Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It you had E7 in the past but have converted to single rate then the meter will still hold the last recorded Night readings. This introduces scope for error when manually reading. If the meter has only ever been used on single rate then there's only one figure that can be taken. For example ours shows "Rate 1" reading and a "Total import" reading, but they both give the sme figure. If it has ever been on E7 the total will be higher, including the retained night reading.
    • okay, perfect and thank you so much for the help once again. so firstly i am going to initiate the breathing space, during this time it's likely ill receive a default. when i receive the default are you aware of how long it will take for me to know whether the OC have sold it off to DCAs? Once it's with the DCAs i do not need to worry as they cannot issue a CCJ only the OCs can Even if i decide to come an arrangement with the DCAs no point as the default will remain for 6 years paid or not paid I should only consider repayment if the OC still won the debt and then issue a CCJ? Just to confirm the default will not be seen after 6 years? No one can tell I had one then after 6 years ill be all good?
    • I'm not sure we were on standard tariffs - I've uploaded as many proofs as I can for the ombudsman - ovo called last night uping the compensation to 100 from 50 pounds for the slip in customer service however they won't acknowledge the the problem them not acknowledging a fault has caused nor are they willing to remedy anything as they won't accept the meter or formula was wrong.   I'd appreciate more details on the economy 7 approach and I'll update the ombudsman with any information you can share. 
    • To re-iterate and highlight my urgent question on this one: The N24 from the court did not include any instructions to submit paperwork 28 days before the date, unlike the N157 received for other smaller claims. Do I have to submit a WS for this court date? Link has!...
    • No, reading the guidance online it says to wait for a letter from the court. Should I wait or submit the directions? BTW, I assume that the directions are a longer version of the particular of claim accompanied by evidence, correct?
  • 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

lordbadger v HSBC


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6203 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 all, I am looking for a little advice if poss. I have read the info and sent letter 1 before xmas. Once I received my statements I sent letter 2 with a list of dates and amounts i want to reclaim. I am trying to claim for both my current account and credit card (is this poss).

 

Today i received 2 letters from HSBC.

 

1st one is regarding my current account.

 

blah blah.....in order that we can consider your reques please provide a full itemised breakdown of these charges. Is that not what I have done? How should i reply to this?

 

@nd letter is regarding my credit card and says the charges were clearly stated in the terms and conditions and they believe HSBC's charges to be fair. It then says that HSBC does not accept the OFT findings but has lowered its charges anyway for commercial reasons. Is this response normal??

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello lordbadger, I'm pretty new to this aswell, it sounds like they've sent you two standard letters (one stalling and one to put you off) and think you just have to carry on with your timetable?Could be wrong but I think this is what I have read in a few other threads

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, I am looking for a little advice if poss. I have read the info and sent letter 1 before xmas. Once I received my statements I sent letter 2 with a list of dates and amounts i want to reclaim. I am trying to claim for both my current account and credit card (is this poss).

 

Today i received 2 letters from HSBC.

 

1st one is regarding my current account.

 

blah blah.....in order that we can consider your reques please provide a full itemised breakdown of these charges. Is that not what I have done? How should i reply to this?

 

@nd letter is regarding my credit card and says the charges were clearly stated in the terms and conditions and they believe HSBC's charges to be fair. It then says that HSBC does not accept the OFT findings but has lowered its charges anyway for commercial reasons. Is this response normal??

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers

 

Sugar is right - these are just standard fob offs.

 

Are you claiming for the current account and credit card seperately?

 

You must continue with each step of the process at the end of the deadline dates no matter what they say - unless they have offered to pay you out in full.

 

Please can you clarify whether you are claiming seperately or not and I can help you further!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

In my initial letter I asked for statements for both my current and credit card accounts. I received these seperately and went through the charges. Once I had worked out the charges I sent letter 2 which also had both account numbers on it. I requested the total for both accounts but on the attached sheet of paper I did have a breakdown of each individual accounts charges.

 

Today I received two seperate letters as described above. The first asking for a breakdown which I thought I had already done (c/a) and the second saying the charges are fair and no refund will be entertained (credit card).

 

Does this mean I now need to try and claim seperately? I nearly did this initially but decided to do it together as it would be easier to keep track of and I thought it may help.

 

Any advice would be welcome.

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's no problem....you've been fobbed off, ignore anything they say about their charges being fair and that they don't agree with the OFT or whatever - at the end of the day, until they provide evidence of how they calculate their charges any amount they charge is unlawful.

 

As for claiming together, that is your choice, personally I prefer doing them seperately because one department might respond quicker than the other, but you have to do what is best for you.

 

As you have started claiming together, keep claiming together; send the next letter and include another schedule of charges for both accounts and add a sentence to the letter referring them to it!

 

Hope this helps!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help. I will continue to send the claims together and see where that gets me.

 

What is the best way to set out a schedule of charges? Is there anything I need to be doing to satisfy the banks needs?

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help. I will continue to send the claims together and see where that gets me.

 

That's great.

 

What is the best way to set out a schedule of charges? Is there anything I need to be doing to satisfy the banks needs?

 

No, just copy and paste the spreadsheet entries without the interest bits on to the end of your letter.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that will be in the post tonight then. One last question (for the time being anyway hehe)

 

The LBA starts as below. Am I ok to send that even though they did reply but in a negative fashion?

 

 

I am very disappointed that you have failed to respond to my letter of the [XXDATEXX].

I now understand that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that will be in the post tonight then. One last question (for the time being anyway hehe)

 

The LBA starts as below. Am I ok to send that even though they did reply but in a negative fashion?

 

 

I am very disappointed that you have failed to respond to my letter of the [XXDATEXX].

I now understand that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

 

Badger, these are tempalte letter are just that - templates.

 

Feel free to add and change them as necessary, so you could add in "I am very disappointed that you have failed to [positively] respond to my letter of the [XXDATEXX].

 

:)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you once again. My concern when altering is taking an important part and deleting it and totally stitching myself up, ending up with more charges before being thrown in prison :shock:

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

That;s understandable mate, but have confidence and you can always change it and post it for everyone to comment!! :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this read? any changes required before I post tonight?

 

 

5th January 2007

 

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBERS: 123456789 & 12345678987654321

 

 

I am very disappointed that you have failed to respond positively to my letter of the 20/12/06. I now understand that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

 

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary.

 

I calculate that you have taken £420 from current account 123456789 and £152 from credit card number 1234567890987654321, totalling £572.

 

I am enclosing a copy of the schedule of the charges which I am claiming. I have already sent you a copy of this in my previous letter.

 

I require repayment in full of this money and removal of the default notice. If you do not comply fully within 14 days then I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount plus interest plus a claim under ss.7 and 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 plus my costs and without further notice.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

lordbadger

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

looks fine mate!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un1boys amendment looked fine and didnt drastically change anything at all, look forward to reading your progress :)

 

You're right Sugar, but it's best to be professionl and at least respond to what they have said, rather than issuing template letters - we ask that of them too!! ;)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

we're not going to lower ourselves to their standards are we ;) hehehe

 

Absolutely not!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for confirming all was ok. I have sent the letter so lets see what happens. :)

 

No probs mate, looking forward to your next post!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I sent the LBA last Friday so we are approaching a week ago. Can you let me know what i should be doing now to prepare for the next stage? I want to be ready to rumble.

 

I have looked at the bank templates and am not sure if I want 4 or 5? maybe i am being stupid but would much rather get things correct by asking.

 

Cheers in advance

http://lordbadger v Abbey PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Halifax PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v HSBC PAID IN FULL http://lordbadger v Nat West PAID IN FULL
Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to create an account with moneyclaim:

 

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

 

Enter all the info it askes for, use their registered address at the defendant's addres:

 

HSBC BANK PLC

8 CANADA SQUARE

LONDON

E14 5HQ

 

And use something like this as your particulars of claim:

 

Claimant has account (A/C No) with Defendant from (Date)conducted on their standard terms and conditions. Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by Defendant in charges over 6 years. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. They are also invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.Para.8 and sch.2.1.e.

In the event that the charges are not a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. Defendant has declined justification of charges despite repeated requests. Claimant claims interest under Sec.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from(Date) to (Date) of (£0.00) and also interest at same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of (£0.00).

 

To work out the daily interest, simply times the total amount (without the 8% interest) by 0.00022

 

so, if the total is £100, the daily interest amount would be:

 

100 x 0.00022 = 0.022 = 0.02p

 

Hope this helps!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...