order to open up any potential old wounds! I assume you were also had a debt, and assume you never cleared the debt either, and from the looks of it theres a pattern emerging from all of us who have received this letter, ie there was s debt and none of us settled it

 

Does banking the cheque open up the account again with a transaction and make it live?? just an idea but i'm filing this in the bin along with any other attempt they have made over 10 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

OD SB 12yrs..no.

and it doesnt matter if you bank the cheque, it can't be used as admittance to anything by you

 

 

 

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

It's so grey I don't care £25 enough to even warrant banking it, I found "If you have reclaimed PPI, this is likely to have acknowledged the debt."

 

So by even the simplest of actions in which although you don't directly acknowledge the debt in black and white, the 6 year SB gets reset at the point of acknowledgement, by banking the cheque you are clearly acknowledging the debt did exist and you were involved, otherwise why would you accept the cheque?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OD SB is not 12yrs it's 6, and once a debt is sB'd nothing can unbar a  debt not even a judge.

 

PPI reclaiming does not reset the SB date or your acking of a debt anyway...amongst others, CITI bank tried this on by wanting to pay many successful PPI reclaims to DCA debt buyers as the debt had latterly been sold on. The FOS soon sorted them out on that.

 

you also need to read whole threads, with regards to my earlier post.... should the debt still be on the OC's book and statute barring.

 

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

Have you seen the 2019 case in relevance to acknowledgement of debt, talks a lot about potential of starting the 6 year clock again

 

"In January 2019 there was a decision in the Court of Appeal (Doyle v PRA) that has changed the point at which the six-year period starts for some debts including credit cards and loans."

 

"A good way to think of statute barring is that there is a 6 year timer. This is set running when the creditor has a cause of action. The sand takes 6 years to drain slowly through… at the end, your debt is statute barred.

But if you make a payment to the debt or acknowledge it in writing during the six years, the clock is reset back to start at 6 years again. So if you are making monthly payments, even tiny ones, a debt will never become statute barred as the clock resets back to 6 years every month."

 

For me it's the "acknowledgement of debt" that becomes to grey to risk

 

I'm not normally a sceptic, but £25 isn't worth it for me to even bother with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

HSBC and Santander are to refund more than 115,000 customers after failing to alert them via text when they went into their unarranged overdraft.

 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has ordered the two providers to pay out, after both broke a legal order requiring banks to alert customers before they're hit with unarranged overdraft charges.

 

HSBC has agreed to pay an estimated £8 million to approximately 115,754 customers. While this works out at an average refund of about £70, the bank says cases will be looked at individually, so refunds could be higher or lower.

The payments will consist of refunds of the overdraft charges, plus 8% interest.

 

29 November 2019

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/11/over-100-000-hsbc-and-santander-customers-owed-unarranged-overdr/

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, livingthedream said:

For me it's the "acknowledgement of debt" that becomes to grey to risk

 

your debt is already SB'd nothing can unbar an SB'd debt not even a judge.

had you actually owed money to HSBC and they still owned the debt, the refund would have come off the balance not be sentto you by cheque.

 

own thread created.

 

 

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

These letters relate to very historic 

collection/recovery "service failures" concerning current accounts, credit cards and loans

 

I have not had an account or debt with HSBC since 2008

My gut feeling is that it maybe connected to the use of their fake inhouse  collectors 

Payment Sevices (PSB), Metropolitan and DG Solicitory

but I will know more when they reply to my letter demanding details

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very much as expected 

HSBC is of course doing this to mitigate the fine from the  FCA

Much as Barclays has done 

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-barclays-treatment-customers-financial-difficulty

 

The question is whether £25 to £100 is sufficient redress 

When the facts come out 

this I very much doubt 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've received 2 similar letters with cheques. I used to have a current account, a savings account and a loan with HSBC. 

I've banked both cheques, since the letter clearly states that this is compensation for their sub standard service :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...