I need your help! Do you have any old T&Cs?

[Celicaman]

Hi JoJo

I just found business overdraft terms / agreement for 2000 & 2001, so seeing if they want them sending as well.

Im sure both lots would be helpfull to somebody. JUst need to find out who to send them to now.

 

CM

[welshbaba]

So far I think '96 is the closest to when I opened my account, are these the ones that I should use? Also, is it just the one year or as many as I can get.

Apologies if this has already been asked somewhere.

Thanks

Sha

p.s. STAX - can u direct me to the link which has the most relevant parts - Thanks

[stax68]

So far I think '96 is the closest to when I opened my account, are these the ones that I should use? Also, is it just the one year or as many as I can get.

Apologies if this has already been asked somewhere.

Thanks

Sha

p.s. STAX - can u direct me to the link which has the most relevant parts - Thanks

 

Hello Sha,

 

In my opinion - and no-one has contradicted it - you need all the T&Cs that apply to period(s) you are claiming charges for.

 

There is a rough guide to the most important bits of the 1996 T&C here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/95312-hsbc-t-cs-here.html#post883209.

 

cheers, stax

[amsjks]

Doesn't this guy have 1994 T&Cs?

 

Lattie posted this on Catlover64's thread. I haven't checked it out yet, but maybe take a look.

 

Originally Posted by lateralus

an answer for every question - that's my motto -

just tonight a nice young man who has done the whole bundle - has written this:

 

I'd like to post my HSBC Court Bundle. I have taken CAG from Gary H, HSBC 1994 t&C's, Parliament early Day Motion , Australian bank charges report etc... and put them in a rather huge word document (40mb), with evey page numbered, I think many others may find this format useful - How do I go about uploading this???

 

 

his thread is here: suggest you make contact STODAD vs HSBC - deadline 24th May

[Destinyofsouls]

I was looking at HSBC T&C's from Hagenuk here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-our-forum/90880-stodad-hsbc-deadline-24th.html

But for the life of me, I can't see how they are useful. Could someone help out here please, tell me what I should be looking for?

[stax68]

Please could everyone also send a copy of any T&Cs or price lists to [email protected]. It doesn't matter what format they are in - though better quality scans are, er, better.

 

I know this is now the third email address to be given out - but this one is for a stopgap thread I've started:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/95312-hsbc-t-cs-here.html,

and everything you send will be posted immediately - or within a few hours anyway - so you will be able to see some quick results from this one. I'll also acknowledge all emails unless you ask me not to.

 

Please note when scanning T&Cs that it is important to include every page apart from completely blank ones. We especially need the printer's info - which is usually in small type sideways next to the spine on the back cover.

 

Everyone should still send everything they have to [email protected] as well, of course!

 

cheers,

 

stax

[Destinyofsouls]

Not T&C's, but I have been given a letter from YB in reply to a claim from someone. It says:

Further the T&C's were fair having regard to the following matters:

a) the cost to the bank of maintaining admin systems relating to unauthorised overdrafts, unpaid chqs & d/d's and abuse of debit cards for the purpose of keeping the level of overdrawing under review and controlled as far as possible.

That sounds like a punishment to stop us doing it - not a bl**dy fee!

b) the increased risk of loss to the bank arising from such unauthorised transactions and the associated cost of enforcement and recovery systems.

So it's not a fee then?

c) the need to operate standard procedures and to set standard charges in order to avoid the substantial costs of individual assessment in relation to each particular case.

So they charge us to avoid the cost to them of assessing our account?.

Is the above of any importance. Letter was dated 7 Dec 06

[Destinyofsouls]

Oh, and the last bit says:

 

Please note, should you proceed straight to court action the bank reserves the right to counterclaim for damages suffered as a result of the breach by you of your contract with the bank.

Is this any good?

[Destinyofsouls]

On 22/12/06, she got this letter ( after LBA)

Further,if you were successfull [in court] ..............the bank would have a claim against you for damages suffered as a result of your breach of contract .....

( offer of 25% with this letter)

Letter dated 8/3/07 After AQ was filed.

 

Your assertion that the charges are a penalty is misconceived. You have not breached your contract with the bank. What?????

[Destinyofsouls]

There is a directions hearing on the 15 june for this girl, do you think these should be taken? If so what else?

[stax68]

I was looking at HSBC T&C's from Hagenuk here

STODAD vs HSBC - deadline 24th May

But for the life of me, I can't see how they are useful. Could someone help out here please, tell me what I should be looking for?

 

The key term will be one which says that in going over the OD limit, you are in breach of contract - or in other words, that you have a contractual obligation to keep within the limit.

 

In the 2004 T&Cs (from Archive.org?) that Haganuk posted, the relevant term (assuming you have an agreed OD) is:

 

7.4 You should always stay within an agreed overdraft limit

unless you get our agreement to increase this first.

 

There could be some argument about whether 'should' imposes an obligation.

 

Relevant - and somewhat interrelated - considerations might be:

 

1. That it doesn't say you should if x, or you should because otherwise y. So the banks can't claim to be merely explaining the consequences of going over the limit (as 'should' is used elsewhere in the T&Cs to do). This makes it implausible to read the 'should' as just friendly advice setting out your options, so the only reason for including the term is to introduce a requirement not to go over the limit.

 

2. Even if 1 isn't conclusive, surely an ordinary consumer would read it as telling you not to go over your limit.

 

3. Other versions - before and after 2004 - use the word 'must' and there is nothing to indicate that this apparently minor difference in vocabulary is supposed to fundamantally change the basis on which the charges are levied.

 

4. (Fallback position which requires legal argument) - even if it does not impose a contractual obligation, the term clearly has a deterrent function - so the charges levied on the basis of it should still be treated as penalties if they exceed costs - especially since the contract explicitly specifies that the purpose of the charges is to cover costs.

 

The last point brings us to:

 

7.13 As well as charging interest under clause 7.10,we may also

charge our applicable fee for reviewing overdrafts not

agreed in advance on each occasion that your Bank

Account goes overdrawn,or further overdrawn,without an

agreed overdraft.We may also charge this fee when your

Bank Account goes over,or further over,any agreed

overdraft limit.This fee is to cover our management and

administration costs (see the relevant price list for details

ofthe fee).

 

which as well as having persuasive force in relation to point 4 above, also serves as extremely good evidence of concealment by the banks of the fact that they are making a profit from the charges and not just covering costs. (Of course we need other evidence, e.g. the OFT reports, to show that they were profiting - the contract can't tell us that.) Alleging concealment of relevant facts is one of the ways of rebutting a limitation defence to claims over 6 years old.

 

Then there is:

 

7.9 If we pay a cheque or other item you issue,allow a card

transaction or make any other payment on previous

instructions from you and,as a result, your account goes

overdrawn or,for Bank Accounts, it goes overdrawn

without an agreed overdraft or goes over any agreed

overdraft limit, this does not mean that we have agreed an

overdraft or an increased limit. You must immediately pay

enough money into your account to cover the overdrawn

amount or the amount that is over your agreed overdraft

limit,or contact us to discuss the matter.

 

This shows that the story they made up later in the Dec 2006 T&Cs, about 'informal overdraft requests' definitely doesn't apply to earlier charges. And it could be argued that it also supports the argument about 7.4, since it would be a bit odd if you were allowed to go over your limit, but that straight afterwards you would be in breach of the term which says you 'must' repay the excess borrowing. It would be like saying it is not illegal to walk on the grass, but as soon as you start doing so you must immediately stop, and any delay (even a millisecond?) in doing so means you are breaking the law.

 

This isn't a legal opinion, just some ideas for you to consider.

 

cheers,

 

stax

[Celicaman]

Oh, and the last bit says:

 

Please note, should you proceed straight to court action the bank reserves the right to counterclaim for damages suffered as a result of the breach by you of your contract with the bank.

 

Is this any good?

 

I would say fine to this as that will be the £1 or £1.50 max that it actually costs the bank to process the action, So lets see they are going to give back all the £25 & £35 charges and claim back £1 or £1.50 for each charge for still doing nothing. All sounds fair to me,They can take it off what they owe her

 

Oh and secondly i think they (bank) have just admitted that you indeed broke the contract, ( as a result of the breach by you of your contract with the bank ) so now we know the charges were indeed a penalty for breach of contract and you got that in writing LOL, they have fallen into the trap ! excellent LOL

 

CM

[amsjks]

Just realised those were not 1994 T&Cs at all, but 2004.

 

Apologies if that created confusion. I should have checked first.

[Destinyofsouls]

I would say fine to this as that will be the £1 or £1.50 max that it actually costs the bank to process the action, So lets see they are going to give back all the £25 & £35 charges and claim back £1 or £1.50 for each charge for still doing nothing. All sounds fair to me,They can take it off what they owe her

 

Oh and secondly i think they (bank) have just admitted that you indeed broke the contract, ( as a result of the breach by you of your contract with the bank ) so now we know the charges were indeed a penalty for breach of contract and you got that in writing LOL, they have fallen into the trap ! excellent LOL

 

CM

So what can she do at the directions hearing now? Can she ask for the defence to be struck out as it is a breach of contract? OR

 

Can she ask the court for disclosure now they have admitted B of Cont. to ascertain if it really is a genuine pre-estimate?

What do you think?

[Destinyofsouls]

3. The question whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of the making of the contract, not as at the time of the breach (Public Works Commissioner v. Hills (1906) A.C. 368 and Webster v. Bosanquet (1912) A.C. 394).

 

The above is from the Bundle ( Dunlop case). Does this mean that recent T&C's do not apply when making a decision on whether it is a penalty?

 

As I understand the above, it says to me that the original T&C's count, not the new ones 'when the breach was made'

 

Or am I being Blonde again?

[Destinyofsouls]

OK Guys & Gals,

Have been doin' some hard searching and have got loads of peeps trying to find T&C's for us all.

Now, I have been handed a defence from Abbey dated 28march 2007.

Para 6 says:

The Claimant has overdrawn or exceeded authorised o/d limits on a number of separate occasions. Therefore by virtue of the conditions referred to in Para 3 above such overdrawing was unauthorised and in breach of contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with its Tariff of charges applicable at the relevant time.

 

Is this any good?

[Destinyofsouls]

I kinda miss out here a bit I think cos I can't get on here at nightime

 

And NO I'm not a working girl in case anyone asks

[stax68]

3. The question whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of the making of the contract, not as at the time of the breach (Public Works Commissioner v. Hills (1906) A.C. 368 and Webster v. Bosanquet (1912) A.C. 394).

 

The above is from the Bundle ( Dunlop case). Does this mean that recent T&C's do not apply when making a decision on whether it is a penalty?

 

As I understand the above, it says to me that the original T&C's count, not the new ones 'when the breach was made'

 

Or am I being Blonde again?

 

I would say that in our case this means: judged of as at the time of the new T&Cs being issued (and impliedly accepted by us). But I stand to be corrected if anyone has a better understanding of this issue!

 

Re the breach of contract - it looks as though they admit that their was a breach of contract - but in court it would probably only be offered as an alternative - i.e. if the court find there was a breach of contract, then we claim damages. It depends on exactly what the whiole letter says, and whether it is intended to be 'without prejudice', which it probably is. But I'd say that they haven't made any admission that could be relied on in court.

 

However, I suspect they would also have trouble claiming the (tiny) damages they are after, since they permitted and assisted in the breach.

 

stax

[Destinyofsouls]

Thankx stax,

You are right the letter is without prej save as costs - what does that mean?

 

A second letter though is not 'without pred' and says

Furthermore, even if you were sucessful in your arguments the bank would have a claim against you for damages suffered as a result of your breach of contract in failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the account. Such a claim would incur court costs and interest for which you would be liable.

 

This must be helpful in court? They are admitting it is a breach and not a service.

[HSBCrusher]

Thankx stax,

You are right the letter is without prej save as costs - what does that mean?

 

A second letter though is not 'without pred' and says

Furthermore, even if you were sucessful in your arguments the bank would have a claim against you for damages suffered as a result of your breach of contract in failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the account. Such a claim would incur court costs and interest for which you would be liable.

 

This must be helpful in court? They are admitting it is a breach and not a service.

Hello DS... where is this letter from and who does it relate to??

[Destinyofsouls]

Crusher,

It's a letter from YB in reply to a rejection letter from a claimant

 

chain of events as follows ( not my claim, I have been asking for T&C's from everyone I know)

 

Claim for £1800 sent 4/12/06

Reply from YB 7/12/06 not paying anything ( No Without prj. on top)

Containing:

Further the T&C's were fair having regard to the following matters:

a) the cost to the bank of maintaining admin systems relating to unauthorised overdrafts, unpaid chqs & d/d's and abuse of debit cards for the purpose of keeping the level of overdrawing under review and controlled as far as possible.

That sounds like a punishment to stop us doing it - not a bl**dy fee!

b) the increased risk of loss to the bank arising from such unauthorised transactions and the associated cost of enforcement and recovery systems.

So it's not a fee then?

c) the need to operate standard procedures and to set standard charges in order to avoid the substantial costs of individual assessment in relation to each particular case.

So they charge us to avoid the cost to them of assessing our account

At the bottom of this letter was :

Please note, should you proceed straight to court action the bank reserves the right to counterclaim for damages suffered as a result of the breach by you of your contract with the bank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

15/12/06 LBA sent

22/12/06 Reply from YB ( again had no 'Without Prej 'on top)

Contains:

Further,if you were successfull [in court] ..............the bank would have a claim against you for damages suffered as a result of your breach of contract .....

( offer of 25% with this letter)

---------------------------------------------------------

Rej letter sent and N1 filed 24/1/07

YB replied after AQ sent with this: ( this time it had 'Without Prej on top)

 

Offered 1430.5 + £220 Court fees. ( claim had gone up to £2156 after s69)

rejected like mad and awaiting hearing on 15 june ( directions only)

 

Hope this helps

destiny

[stax68]

Without prejudice means that no admissions they make can be shown to the court - in practice this generally means that nothing in the letter can be shown.

 

In any case, notice they say 'even if you were successful' - i.e. you won't be successful, but even if you were, then we would be able to argue xyz. It's the way cases are argued - 'in the alternative' - and takes some getting used to.

 

'Save as to costs' means the letter could be used in proceedings to determine costs, in order to show that you were unreasonable and/or they were reasonable. For example if you refused to explain your case or if you turned down an offer for more than you eventually won in court, that might count against you if the issue of costs came to be decided. But since you will presumably be in the small claims track, the issue of costs is basically irrelevant. You wouldn't have to pay their costs even if you lost your case.

[HSBCrusher]

thanks destiny.

do you have any links for those?

[Destinyofsouls]

Crusher, they are letters in my possession.

 

I can try to delete important info, scan them and send them somewhere (says she without thinking) if you feel they would be of help to anyone.

[HSBCrusher]

yes please destiny, that would be ideal.

there is an email address in this link...

We need your help folks! Re old T&Cs

 

thank you for your help.

 

Crusher

.