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

[stax68]

Crusher,

 

I've just posted some partial T&Cs from 2003 if that's any help: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90720-help-please-terms-conditions.html

 

I'd like to see some more organised info sharing, since these T&Cs are what we are basing the main plank of our case on. Surely between the lot of us we must have a complete set. It's just a question of getting the message out to those who have them, and then of course getting the text off the page and onto the website.

 

cheers

 

stax

[stax68]

I scanned them and ran the result through an OCR (optical character recognition) program. I can scan the two sets I've got and save them as PDF though, no problem. I'll mail them as you suggest. I'll be very interested to see some of the older versions.

 

BTW I can convert any sort of image files to pdf if anyone needs that sort of thing doing, as well.

 

cheers,

 

stax

[stax68]

No probs - it's a start, anyway. I'll be watching for new developments!

 

Anyone who has any T&Cs: remember, once they are displayed on the site you will be able to get advice on them. And if you send the ones you have, other people are more likely to take the trouble to send the ones they have - which may well benefit you. It's not necessarily only the T&Cs that were in force when you opened the account that are relevant.

 

It might be worth pointing out for those who don't have access to a scanner that it is possible to get usable images with a digital camera if you have one - and a steady hand. Even some mobile phone cameras might be hi-res enough. It doesn't always give good enough results but it's worth taking 5 minutes to try it if the alternative is that you wouldn;t send them at all.

 

Some basic tips if you really have to use this method:

• Set the camera to take the biggest picture at the highest resolution.
  
• Lie the document flat in bright sunlight.
  
• Bend over it so you are photographing from directly above the middle of the document.
  
• If you need to use flash, be aware that you can get bad reflections/glare off shiny pages so you may have to take the picture from a slight angle, i.e. not directly above the middle of the page.
  
• Make sure not to cast a shadow.
  
• Try to get the camera close enough so the page fills the viewfinder with just a little bit of space around the edges.
  
• Don't try to photograph two pages together.
  
• You can photograph a single page in two halves if necessary.
  
• Don't get so close that you can't focus.
  
• Don't use zoom if you can avoid it.
  
• Don't worry if part of the opposite page is in the picture - it can be masked out later.
  
• Keep as still as possible when pushing the button, obviously.
  
• Photograph all pages including the front and back covers.
  
• Save the pictures as bmp or tiff files if possible.
  
• Try to avoid using highly compressed formats like jpeg.
  
• It may add a frisson of excitement to an otherwise dull process if you pretend to be a spy who could be discovered at any time by the Gestapo.
  
• Er,
  
• That's it.

But it is a lot easier to use a scanner if you possibly can.

 

cheers,

stax

[stax68]

Everyone who has any T&Cs - yes, please do send them to alan@consumeractiongroup. co.uk. We need to build up a history of this stuff.

 

For what it's worth I'd recommend that scanning the whole document including front and back covers, using greyscale rather than black and white if possible, and using the highest quality you can - they don't call it 'small print' for nothing!

 

It's recommended to save the scanned images as a pdf file, but if you can't do that for any reason, send the images - TIFF or BMP files are better than JPEG as there's less likely to be distortion of the image. If in doubt as to how to do it, ask on this thread.

 

Manic Blonde: sounds like you have a real Aladdin's cave there. Please send everything you can - hundreds of HSBC claimants will be eternally grateful! I'd suggest sending the oldest stuff first as this is likely to be the most scarce. If you are still having trouble with the scanning, post details of your scanning software and the model of scanner you're using and I or someone else will be able to give you detailed instructions.

 

cbcb - might be a good idea to start a new thread for the legal arguments - but post a link to it in this thread so we get notified. I have a few ideas too, as I'm sure do others - it would be good to get a discussion going.

 

Alan/admins - I assume you are working to make this stuff available on the site - thanks for your invaluable efforts.

 

cheers all, stax

[stax68]

Terms from Sep 1999 (NOT MUCH USE - ONLY SELECTED TERMS):

URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000614163424/www.banking.hsbc.co.uk/terms&conditions/terms.pdf

Print info from back page: "MCP 01931 09/99 Printed by John Blackburn Ltd, Leeds 31K"

 

T&Cs from 2004:

URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20051024004400/http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_1_4_24P/content/uk/pdfs/en/personal_banking_terms.pdf

Print info from back page: "91804-1 (Pack of 10) MCP21428 Printed by Charisma Colourprint Ltd, Sheffield. © HSBC Bank plc 2004. All Rights Reserved. HBJ6202/1/0804048"

 

T&Cs from Aug 2005:

URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20050526042225/http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_1_4_24P/content/uk/pdfs/en/personal_banking_terms.pdf

Print info from back page: "91804-1 (Pack of 10) MCP24515 (08/05) Printed by Charisma Colourprint Ltd, Sheffield. © HSBC Bank plc 2004. All Rights Reserved."

 

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A BROWSE AROUND, E.G FOR PRICE LISTS:

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

NB:

1. Wait until archived pages are fully loaded ('Done') before clicking on links, otherwise they may try to direct you to the original page rather than the archived copy.

2. When you follow links, you may get directed to a later version of the page - I think this is when the original version is unavailable. This could be because it was never archived, or because the 'owner' of the page has asked for it to be deleted from the archive - archive.org will always comply with such requests.

 

THIS (I.E. POINT 2) IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU TRY TO LOOK AT OLDER VERSIONS OF THE T&Cs. YOU CAN'T FIND ANY EARLIER THAN 2004-5, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN ACCESS VARIOUS OTHER HSBC PDF DOCUMENTS FROM AS FAR BACK AS 2000! DID HSBC ASK FOR THE OLD T&Cs TO BE PULLED? Or is that too much like a 'conspiracy theory'?

[stax68]

Thanks to everyone who has sent T&Cs!

 

Note to mods/admins - what is the plan for these T&Cs? Any progress on making them available on the site yet?

 

Sorry to hassle - all your efforts are much appreciated - but I just can't wait to get stuck into them, especially the pre-1999 ones. I have obtained some poor quality photocopies of photocopies of excerpts of the 97 and 99 T&Cs from D&G, and it looks like they changed 'you must stay within your limit' to 'you should..' around that time - though without making any real change to the way the contract operated, in particular the fact that customers were discouraged (deterred?) from going over the limit.

 

I'm not sure, but I reckon saying 'you should', without giving some reason why this is to be taken merely as advice, should be construed as imposing a contractual obligation anyway - especially when it represents a merely verbal change to the previous terms.

 

I have a lot more ideas on this topic - e.g. the obligation to repay 'excess borrowing' immediately and without demand might, with some argument, bring into play rule 4(b) from Dunlop ("It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid - Kemble v Farren"). I'm going to start a thread in the legalities section about the various issues once I have a bit more to go on...

 

cheers, stax

[stax68]

Extract of 1997 T&Cs which I got from DG (a.k.a. HSBC UK Legal dept).

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/55086-stax68-hsbc.html#post846275

 

I only have those three pages, but they are quite useful ones, even though they are poor quality copies.

 

I have similar extracts covering 1999 - 2005, as listed in the post previous to the one linked above. Shall I send pdfs of the extracts? If so, should they be cleaned up (i.e. with the black backgrounds, marks, scribbles, punch holes etc removed as far as possible), or just as they are?

[stax68]

Hmmm, I'd say they are taking a pretty relaxed attitude to the facts when they claim they are 'unable' to supply them.

 

I'll try that with the Revenue I think: sorry, I'm afraid I'm unable to pay tax for any year before 2006-7 as that was the last time I filled in a tax return. Should work a treat.

 

HSBC's Legal department ('DG Solicitors') were able to send me extracts of old terms and conditions, I notice. Maybe Ms Harries means that her department isn't able to supply them (because they are bound by company policy).

 

I suppose it might be worth trying the organ grinder rather than the monkey - which I suppose means writing to head office, though I don't know who exactly you would address it to. Then if they said they were 'unable' to consider it, they'd be making the unbelievable claim that it was impossible for the company to do it. And if they decided not to pretend it's impossible, you'd have it in writing that they have refused outright to supply the info. Either way I imagine it might be of some interest to some section of the media: 'HSBC says - your contract is none of your business,' or whatever.

 

BTW they like claiming to be 'unable' to do things - they told me they were 'unable' to consider my claim for charges more than 6 years old. They now seem to have magically acquired an ability to do so, since they have openly and specifically offered to pay them all back.

 

QUESTION - Does anyone know if there is any law under which they are required to provide details of past terms and conditions - I imagine that data protection wouldn't do it as they would claim that the T&Cs aren't stored electronically against the customer's record. But you would have thought there'd be some comon law rule or something that prevents them trying to keep the details of a contract secret from the other party.

[stax68]

Hello all. Well as I stated in an earlier post, I wasn't holding my breath, and sure enough, HSBC didn't deliver. Here's a scan of the letter I got in return.

...

Sorry they weren't more useful! Feel free to pester the phone number at the bottom of it and see if you can get better results though!

 

r-t-v

 

RTV - may I suggest you write to HSBC head office and ask them to supply the T&Cs, referring to the reply you have had from the call centre manager, and asking whether they would like to comment on the claim that it is impossible to supply them.

If they refuse a second time - and at the top level - then the story might be of interest to the media. Even if they don't get back to you, they would look pretty bad with one refusal already on record...

stax

[stax68]

I have been told these t &c's are from 94

 

As the ragged sheepshank said - I'm afraid not!

 

Those are the new ones from December 2006 - containing the new story about informal overdraft requests and, er, 'overdraft review fees'.

 

Hi Rob,

 

Funny that I got exactly the same letter telling me that the T & C for 1995 are no longer ava and here is the most uptodate!!!!!

 

suppose Have no option but to include them in my court bundle as they are the only ones I have:!:

 

NO! you must get some older ones - even if not from the time you opened your account!

 

Here's what is available so far, pending the CAG admins getting some up on the forum. They are all relevant and you may as well include them all:

 

1997 (extract sent by DG on behalf of HSBC):

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/55086-stax68-hsbc.html#post846275

 

2004,2005:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/90721-i-need-your-help.html#post840881

 

cheers, stax

[stax68]

I've been trying to get an answer to this, but in the meantime everything points towards the fact that all the T&Cs are relevant.

 

First, the agreements are open-ended and either side can terminate on giving the appropriate notice - so it's not obviously totally unjust to vary the T&Cs.

 

Second, the T&Cs I have say that HSBC may vary the T&Cs with 30 day's notice, and you may terminate without any extra charges or interest within 60 days of being informed of disadvantageous changes. There might be some reason why this is invalid or inapplicable, but I haven't found one.

 

Third, this interesting thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/27632-phoenix-hsbc.html#post325256 has an account of a district judge's opinion on the matter.

 

So in general, I think it's fairly clear that - as you would expect - changes to the T&Cs do have effect during the relevant period.

 

There might be a kind of 'exception' to this, if the Unfair Terms in Consumer contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) apply only to the T&Cs in operation at the start of the contract. But they apply to terms, rather than only to whole contracts (the clue's in the name!), so I'd have thought that they apply to any new or amended terms introduced after mid-1995, when the first lot of UTCCRs took effect.

 

There's then also the question of whether the first introduction of a new set of T&Cs after mid-95 could mean that the UTCCRs would start to apply to all terms in the new T&Cs, including those that are unchanged - perhaps because the revised terms mean that technically speaking, a new contract is entered into? I have no good information on this, but I suspect the answer is the regs would apply only to new or amended terms.

 

Perhaps a suitably well-informed mod could help us out?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[stax68]

Adara - I can post them on the T&Cs sticky if you send them to [email protected]. It doesn't currently have any business ones, and I've been meaning to add them. This would be a great start.

 

Crusher, do you have any T&Cs, price lists facility letters that aren't already on the sticky? If so, could you send them to the same mail address so I can add them?

 

cheers

 

Stax