Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[andrew1]

It will have a massive effect on the Debt Buyers if they have to analyse all their purchased accounts and charges/paid/unpaid for each of them. It will create a massive administrative burdon on both OC and DCA which inevitably will slow the whole process of obscene profit earning by these companies.

 

 

Sarah

[steven4064]

It will have a massive effect on the Debt Buyers if they have to analyse all their purchased accounts and charges/paid/unpaid for each of them. It will create a massive administrative burdon on both OC and DCA which inevitably will slow the whole process of obscene profit earning by these companies.

Let's hope so

[hsbcfiddled]

Thoughts please.

 

I have today received a rejection for my Claim of refund of Charges, refund 85% interest charged totalling £7.5K between 1998 and 2001.

Added to the claim was compounded interest of £23k.

I stated that I would argue clause s.32 being (Fraud, concealment and mistake) of the Limitations Act if the HSBC tried to hide behind Limitation Act 1980.

 

The only reason HSBC stated for not paying me was that 'HSBC had not concealed the charges from me' because 'they sent me letters and the charges were on my statements' to which I agree. However the concealment is the 'whole crux' of the case against the banking industry

in that they have not shown how they have calculated the figure that they have charged for the relevant charges. Therein the concealment.

I have written to HSBC and told them that I do not accept their view on the concealment issue.

Adding that the banks have paid out millions in ex gratia payments including £1.7k to me and that if they could justify these payments then no-one would have been refunded. Also the banks failure to defend the cost of the charge in court.

 

hsbcfiddled

[steven4064]

Intersting that they think that merely telling you they are charging you means they have not concealed anything. Concealement is not the only issue - there is also the mistake angle - you paid the charges (which they didn't conceal) because you mistakenly thought they were lawful (which they did conceal)

[BankLover_not]

Hi People,

 

I am in the process of attempting to get a stay lifted on a business account. I will be enclosing a copy of the PoC from the OFT test case with my application. I have also been told that if I can show that the waiver has been put in place as a result of the test case (i.e establish a direct link) and include a copy of the waiver review from last November, which states clearly business accounts are not included in the waiver and businesses are not to be disadvantaged, then this will be gold dust for my application.

 

I have found the waiver review which is perfect but having looked at the OFT website, and I may be being dumb here, I can not actually see where it says a waiver has been agreed in light of the OFT test case.

 

If you have any ideas guys I would be really thankful.

 

Thanks.

 

BankLover_not

[steven4064]

The waiver is granted by the FSA not the OFT - try their website

[elsinore]

Just to say that LTSB have agreed to close our ex limited company account which was about £1600 overdrawn. The company has been dissolved anyway but we had been paying in small amounts to bring the overdraft down to the amount of unlawful charges they owed us. I sent them a letter a few weeks ago saying 'OK now we are quits' and they have agreed to it.

 

Nice work, Goldlady. Well done!

 

Els

[elsinore]

Just come across this VERY interesting article:

 

Well spotted, PM! Nice to know they're rattled!

 

Els

[BankLover_not]

Hi Guys,

 

In support of my stay lift application I really need something from a government or quasi-government website that clearly states the OFT test case does not relate to business accounts. Has anybody seen this anywhere on their travels, if you have can you let me know as I am desperate to get my hands on it!

 

Thank you.

 

BankLover_not

 

P.S The FSA waiver review is insufficient as it states businesses accounts are not affected by the waiver NOT the oft test case.

[hsbcfiddled]

Hi BankloverNot,

 

Because it was the FSA that granted the waiver to which the banks seek the 'stay'. Then within the terms of the stay it states 'small business

are not covered by the waiver' See red text below.

 

FSA/PN/119/2007

21 November 2007

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has completed its review of the 'waiver' of its complaints handling rules in the context of unauthorised overdraft charges. The waiver removes the obligation to deal with unauthorised overdraft charges complaints in the time specified under FSA rules. The FSA has concluded that the waiver is operating effectively and can remain in place.

The waiver was granted on 27 July 2007 to support the test case on unauthorised overdraft charges brought in the High Court by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The purpose of the test case is to bring certainty on whether these charges are fair and lawful. The waiver requires complaints to be put on hold until certainty is established and complaints about these charges can be dealt with consistently and fairly. The FSA pledged to review the waiver after two months.

Following detailed examinations of firms' compliance with the conditions of the waiver and extensive consultations with consumer groups and other stakeholders, the FSA has established that the waiver is meeting its four key requirements:

• An effective stay of proceedings in the courts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in place;
  
• The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is likewise staying cases about unauthorised overdraft charges;
  
• Firms granted the waiver are complying with its conditions, including the need for clear communications with customers and appropriate handling of financial difficulty cases; and
  
• The continuation of the waiver remains appropriate to assist the test case.

Clive Briault, FSA Managing Director, Retail Markets, said:

"The test case between the OFT and the firms is a crucial step in establishing certainty about the legality and fairness of unauthorised overdraft charges. When this certainty has been established complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges can be dealt with consistently and fairly.

"The waiver we granted in July allowed firms to put complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges on hold until these complaints could be dealt with consistently and fairly. But it was important to review the operation of this waiver to ensure that it was working as intended. Our thorough review shows that it is appropriate for the waiver to remain in place.”

Particular concerns had been raised during the review period about the position under the waiver of complainants who may be in financial difficulty. The FSA is satisfied that the relevant part of the waiver is being complied with. However, in view of the importance of this issue, the FSA will carry out further work, in conjunction with the Banking Code Standards Board (BCSB), to check that firms continue to provide appropriate treatment of consumers in genuine financial difficulty.

The waiver review confirms that it remains appropriate for the waiver to continue to apply to consumers in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The review has also clarified the status of small business accounts, which are not covered by the waiver. The FSA has agreed with the firms arrangements to ensure small business customers are not disadvantaged.

In the course of the review the FSA found that a number of firms had changed their terms and conditions in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'. The FSA will be closely monitoring how any change made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver.

The test case is expected to start in January 2008.

 

View it here;

FSA publishes review of 'waiver' on the handling of complaints in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges

 

Hope this enough...might need it myself.

hsbcfiddled

[BankLover_not]

Hi HSBCfiddled,

 

As I say this is insufficient. I have looked at this and even handed it over to a solicitor who says while this is helpful what I really need is something that clearly states that business accounts are not affected by the OFT test case. All this says is that business accounts are not affected by the 'waiver'. If anybody has anything I'd be really grateful. Thanks anyway HSBCfiddled.

 

Many Thanks.

 

BankLover_not

[Goldlady]

I have had two business claims settled recently, one by natwest and one by ltsb. However I have nothing in writing that confirms their view on the test case.

[photoman]

Hi HSBCfiddled,

 

As I say this is insufficient. I have looked at this and even handed it over to a solicitor who says while this is helpful what I really need is something that clearly states that business accounts are not affected by the OFT test case. All this says is that business accounts are not affected by the 'waiver'. If anybody has anything I'd be really grateful. Thanks anyway HSBCfiddled.

 

Many Thanks.

 

BankLover_not

 

The OFT has clearly stated that the remit and scope of their case is based solely upon whether or not the terms are unfair as defined under the UTCCR99, and are thus in breach of them.

 

As the definition of "consumer" is actually clearly defined within the UTCCR99, and excludes those acting within the course of their business, then this should itself be adequate indication that the UTCCR99, and thus vis a vis the case itself should have no bearing upon "Business" account claims.

 

The UTCCR clearly states its own scope:

 

"A consumer is an individual not acting for the

purposes of his or her business or profession".

 

They can't have their cake AND eat it.

You have not been afforded the protection of consumer legislation such as the UTCCR whilst dealing with them as a Business customer upto now.

So, they cannot now just use the legislation as grounds for a stay, just by attempting to say that actually your account IS covered by the UTCCR.... just because it now suits them.

 

Remind them that the law is meant to be impartial. You are not asking for some special privileges previously not afforded you.

In fact quite the opposite, you are reminding them to remain consistent with regards the lack of legislative protection afforded yourself until now.

 

After all, if the OFT win this case based upon the scope of the legislation, it has been cited this would then apparently quite likely require all Banks to automatically pay out upon all consumer claims.

Do you think they will automatically extend the same courtesy to all Business claimants?

Not likely. They will claim the UTCCR, and thus the OFT case do not apply ! !

 

So, by the same measure, why should the courts extend granting the same stay in proceedings for the Banks upon Business claimants just as they have done upon Consumer claimants ?

 

 

In short.

Quote the POC's of the OFT case. ie. solely brought with regards the very consumer specific UTCCR legislation.

Quote the definition of consumer as actually contained within the UTCCR itself.

 

This should be adequate indication that the OFT case will have NO bearing either way upon your own.

Thus, no grounds for a stay based upon awaiting the outcome of the current OFT case.

[BankLover_not]

Hi,

 

Thanks photoman, very much appreciated. I'll give it my best shot. Wish me luck!

 

BankLover_not

[BankLover_not]

Hi,

 

Thanks photoman, very much appreciated. I'll give it my best shot. Wish me luck!

 

BankLover_not

[BankLover_not]

Hi Guys,

 

I have posted on this issue before but I need some addiitonal advice please. I have a friend who is claiming on a business account with Lloyds TSB, he had a stay application refused but it was also ordered by the District Judge that it could be put before the Designated Civil Judge for consideration. He is obviously going to do this but he has told me since that he is in receipt of income support and has been for several months. Would this be sufficient enough to qualify for the stay to be lifted on a financial hardship basis?

 

Any help appreciated, thanks.

 

BankLover_not

[GuidoT]

Attempting to get a stay lifted it futile, even more so now give the test case outcome with be known soon (well the first part anyhow).

[andrew1]

Attempting to get a stay lifted it futile, even more so now give the test case outcome with be known soon (well the first part anyhow).

 

Guidot - this is a business account, the OFT case is not relating to business accounts, that is Unfair terms in CONSUMER contracts...what makes you say it is futile on a business account?

[BankLover_not]

Hello Again,

 

What I need to know is whether if you are in receipt of income support this will be sufficient to satisfy the hardship criteria for the stay to be lifted.

 

Thanks

 

BankLover_not

[GuidoT]

Guidot - this is a business account, the OFT case is not relating to business accounts, that is Unfair terms in CONSUMER contracts...what makes you say it is futile on a business account?

 

Apologies, must be dreaming you are of course correct, I have consumer claims stuck in my head. Apologies BankLover_not.

[BankLover_not]

No probs Guidot,

 

However I still don't have an answer. If anybody has got any thoughts I'd be gratfeul if you could share them.

 

Thanks.

 

BankLover_not

[steven4064]

BLN

 

I presume you are referring to the question in post #970.

 

For a personal account, experience is showing that being in receipt of income support is not enough to get a stay lifted.

 

For a business account, your claim should not have been stayed in the first place as, as we all know, the OFT case doesn't apply to business accounts.

 

I think your friend's best bet is to go with 'the OFT case does not apply' but back it up with an argument based on hardship evidenced by being in receipt of income support.

[GuidoT]

Personally (not for my nonsense reasons above) I would wait until the present OFT litigation is over.

 

By the time you get the matter in front of 'Designated Civil Judge' we should be a step forward with the test case and that may obviate the need to removal of the stay as the courts may lift it anyway.

 

I say may, as even after judgement of the present litigation (presuming OFT are successful) this could only the first stage, the next stage could be determining what is a fair penalty and or an appeal.

 

Notwithstanding the grounds for removing a business stay are that the OFT test case relates to consumer claims and not business claims. Photoman provided a good explanation here.

 

The hardship argument should not come into it, in particular if the company is limited and as such a separate legal entity that should have no direct financial relationship with an individuals finance.

[sytra]

Hi need some help please, filed a claim against HSBC for a business acc (sole trader), got a letter from DG solicitors his morning saying they will be applying for a stay waiting the outcome of the OFT case.

 

Now i know they cant really stay the case but is there anyway i can ask the court to refuse any requests for a stay before HSBC do file.?

 

Thanks

 

Sytra

[srfrench]

See above Sytra