Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sweatband.com I like many of these online retailers – and also retail shops – which sell their goods, make all sorts of claims for their customer service et cetera – but when things go wrong they refer you to the manufacturer. Of course this can be a very sensible arrangement because the manufacturer is better placed to deal with the problem – but we tend to find that very often the manufacturer is pretty reluctant and of course because they are not the retailer, there really not too bothered about their customer-facing reputation. So as has been suggested by my site team colleague above, you are being fobbed off. Secondly, any attempt now to start saying that the treadmill should not be used in the garage – when this has not been referred to at all when it was being sold to you, is in effect introducing a new term into an existing contract. This means that it has no effect whatsoever and is not binding. Sweatband.com are bound by the law of contract and also by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. You are entitled to purchase a treadmill which is of satisfactory quality and remain that way for a reasonable period of time – and you are quite right, it hasn't matched up to those standards and so sweatband.com are in breach of contract. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer. If the manufacturer really want to say that it should be kept in a garage then that's between them and sweatband. It's especially telling that according to you sweatband have actually said that this is a great thing to keep in your garage. I would suggest that you go around the Internet – trust pilot et cetera putting up reviews about sweatband – who as I have said after fobbing you off and letting you down – but also you should put up separate reviews about this particular brand of treadmill and make sure everybody sees that even the manufacturer is saying that it should be kept in a garage and that they won't stand by their product when it breaks down after three months. I can imagine that the person who said this to you from the manufacturer will get a bit of a talking to. Maybe you can tell us the make and model number of this treadmill so that references to it will come up in Google hits in the future. The situation as advised by my site team colleague is that as it has failed within the first six months, the retailer is entitled to one single opportunity to carry out a repair and failing that they are obliged either to replace the item or to give your refund at your option. These are rights which have been created by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These rights should be asserted in writing You should write to the retailer immediately and put them on notice that you are asserting your rights under the 2015 act and you are giving them a single opportunity to repair the treadmill. Tell them that given its size and its weight, it will have to be repaired at your home unless sweatband.com want to take responsibility for picking it up and selling it to whoever they want to get it repaired by. I can imagine sweatband won't be happy about this and you are going to find everybody's going to start dragging their feet. I can imagine also that sweatband would try to up the ante by saying that it is your responsibility to return the treadmill to them. That would be wrong. The treadmill is defective. Sweatband are in breach – and it is up to them to deal with the problem. I think you will need to be quite assertive and I would suggest that your letter to them should give them a seven day window to let you know what the arrangements are and that the treadmill should be repaired or replaced in any event within 14 days. Please keep us informed as to what happens. Just so you know what we will advise if sweatband don't step up to the mark – if they don't let you have a satisfactory response within the first seven days then we will be suggesting that you begin the claims process by sending them a letter of claim – which then leads to a small claim in the County Court. This is not something you should worry about. Your chances of success are much better than 95% and I can imagine that at the end of the day sweatband.com don't want this kind of trouble and once they realise that you are happy to confront them, they will buckle down. Of course you never know – maybe they are going to act brilliantly and respond correctly immediately – in which case it will be kudos to them. Let's see  
    • Simple answer to that is gambling and having borrowed way too much previous to 2018 and simply not being in a position to meet all debts so always robbing Peter to pay Paul. From last year it just began to catch up. Then covid came and made it worse. Income reduced and job changed and dealing with mental health issues. That’s really the long and short of it. 
    • The UK's inflation rate surged to 0.6% in December from 0.3% in November despite Covid curbs. View the full article
    • Fears had grown over the Alibaba founder's whereabouts because of pressure from Chinese authorities. View the full article
    • I felt outmatched to be honest. Lowell probably did identify me on here and decided to send one of their more experienced. The guy they sent to last hearing didn't sound half as competent. The solicitor and judge were pretty much talking amongst themselves. That's how it felt. The Judge understood and accepted what the solicitor said at every point. She accepted fresh start as a brand name only. She accepted all the evidence were copies. She accepted I entered into a valid agreement. She accepted the error on the default notice was a typo. Felt like I lost before the hearing. If not, I wasn't able to express my points well enough. Not like the claimant who I'm sure was giving a law lesson. Completely out of my depth. I didn't ask to appeal. I'm upset understandably but grateful for all the help and support I received here. I've learnt a hell of lot but hope to never need it again.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

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


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread 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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...