HSBC & D.G

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Stumbled upon this thread, think I am in the same position regarding a CCJ issued by DG solicitors, and finding it hard to get any information or documentation from HSBC...

did you apply for copy of an actual CCA1974, if so did they supply or state not found, when did you take the account out? Did you SAR them as well, & did they comply?

[Qpips]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Subbing

[sillysausage]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Not too sure at the time I was in a right financial/personal mess and did not go to court to defend the CCJ, they put a charge on my property and I have been paying DG £25 per month since then (around 2009 I think). I will have a look for the paperwork on my return home from work.

I stumbled across this thread as I have had a statement of account provided by HSBC. They had said a recent PPI refund award for over £1000 would be credited against the account but it is not showing. on the statement.

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Doing well DG (HSBC) Incorrect N1 signed DG not human, stating CCJ obtained when it had not, failure to supply SAR on time (ICO chased them = lost set aside as, after case State No CCA 1974 found in SAR Bundle which arrived after the case, sent my court papers to wrong claimant court hence I received another person (albeit not personally) but repayment cost.

Now we find they signed N1 not a human person or signature therefore proceeded to court under pretext, I complained last year to SRA etc about DG so called Solicitors whom I heard no more from just acknowledgemnt of papers/complaint with all the details, since early this year change of solicitors form ( How can it be change of Solicitors when DG was non descript)/?

looking to get help on here for a Formal Complaint to HSBC and regulators? regarding their past proceedure and events since and before?

also inviting them to contact the court service and set side the case as non competant! also recompence for false information and stating solicitors DG etc any thoughts???

Thinking if I should E-Mail DG and start the formal complaint going as they obtained a CCJ by deception etc?? incl non existent DG on N1 form against CPR Rules & Protocol!

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

open forum within this subject would be appreciated, i.e. any input!

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Just for info:-



Your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc
Thank you for writing to the Legal Ombudsman on 10 October 2013 and outlining your
complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. I am writing to explain why we are
unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet
describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.
You told me that you have a complaint against DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. This is
because you say they issued a claim against you without evidence of a consumer
credit agreement and misled the court.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by
individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the
people who were the lawyer’s customer at the time – that is, people who were
themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned. Page

Your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc
Thank you for writing to the Legal Ombudsman on 10 October 2013 and outlining your
complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. I am writing to explain why we are
unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet
describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.
You told me that you have a complaint against DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. This is
because you say they issued a claim against you without evidence of a consumer
credit agreement and misled the court.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by
individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the
people who were the lawyer’s customer at the time – that is, people who were
themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned.

In your case, you were not receiving the service you are complaining about from the
lawyer concerned. The legal service which you are complaining about was provided to
someone else. Unfortunately, this means we are not able to help you on this occasion.
Please get back in touch with us if you think we have got the facts as shown in this
letter wrong or are aware of other matters that significantly alter the circumstances surrounding your complaint.

Thanks for contacting us.

This is a response received 2013

after trying again this year, a brick wall with all Regulators

[gallahad]

Re: HSBC & D.G

The same pairing did exactly the same to me I get the feeling that they make a habit of it knowing that the majority of folk do not have the help of the great team on LB so the more mud they sling the more sticks in their favour.
G

Just for info:-



Your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc
Thank you for writing to the Legal Ombudsman on 10 October 2013 and outlining your
complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. I am writing to explain why we are
unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet
describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.
You told me that you have a complaint against DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. This is
because you say they issued a claim against you without evidence of a consumer
credit agreement and misled the court.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by
individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the
people who were the lawyer’s customer at the time – that is, people who were
themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned. Page

Your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc
Thank you for writing to the Legal Ombudsman on 10 October 2013 and outlining your
complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. I am writing to explain why we are
unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet
describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.
You told me that you have a complaint against DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. This is
because you say they issued a claim against you without evidence of a consumer
credit agreement and misled the court.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by
individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the
people who were the lawyer’s customer at the time – that is, people who were
themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned.

In your case, you were not receiving the service you are complaining about from the
lawyer concerned. The legal service which you are complaining about was provided to
someone else. Unfortunately, this means we are not able to help you on this occasion.
Please get back in touch with us if you think we have got the facts as shown in this
letter wrong or are aware of other matters that significantly alter the circumstances surrounding your complaint.

Thanks for contacting us.

This is a response received 2013

after trying again this year, a brick wall with all Regulators

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Propsed e-mail to send to solicitors regarding old DG since no regulator cares as the solicitors were not acting for me but claimant, no solicitors was used by me;- seems you can only complain about your own use solicitors says all the societies./regulators any imput from the forum would be appreciated>-


Reference:- xxxxxxxxx

Account Referenced:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx






It is my intention to apply a further set aside and I request if you will consent to the judgment being set aside , in view it was obtained without due order & against Government Legislation! also * delays in submissions by HSBC bank to evidence that No CCA1974 Quote* :- "Not being held", also due to delays in supplying said information Via a "SAR" request,due delay beyond Regulatory time scales and bundles arriving after the 40 days response rule and intervention of ICO, also due disregard to set aside date.


Evidence within 2nd bundle of late SAR request shows an admittance " that no CCA1974 found . " i.e.:- A "Statutory Instrument".


The consequence of the failure to comply with the statutory requirements is clearly spelt out in the statute. The contract cannot be legally enforced by the creditor against the debtor: sections s61(1) also s65 and s127(3).

Also the Bank topping up original alledged amount by £1,000s to exceed original alledged amount i.e. bumping up figures to start proceedings.



The High Court, in its recent judgment in Brett v The Solicitors Regulatory Authority,(1) has upheld the findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in relation to a solicitor's breach of the duty not to mislead the court and to act with integrity. The lord chief justice warned that solicitors found to have misled the court could receive "exemplary and deterrent" punishment.


The said set as side case:- " NO CCA" evidence was side stepped although it was mentioned in the original set a side request at the time, y CPR r.14.1A. was also ignored "The right to withdraw admittance".

Failing to adhere to Government legislation:- i.e, An act of Parliament regarding section s127 rules:-

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3):-

The Claimant:-

• failed to disclose information to another person
• when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
• dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Claimant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Quote:- I can further confirm that the firm DG Solicitors is not regulated by the SRA, and we have classified them as a commerce and industry organisation,” she added.


Contempt of parliament =

1. CONC 13.1 Application:-
2. (8) However, where a firm is aware that an agreement is unenforceable because of non-compliance with an information request under section 77, 78 or 79 of the CCA, afirm should make it clear when communicating to a customer about a debt that the debt is in fact unenforceable. Failure to do so, in that case, would in the FCA's view unfairly mislead the customer by omission. Any communication that implies expressly or otherwise that a debt is enforceable when it is known that it is not, would be misleading. One way to avoid this would be for the firm to explain to the customer the full meaning of 'unenforceable'.
   
   

S.127 read:- Quote:-

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1) (a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner)

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

bump

[Kati]

Re: HSBC & D.G

[MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION] [MENTION=85502]HannahM[/MENTION] [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION]??

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Well they can only say yes or no by HSBC , but would be nice to get any further points from off the llps on here etc to include etc?

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Last call????

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

hope to e-mail to HSBC at the end of the day:- any further comment etc would be oblidged

[Amethyst]

Re: HSBC & D.G

Is the case actually still live in the court system then?

[MIKE770]

Re: HSBC & D.G

after all the regulators saying they cannot look into the case as the claimants solicitor was not a solicitor for which I used (none) they cannot look to procedural irregularities, unless I had employed the solictor in question!

6 years CCJ recorded on CRAs is now running out in September but am still paying the over inflated account. and as legislation states what has happened and failure to supply info held until after last set aside which evidenced they in law could not get a CCJ -