Knight_Templar v HSBC

[Knight_Templar]

Starting a new thread specifically for my claim that I got through court as far as getting a judgement. Bank then requested judgement be set aside pending the outcome of the test case. I filed online and so the PoC is copied from my initial letter: -

Due to recent media coverage on bank charges I now believe that you, HSBC have been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.
Furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, I request without further notice a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges
levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e).

The letter from the court regarding judgement set aside reads thus: -

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Judgement set aside
2. Matter stayed until 28 days after judgement is given at the first instance in the Office of Fair Trading v Various Banks claim.

I have indicated on another forum that I currently reside in the US and therefore have to factor in extended delivery of any documentation. My questions really are: -

Are the PoC still relevant / valid?
Is it incumbent on me or HSBC to respond within the 28 days?
If the 28 days elapse will I have an option to act or does that need to be within the 28 days?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

[Knight_Templar]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Further to the above, the following letter was also sent in response to a court order after filing the claim. Specifically worded: -
3. The Claimant shall by 5 September 2007 file and serve on the Defendant a schedule setting out each charge of which the Claimant claims repayment, together with an explanation of the basis on which the Claimant claims that each charge is unlawful or any other basis on which the Claimant claims repayment.

My response: -

With regard to the above claim reference which was issued on 10th May 2007 and deemed to be served on the defendant on 15th May 2007 I have enclosed a schedule of all charges applied to account number xxxxxx xxxxxxxx within the last 6 years.

I believe that these are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.

I have previously (letter dated 18th April 2007) requested a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges
levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e). I have not received any such breakdown.

[Amethyst]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Hi Knight, Apologies for not visiting your thread sooner.

We have prepared a replacement Particulars of claim which is very basic and covers the main points which you will need to amend your claim to argue. The particulars of claim you have used relys on the penalty argument which has been ruled against, and the adequacy of price (now that the terms have been deemed core terms by the Supreme Court) so yes it does need amending. You can ask to amend the particulars on form N244 and in the new particulars, and on the N244 you will ask for a further stay.

Have a read of a basic idea for the new POCs here - Allocation Questionnaire - Legal Beagles but be aware these are just basic, have not been checked by any solicitor, and have been drafted by ourselves and we are awaiting the final POCs from Ray Cox QC, so I would wait as long as you are able before contacting the court and use these as a temporary measure (which of course could cost more if you have to re-amend in a couple weeks time)

If neither party contacts the court within the 28 days then the court COULD dismiss the claim.

[Knight_Templar]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Thanks Ame, I will alter the POCs to suit my claim and submit within the next week or so. I appreciate your response, don't worry that it wasn't sooner, I'm quite used to waiting for bank charges

Not as confident anymore and not sure I can afford to pay for the N244 change so may have to let it go but I am in an enviable position of living abroad and still owing the bank more than they owe me (existing loan). He who laughs last...

I will soldier on as best as I can, you all deserve the utmost thanks for your continued efforts.

Neil.

[Amethyst]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

You are basically asking for the stay to continue really, if you can wait a bit longer then please do, we should have more clarity over the next few days.

[Knight_Templar]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Does the request to continue the stay need to be on N244?

[Amethyst]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

A letter should be fine, if you can give the court a ring today and ask them the status of your claim. Most courts are keeping the stays going while the situation is sorted out but check with them.

[Knight_Templar]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Thanks. Got your draft letter from the other forum so am sending that post haste! Keeps me as a placeholder

[Knight_Templar]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Letter sent, Nothing from court, letter from HSBC stating claim will be closed after 8 weeks! Duh, it's in court, they can close the case with them but not with the court surely?

[Musashi10]

Re: Knight_Templar v HSBC

Good luck with the claim.

Was just wondering if the aforementioned POCS have been updated yet by the QC?