phoenix O/H v HSBC

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

Your not kidding enaid

Ame, this whole case hinges around the Point of Sale, as like all these types of claims and backed up by the OFT, etc....
The only way they can defend this claim is by providing a copy of the POS telephone recording (or I'd like to think) to show they acted within the guidelines set. They informed me they have not got this recording or transcripts. They knew full well this hearing was set for the 15th Oct.
IMHO, the judgment should not be set-aside as they has no grounds but as enaid said ......become the norm now that they get away with everything except murder.

:rolleyes: :beagle:rules

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

spoke to the court and it looks like the hearing is scheduled for the 12th Nov 2007.

I don't know if anyone has been as sad as me and read most of the reports from the OFT, FSA, Competitions commission etc regarding the miss-selling of PPI. In one of the reports it states statistical figures relating to the cancellation of PPI policies.
It shows that only a very small percentage of consumers actually cancel their policy, if not required, within the thirty day cooling off period.
I cant find which report it was from and if any one knows which report it's from, could you please leave me a link.

fancuuuu very muchly

[iancognito]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

Item 1.6 in this

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/pro...cket_final.pdf

Not sure that's the one tho, coz I have also read the one you're thinking about but if i remember rightly, the figures are the same

[iancognito]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

Could be this....

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/pro...al_sept_05.pdf

Which is just a summary of the other one

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

ahhhhh some good info there IC :carrot:

Just found the bit I read but couldn't find :rolleyes:

The OFT's reasons for making a market investigation
reference to the Competition Commission
Feb 2007

5.35
It could be said that in the absence of pressures from competitors, the
careful weighing up of value for money by consumers before buying, or
the risk of consumers cancelling the PPI, could exert some pressure on
prices. However, where PPI is purchased at POS it is doubtful that any
careful weighing up takes place (or indeed could take place given the
limited information available). Nor do most consumers appear to change
their minds after the event. Our survey shows that most consumers
were content with their PPI purchase even if their understanding of it
was poor. Few consumers cancel (14 per cent). Consumers may have
been deterred by less than proportionate refunds of premium on single
premium policies. Just over one quarter (27 per cent) did not know
whether they could cancel and just under one in ten (nine per cent) did
not think that they could cancel the policy. The main reason given for canceling a policy was because it was too expensive (43 per cent) or
because the holder's situation had changed (39 per cent).

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

set aside hearing is set for the 12th Nov allocated 15 minutes.

Any tips?????????????

:fireworks::guyfawkes:

[Amethyst]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

You got a copy of their set aside application ?

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

I do, yes.
I'll post it up in the morning.

:fireworks:

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

couldn't wait......:rolleyes:

I've attached the set aside hearing notice as well

[Amethyst]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

exciting eh

[Amethyst]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

can think of better things but I guess I'll have a read

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

Judgment Order

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

When I originally issued this claim, wayyyy back, I used bits from various POC on CAG. I'm begining to think this was a mistake

Like s.75 of the CCA 1974

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier
(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be
indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—
(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.
(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.


Being a bit new to this back then, the above relates to the supplier (being the insurance company) and not the creditor ( being HSBC).
I just hope hope the DJ has a sense of humor. :roll:

Although this claim does not base itself on the above, it was included in the POC. This claim is not based on any statute, but I have put to proof of the defendants, to present the Point Of Sale recording or transcript.
They have failed to do so.

[Amethyst]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

ouch.

Will talk to u on msn later. I have your POC dont I ?

[thephoenix]

Re: phoenix O/H v HSBC

You do now. :roll: