HSBC Student Overdraft 2007

**Amethyst** · 2nd February 2020, 21:41:PM

Have you sent a SAR to HSBC ? If not, do that now.

I wouldn't worry about replying to the letter about claiming a default judgment- you filed your defence and the court have accepted it and will serve it on the claimant. *These letters are sent out based on the assumption you will ignore the claim ( as most people do ) so it will have just crossed post.*

What requests did you send to Cabot *or Mortimer Clarke ?*

**KingUnemployed** · 9th February 2020, 12:29:PM

Dear Amethyst,

Thank you for your reply. I also read your replies to others in the forum, you are a star. It is appreciated by more people that you know.

I had actually sent the rebuttal to the judge to be added to the defence. I understand, Mortimer Clarke and Cabot, marlin calin europe are all in the same building and part of the same group of Ltd companies owned by the same people. I have sent copies to both Mortimer Clarke and parent owners of cabot - Marlin i Ltd. Prior to my court response, I requested CPR information and SAR to both and they cashed my postal order having signed for delivery. ****added: I have also sent HSBC a letter and email with SAR***

Mortimer Clarke is being awkward with the subject access request. They know they have no direct information from and and no signature from me for anything, so they are asking for items of ID to prcess my SAR repeatedly. I have told them as they started legal action and I am not asking for alternative addresses it is not needed. They are corresponding with my parents address from when I was a child and opened the bank account- as an adult I have never signed any legal agreement except for a credit card - but this is about a graduate account overdraft with HSBC.

I am tempted to respond on Monday with the following deliberately semi-confusing and annoyingly over-lapping letter:
(Please feel free to copy and paste addresses and explanation why information they do not have will not be provided)

Mortimer Clark / Marlin Europe Limited
16-22 Grafton Road
Worthing, West Sussex
BN11 1QP

Group Data Protection Officer
1 Kings Hill Avenue
Kings Hill
KENT
ME14 4UA

Dear Mortimer Clarke Solicitors and Group Data Controller,

RE: Subject Access REquest and fines for non-compliance, as compliant is pending
RE: Mrs XXX, DoB, HSBC graduate account XXXX, defaulted 2009

Through the response from the legal process you instituted via court, you are aware you owe money to me £160 from my letter 01.02.2019 which you respond to 06.02.2020 (sent to me by email), where your letter is full acknowledgement and will be used in a court of law as needed of the 5 points I raised, including the Subject Access Request refusal. Under the same process to which you received the original payment notification via Northampton County Court as a defence statement in full, writing this unnesersaily letter to you is costing you an additional £80 and evidence non-compliance of all 5 issues. I highlight every unnecessary letter I have to write will cost you £80, for my time, resources and postage. Your Solicitor firm now owes £240, please make immediate payment prior to any date in court where non-payment will exemplify the character of your company (and client who are from the same group of companies). You are aware your client potentially owes over £2m already and you have not begun repayments. Please begin repayments immediately. Also note, I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any other company or organisation that you claim to be representing.

I have made a repeated Subject Access Request after you and your client obtained my confidential information including addresses of relatives without any base contract, or any contract at all with my signature or consent; your continued activities with data is illegal. You are aware you have no consumer/financial agreement and have not provided any evidence despite continued requests which Mr Mortimer of Mortimer Clarke’s by signing Royal Mail receipts accepts/evidences the request, including this letter. As you instituted a court process for a statue barred debt over 6 years, you are aware information you hold is illegal and you are being over-zealous and burdensome in the identity information you are requesting. There are further concerns. You are non-compliant with the Data Protection Act and GDPR and are refusing to provide any evidence you hold of a contract. Your activities in processing my data were illegal and I demand all my information is erased unless you begin immediate repayments of monies owed to me. Given precedence in failing to comply with this request, it may also be deemed illegal transgression with a Subject Access Request having made your application to court, by the court themselves. You have also repeatedly been told you may provide the information via the court and have not taken up the alternative route. I highlight I am not asking you to use my home or alternative address but the address you have illegally processed and started a court process with. The information commissioner’s office and SRA will be contacted with a complaint after 30 days if you do not comply with either a request for erasure/right to be forgotten or provision of information requested.

Again, I highlight the information you request from either of your lists, is information you do not already have and cannot verify it against, it is over-zealous. The information can be used for identity theft or fraud, thus information you do not have, will not be provided to you. Especially as you do not hold a legitimate contract which you are currently attempting to create in court with smoke and mirrors. Thus, obtaining the information will be for the purpose of changing records with primary information which you do not have. You may be fined up to €20m or 4% your worldwide annual group turnover of the proceeding financial year, whichever is higher. It is highly recommended that you do not obtain clearly more sensitive or potentially more harmful data, for the purpose of authentication, than the data that is subject to the request. Three items of identification, name, address and bank details are provided as well as the independent court response you have received. If you actually need some additional information, it should be the minimum amount and only what is relevant in the given context. This is important not only because of the principle of data minimization, but also to ensure purpose limitation and fairness.Accordingly, the highest administrative fines, as provided by the GDPR, may and should fall upon you. I write this twice in case you fail to process/understand the gravity of the situation the first time.

You enclose a privacy policy which I do not agree with at all. I refuse the privacy notice of Mortimer clarke solicitors, and its group of companies if implied. I refuse any holding of information of relatives/third-parties and special categories of personal data, I refuse my data to be sent/processed outside of the UK (it is post Brexit) thus your current activities with storage outside the EEA is illegal. I have no relationship with your client thus your privacy agreement, section 4 does not apply and immediate removal is requested unless your client/group agrees to repayments of £2,000,740, £240 of which is owed by yourselves. I have already highlighted the above subject access request, my objection to any and all data processing, intimated my immediate request for processing restriction, my right to be forgotten as part of my right to rectification, I refuse any and all automatic profiling, decision making, use of bots/cookies and refuse my details to be added to any database by your group. This is the second letter of an ongoing complaint. Your responses are evidence of non-compliance whilst your signatures show you accept all accusations and demands.

--

**KingUnemployed** · 9th February 2020, 12:55:PM

I have decided to demand the conpensation for loss of earnings and distress from 2009 are paid by anyone whom buys the repaid overdraft without my consent. I realise the overdraft is statute barred and defaulted from 2009, but if I lose in court, it forms a contract and it will be a lucrative 'no win no fee' solicitor case to be pursued which may pay up - being positive and happy at giving them some of their own medicine.

They did not buy a debt but a liability.

**wales01man** · 9th February 2020, 14:50:PM

Don't think they will be paying you any money the Court has not ordered them to

**KingUnemployed** · 15th February 2020, 13:53:PM

Originally posted by wales01man View Post

Don't think they will be paying you any money the Court has not ordered them to

yes unlikely, hence need to build a case, it is there in the paperwork and correspondance but it is with the previous debt collection agency. MCS seem to say they also got the debt from 2009 and I have been paying them not the other party which is confusing. MCS wrote back saying 'that assignment of debt is the assignment of the benefit of contract only.' Which is rich as they quote it was assigned despite not being property, under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. ..... they tell me about charges, I should seek independent leagal advice.

This letter is possibly defence and a response to CPR - showing a letter from the bank with a different name to another address, and a letter from Marlin which appears to be a fake as their logo has changed.
They show home print outs of supposed bank statements (rather than official statements or stamped statments from HSBC) and instead of £50 a month, they show I paid £1, then £3, then £50, then £5 and then they show 'Debt sale transfer £5'

I want the contract, between them and HSBC, which I know courts normally do not act on non-supply, but I will point out in court, it is needed for the counterclaim that I cannot make, as I need to show that HSBC did not put a liabibilities will remain with HSBC clause in or that they under-write the debt collection agency - Mortimer Clarke / Marline Europe - if they actually sold it under Law of Property Act 1925. Should I write back in relation to CPR 3.14????

They do not supply payment information requested, staing it is too exhaustive, unreasonable and unjustified. They ask for my 2013 letter to the third parties asking for a refund which I had already submitted to the court and they got a copy of.*

They are making a court claim for the original default 2009 regardless of payments made. Can they do this?

**KingUnemployed** · 29th February 2020, 09:59:AM

Plot thickens
Mortimer Clarke and Marlin/Cabot are refusing to provide SAR until I provide new ID and information they do not have of my current abode. They have both written separately stating this yet at the same time provide copies of all their supposed letters to me, and a letter from HSBC dated 2014.
*
I opened my account in 1994 as a minor, they state I opened my account 1999 as an adult
They state HSBC closed my account, 23.04.2008 with £1750 outstanding
They state it was assigned to them 28.03.2014 so it cannot be statute barred and I made payments to them of £285 so the balance outstanding was still £1750, but various enclosures say outstanding is between £1000 and £1900, very inconsistent. The payments were from a Natwest account which I do not have.
They state they had correspondence from me in 2016 and investigated stature barred for a years and said it was not statute barred. I have no recollection of this. I would have had an opportunity to take it to the Financial Ombudsman but now it is too late.
In 2017 they passed the account to Ruthbridge Limited and have no correspondence and the account was returned 2018, supposedly they had communication with me 2019 and then sent it to the court.
*

*

So they deny any payments I made to other collection services, which may be true as I had an actual debt at the time to another company that I paid off but I still wrote to HSBC in 2013 asking for a refund so that makes no sense. However if they are saying that a defaulted overdraft had a payment over 6 years from default, no other payments and at the next 6 year point they are taking it to court. To me, they know the payments in 2014 in random order over 6 months is made up.
*
I have received an N180 from the court to hand in by next week. They propose small claims track. I would like advice

Do I agree to mediation despite not having enough information, as they have refused the half the CPR 3.14 and SAR. Plus without seeing the additional clauses they claim in the Deed of transfer between HSBC and Marlin (no longer trading according to correspondence from Cabot) I cannot put a counterclaim in
Do I not agree with track and point out difficulties with counter-claim and this may be submitted later so should be multi-track (my understanding is -they pay until I put in my counterclaim)
Submit an addendum to the court, highlighting no payments in 2014 at 6 year from original default (stating they received no other payments-ie HSBC kept monies unaccounted)* and no recent payments in case they do this again in 6 years time

**KingUnemployed** · 29th February 2020, 12:08:PM

So in essence they say it was assigned to them in 2014 from HSBC, for the original amount in 2008 clearly the notice was not served as it is to an address I had not lived at for several years (HSBC did have the correct address as I wrote to them the previous year asking for a refund). That I made direct payments to them haphazardly in 2014 from an account that had been closed several years earlier, which is impossible.

I do not have enough information and will complain to ICO as they have sent me over 150 pages of one-sided correspondance sent to me supposedely between 2014 -2019 but they cannot process the SAR without up to date information -which obviously they want to forward to their baliffs given recent attempts at my mothers house.

My only issue with stuff like this, is it gets dragged on and the facts like above, do not matter unlessit is argued in a particular way.

**KingUnemployed** · 5th March 2020, 08:05:AM

was hoping their would be a reply for guidance, submitted N180 plus addendum defence / clarification as previous was handwritten into small space

**Leaf** · 5th March 2020, 13:52:PM

Hi - I suspect the lack of replies in regard to your N180 is because there is concern about you trying to bring about a counterclaim for loss of earnings and distress from 2009. You are right that Cabot are responsible for providing you documentation (even though they have to obtain it from the original creditor in reality) but they would not be held liable for another company’s conduct in 2009 when they only bought the account in 2016. you will be taking a huge risk in complicating this with such a counterclaim.*

**KingUnemployed** · 8th March 2020, 17:48:PM

Originally posted by Leaf View Post

Hi - I suspect the lack of replies in regard to your N180 is because there is concern about you trying to bring about a counterclaim for loss of earnings and distress from 2009. You are right that Cabot are responsible for providing you documentation (even though they have to obtain it from the original creditor in reality) but they would not be held liable for another company’s conduct in 2009 when they only bought the account in 2016. you will be taking a huge risk in complicating this with such a counterclaim.

They quote the*Law of Property Act 1925, so an account they brought in 2014 and paid into themselves,should also be liable both ways as it is not just equity. Regardless, the counter-claim is on the back burner and the court is aware of the reasons I have had difficulty putting in the counter-claim hence they have struck it off.*

Cabot/Marlin/MCS have paid into the account themselves in 2014 hence they say "285 was paid in in random amounts that year from an account that does not belong to me from a bank I am not with. In 2014 all their correspondence was to the wrong address. I wrote to HSBC in 2013 with the right address and have given them a copy of the letter. They know it was not served so will hope on the day in court this will count in my favour

Plus evidence I do not have a Natwest account. I have requested a SAR from them so I will use the refusal as you do not have an account as evidence.

**KingUnemployed** · 19th April 2020, 16:25:PM

Had mediation with them and a company clerk whom pretended to a be solicitor from Mortimer Clarke but was caught out. I offereda 50% reduction or match what they will pay % wise for my counter-claim. The obviously offered to pay them for the actual purchase cost of the overdraft but they refused.

Given that they are saying I made payments in 2014 from an account that I had whilst with HSBC in 2008 but closed shortly afterwards, clearly they made up the payment. That is just plain and simple fraud. It is a shame companies like this get away with it.

I am hopeful they will win the case as I can counter-claim but I am told we both have a good default-barred defence

As the company have a habit of mass purchase and making claims without preparation abusing the court process, then often telephone attending court cases with a clerk. Given the coronavirus pandemic I expect the same but I will make sure the judge is well informed they have a clerk masquarding as a solicitor and report them to the SRS.

**KingUnemployed** · 25th August 2020, 22:46:PM

Update I have a court date for dispute resolution preliminary hearing under Civil Procedure Rule 27.6 set for Monday 5th October and have been recommended to try and resolve outside of court. I need help with N265

At previous mediation, they wanted full amount and eventually offered 5% reduction, I started off with 50% counterclaim and pointed out that the person from mortimer clarke was not a registered solicitor as he claimed but worked at the solicitors. They were not willing to negotiate so I offered to additional pay for the cost of purchase of the HSBC overdraft which is £5 revealed from their CPR documentation then offered to match their terms. I cannot really report a clerk for pretending to be a solicitor but I am thinkingof highlighting this in a witness statement.

In relation to my counter-claim they state they have an amended deed under the Property Act 1926 so it is only to receive money and not shared liability with HSBC - which is actually an argument under that Act that it is not compliant. As you cannot use that Act for equity only i.e. it is not a debt collection act but set up with protections and amended too. This would be a complex defence and it seems given that they clearly acknowledge the potential for a counter-claim and that the deeds is amended (to be non-compliant with the Property Act given that I have no legal background) that I should apply to the court for a copy of this, as they are refusing to provide it under a Subject Access Request. I am not sure how I apply to the court for an order of specific disclosure. Reading the forums the Deeds are not needed and are commercially sensitive but clearly it is amended and thus potentially invalidates any and all claims made by Cabot under this Act.

In relation to the refusal for SAR as they are demanding an up to date passport or identity documents first (as they have none and they need to provide their bailiffs with identity information) I have complained to the ICO as tit is against the principal of minimisation and their enhanced security procedure is against the nature of the DPA Act ad GDPR. There are a number of additional contraventions including storage outside the UK which I have refused and they say it is irrelevant. As they have since submitting a court claim sent me over 400 pages of information I have pointed out the ICO that the sheer amount of information already provided is evidence that identity is not in doubt and it is more related to the altercation with their debt collector in January (after court claim filing). They feel there is a case and are taking it forward :-)

I realise my obvious defence is that their notice in 2014 was not only statute barred at the time but served to the wrong address. They argue in 2020 after making a claim, as they have since provided it to me, this is now served. It is now 2020 and I again state the 2007/2008 defaulted student overdraft (within limits but I did not take out a separate loan with them as requested at the time and HSBC were bitter) is still statute barred 12 years later. There is a claim haphazard payments were made in 2015, I not only deny this but highlight the CPR information shows this to be from another account which happens to have also been defaulted and closed several years earlier, so it is impossible payments were made and additionally these ghost payments fictionally created have not reduced the overdraft for the very fact no such payments were made.

Summary of needs

N265 and creation of defence and/ or witness statement
How do apply to the court for this amended Deed under the Property Act, ie. Apply for an order for specific disclosure
As the only financial contract I signed with HSBC was when it was called Midlands Bank and I was a minor, should I apply for an order for third party disclosure – as that document as I remember shows that the bank agrees not to sell the overdraft to another party unless I am overdrawn beyond an agreed overdraft or I have taken out a loan. The above two are obvious priorities

**KingUnemployed** · 7th September 2020, 20:49:PM

any advice on the next steps? wales01man Amethyst

**KingUnemployed** · 20th September 2020, 14:15:PM

I have written to the court on how to apply for an order of specific disclosure as I cannot find it on the internet. 2 days to go, hoping someone may reply

I have drafted a witness statement and will need to do an N265 with my appendices given the pandemic

I would point out I had signed a financial contract with Midlands Bank as a minor but as an adult I did not and since it changed to HSBC apart from cards, I have not signed any financial agreement for the overdraft.

My strongest points appear to be Incorrect Notice of Assignment as;
A. Not to the correct address
B. Not signed by signature typed in MS font
C. For cabot to say it is now served in 2020 after making a court claim, it is clearly not within prescribed time

HSBC Student Overdraft 2007