CB's on a mission

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

Well docos received from FOS, 1 for PPI and 1 for the banking issues.
So time to fire up the copier and send them a ream of paperwork

See this is what happens when the OC washes their hands of the situation.
They have had THREE years to resolve it, but Nooooooooooo.

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

So opening information with FOS, but the OC have chosen to send me one of their lovely Heavy default/termination notices.

It's great as the amount is completely incorrect, but no matter. Overstated due to charges, which they offered back in an OPEN letter. Doesn't even cover the mis-sold PPI or anything else.
Time to send them a slap for their troubles

I guess I'll either get a shiny N1 from them, with incorrect cause, or they'll sell it on to one of my "friends".
When will these people learn ?!

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

Sorry guys been a bit busy with some other litigation, so not been around much.
Hopefully things will settle down some and I'll try and be around.

Anyway, update.
This is firmly with the FOS, but HFC decided, in their collective wisdom to issue yet another flawed default notced with threats to terminate the agreement.
Well I sent them my own nastygram, which passed rapidly through their complaints system and was ignored.

Lo and behold a nice letter from new friends Robbingscum NoWay, RW&c, threatening all the usual stuff.
Well as this is their opener it has been duly filed until they can be bothered to write again.
At that point it will be Game On and they will learn first hand what I'm like to deal with

[Kat1973]

Re: CB's on a mission

Hi CB,

If you have a moment please could you check out my thread titled "MBNA adding charges after agreeing to DMP" and give me the benefit of your considerable experience?

Thanks,

Kat

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

RW&c DONE.
So that's 45-0 to me

That was TOOOOOO easy, on quick call and they ran off.

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

So, FOS have 2 complaints open for this.
One for the PPI, which is ongoing and the other for the incorrect settlement/charges.

So 26th May had a letter from the FOS saying that they didn't think HFC had done anything wrong and my perceived figures for the incorrect settlement where in actual fact the applied charges on the previous accounts. Also they where finished with this part of the complaint.

Oh no, says I, HFC are trying to pull a fast one here and here's why.
The charges have already been included in the settlements as they were completed back in 2002, years before the OFT poked it's nose into the whole affair. I'm not actually disputing solelly on charges and in fact they are a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of this. So, as I have already demonstrated with HFC own statements of account from my SAR there is still a large hole that they cannot completely explain.

Posted all that this morning, so now it's just a case of more waiting, not that I'm really bothered as I've already spent years on this one issue.

No matter I'm sure HFC will come back with more bovine excrement to confuse the FOS with, admittedly this is an extremely complex part of my complaint and it took me some considerable work to figure it all out.

So better get more popcorn made and pull up a chair

[MIKE770]

Re: CB's on a mission

So, FOS have 2 complaints open for this.
One for the PPI, which is ongoing and the other for the incorrect settlement/charges.

So 26th May had a letter from the FOS saying that they didn't think HFC had done anything wrong and my perceived figures for the incorrect settlement where in actual fact the applied charges on the previous accounts. Also they where finished with this part of the complaint.

Oh no, says I, HFC are trying to pull a fast one here and here's why.
The charges have already been included in the settlements as they were completed back in 2002, years before the OFT poked it's nose into the whole affair. I'm not actually disputing solelly on charges and in fact they are a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of this. So, as I have already demonstrated with HFC own statements of account from my SAR there is still a large hole that they cannot completely explain.

Posted all that this morning, so now it's just a case of more waiting, not that I'm really bothered as I've already spent years on this one issue.

No matter I'm sure HFC will come back with more bovine excrement to confuse the FOS with, admittedly this is an extremely complex part of my complaint and it took me some considerable work to figure it all out.

So better get more popcorn made and pull up a chair

Seems to me FOS accept anything that they get told by companies - share that popcorn it is getting more & more interesting.

[MIKE770]

Re: CB's on a mission

Any further update on this one Curly??? pop corn at ready.

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

Nowt as yet, but I'm in no rush

I know they are snowed under with PPI claims, so I'll let it run.
Might give them a call, but might just sit outside with a cold one... Now that's a hard decision to make.

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

So time for an update of sorts.
FOS are still working out of they can do anything with the applied numerous PPI's on this one, but after the court action I guess this is a moot point now.

As for the rest well, interesting.......

So HFC have basically applied the charges TWICE to each of the previous accounts.
Once during the actual life and as a chuck during the consolidation process.
On one account they applied the chunk twice.

So FOS disagree with my overall assessment, but are recommending that the chunks are "refunded" to level the playing field.
this I have in writing and I will be getting all of the HFC correspondence concerning this matter.

Papertrail and evidence is always a bonus, should they decide to pass this to Restons, which I fully expect.

I'd be quite happy for a judge to have a close look into all of the mismanagement that has been going on here.

So one part closed, one still running and the End Game still to come.

So just over FOUR years since I started this we take another small step forward.

[Crispybacon]

Re: CB's on a mission

Keep plugging away CB! Four years is completely ridiculous but seems to be a standard tactic used to try to wear people down to get them to give up.

I'm sure you're not going to go away any time soon

[Curlyben]

Re: CB's on a mission

Thing is if they had struck early then they would have had a good result for them and a CCJ for me.

As the years have progressed my own knowledge has increased and they are now in for a serious fight should this ever become a legal matter.

The whole thing beggars belief it really does.

[Crispybacon]

Re: CB's on a mission

Thing is if they had struck early then they would have had a good result for them and a CCJ for me.

As the years have progressed my own knowledge has increased and they are now in for a serious fight should this ever become a legal matter.

The whole thing beggars belief it really does.

The fact they didn't though may suggest their position isn't as strong as they like?

May also be something they don't want to set a legal precedent for if they are doing this to other people (more than likely) and the cost of losing would be more than just having to pay you off.

Like you, the more I am learning, the more staggered I am at the conduct of our financial institutions, and the 'products' and 'services' that they come up with, not to mention the little 'technicalities' that they have been getting away with for years.

But, as consumers, if we wish to engage the same 'technicalities' then suddenly we are 'exploiting loopholes'. Well, more power to the consumers arm!

[Luminol]

Re: CB's on a mission

I wonder why they don't just file it themselves and just write it off, 4 years of to'in and fro'in, that must of cost them quite a lot in administration costs.

And surely by now Curly you've reached the heady heights of infamy!

[Garlok]

Re: CB's on a mission

I can vouch for the timeframe. Not with this company I admit but it is standard tactic seemingly right across the board. Ours all started in 2007 and still goes on in stalemate mode.

I have reached the conclusion that they are all afraid of creating accidentally a legal precedent which affect all of their grubby little mates in their "industry" who will metaphorically send round the boys with the baseball bats if they get it wrong.

By the way if you look up "industry" in the dictionary applying it to the financial sector is a contradiction in terms LOL!

regards
Garlok