What are the mistakes, where to go next?

[fishingforthoughts]

What are the mistakes, where to go next?

Ok here goes,

A good friend of mine had a credit card that he asked for at the HSBC bank in the managers office. He was issued with one but never once saw or signed an agreement or application. He used the card over a period of two or three years, he never missed a payment whatsoever and always intended to pay every penny back (lets forget the minimum payment and rising interest,) several years later his amount owed was still very similar to the original debt, but that is no matter as he said he spent the money he would pay it back as per their instructions.

At a certain date, he knew he was going to have trouble making a payment more than three months ahead. He went in to inform the bank, HSBC but they said they could not change the date of his payment, he wanted the date putting forward a few days so that he could continue making the payments. I attended and recorded the conversation.

They insisted they could not change the date, but, 3 months later he recieved a statement that said he had missed his payments and there were late charges plus interest as they had been added to the balance. he did have money in the account but never quite enough to make the minimum payments as his credit card was paid from his current account by direct debit and because of the extra charges he could not quite make the payments.
He and I went into the bank and complained that they were being obstructive because a, they changed the date of payment without notification, and b, their late charges had meant his 'bill' had increased by £20 a month, when he had given them 3 months notice that 1 (ONE) payment may be a bit late.

so............. he made sure all his payments were available but after a few months HSBC refused to deduct £60+ (3 months worth of late charges + interest)

you wouldnt believe the shit we had to put up with that day, but it was all recorded. My friend has for want of better words, learning disabilities. well they pointed that out loudly and publicly blamed him for being stupid!

He was angry and stopped paying.

They sold the debt in that same month to a debt collecting agency.

He did not tell me about this until after he had written to them and agreed to pay them £20 a WEEK.

Now I had been doing some research by this time and had come across accepted for value, and because of my own experience with bank charges, I had mentioned to my friend that ordinary people can charge banks for administration. He put into his letter agreeing to pay £20 a week that he could change his mind at anytime and also that he would charge them £1000 per letter that he would have to write to them, he also said if you agree to my contract please send me a payment card, which they did.

His intention was to pay the ORIGINAL debt and then stop paying £20 a week and reduce it to £1 a week until all the interest and extra charges had been paid off, not a bad idea I thought.

However, almost twelve months after having a letter from HSBC saying his credit card account had ben CLOSED, and sold on, he got a statement that said the HSBC had paid out £99 to the AA, something he had once been a member of but his mother had the original aa acount (aa being car recovery)
when his father died his mother stopped the aa membership cos there was no car driver left in the family and the car was gone. IT seems the aa had found his bank account by using his details and started a direct debit at hsbc without his knowledge.

HSBC paid the £99 to aa on a friday and put it back into the credit card account on the monday. all from a closed account.

He notified me of this and we went into the bank and spoke to the manager, (see another thread that tells you about the security number system the hsbc use) The bank manager had to start ringing around to confirm that the account was closed by hasbc. YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN HIS FACE, when he found the hsbc had closed the account the previous november and no way should any payments have come out.

I have it all on tape, at that point the bank manager says "there is no point backing me into a corner because no-one can go anywhere now"

So my friend starts saying I am not having anything to do with an account that has had fraud commited on it.

we were ushered out of the bank.
He then stopped paying anything to the debt collector, and after 1 letter from them he recieved a letter form a company claiming to be solicitors for hsbc, and they want all the money that he owes and threatened court and bad credit references etc.

That is the situation.

The points to remember are,

1 he always wanted to pay his debt, and resonably did so.
2 HSBC commited fraud on the account after it was closed
3 it got sold to debt collectors and my friend paid £1200 back, the current figure 'owed' is now £1,800 + (interest and charges from debt collector, almost doubling the original debt,) it started at £1500 and ended up being £2880 +

That is the current situation.

Can anyone comment and help please?

[yozhik]

You said right at the outset that he never signed an original contract or application for the card.
Correct?

I'd start there.

If this is correct, there is no founding contract.
No signed agreement.
Do they have a signed credit card application and/or signed consumer credit agreement?

How did they take money from a closed account?
As you stated; its fraud.
I'd investigate that further.

[fishingforthoughts]

You said right at the outset that he never signed an original contract or application for the card.
Correct?

I'd start there.

If this is correct, there is no founding contract.
No signed agreement.
Do they have a signed credit card application and/or signed consumer credit agreement?

How did they take money from a closed account?
As you stated; its fraud.
I'd investigate that further.

Thanks man, (I am presuming your male sorry)
Yep that is one of my conclusions. do you think a simple letter to the solicitors representing hsbc will take any notice of that request.......

Do they have a signed credit card application and/or signed consumer credit agreement?

I think they will just carry on with their legal process, I have not yet found a template to lawfully ask that question yet.... only so many hours in the day.......

thanks

[bsmurph83]

anywhere you are aware of fraudulent activity, study it and pursue it and notify the relevant regulatory bodies in great detail of the situation.

also; below is a template of a notice sent to debt collectors and lawyers jointly, requesting proof of claim (ie, evidence of the contract that created the supposed obligation). explain what creates a valid contractual obligation and ask to see a copy of such documentation. this was done on behalf of the person being chased by their Authorized Agent, so you'll need to remove any such references and adapt it to suit your purposes. this is a 'final notice', because there were others sent previously, so you wouldn't use the term 'final' if it was your first. common sense need be observed when creating these! see below:

The man or woman trading as
SLIMY LAWYERS and
The man or woman trading as
SLIMY DEBT COLLECTORS (SDC)

Both in care of PO BOX XXXX
Melbourne, Victoria, 3001

REFERENCE NUMBER:
XXXXXXXXXXX


FINAL NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE AND REQUEST FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS.

RE: Alleged debt owed to SDC.
Alleged Amount: $5883.94

Notice to agent is notice to principal and
notice to principal is notice to agent



Greetings.

Thank you for your letter and apparent invoice dated 2nd July 2009 claiming the alleged debtor MS STRAW WOMAN owes SDC $5883.94.

I, John-Doe, Authorized Agent for Straw-Woman, hereinafter, ‘Principal’, intend not to dishonour any lawful presentment.

Principal on behalf of the alleged debtor (MS STRAW WOMAN) wishes to meet all lawful obligations to SDC and/or Slimy Lawyers Lawyers, upon proof of claim, as clearly outlined in previous correspondence sent by registered mail.

I have included a copy of Principal’s Letter of Authority wherein I was designated as Authorized Agent for Principal, which was sent to Slimy Lawyers on the 4th day of February, 2009. I have also included, for your benefit, copies of the registered mail Customer Receipt (xxxxxxxxxxxxx) of the posting of this document, as well as other Receipts relating to previous correspondence requesting proof of claim. Principal and I sincerely apologise for any confusion caused by the inadvertent omission on the part of Principal to note in her Letter of Authority an address at which I, as her authorized Agent could receive correspondence. I currently receive LAWFUL correspondence in care of 2/58 Dorset Road, near Croydon [3136]. Please note Principal’s amended Letter of Authority confirming this (attached).

Please furnish Principal within seventy-two hours of the date of this Notice, the following, and show:

1. The document that evidences a legal/lawful bi-lateral contract between
(A) Slimy Lawyers, or
(B) SDC, and
the alleged debtor or Principal and precisely how said contract was breached.

For your enlightenment the said contract, if one exists, must contain the following elements:
a. Full disclosure;
b. Equal consideration;
c. Lawful terms and conditions;
d. Signatures of both parties.

2. A full accounting of the alleged debt presented on a true bill showing the wet ink signature of the alleged creditor, bearing their own unlimited and unrestricted liability or any form of commercial liability attesting to having first hand personal knowledge or the claim being true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading.

3. If Slimy Lawyers, or SDC fails to produce timely their verification of claim, by way of the document that evidences the contract between them and alleged debtor or Principal, that their claim would not be a fraudulent security and that attempt to request/demand payment from alleged debtor or Principal would not be lawfully deemed solicitation, as per the maxims of law:

“What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.”
“The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him”.

4. If Slimy Lawyers, or SDC fails to produce timely their verification of claim, by production of the above mentioned documentation, either in their original form or certified true copies, and backed by an Affidavit in Support of Claim under penalty of perjury, within seventy two hours of the date of receiving of this notice, it shall be taken that no such documentation exists to substantiate and validate the claim, and that both Slimy Lawyers and SDC admit they are merely third party interlopers with no real interest in this matter and shall agree to immediately cease and desist from meddling in Principal’s affairs.

5. A copy of the “T” account that created the alleged debt and supposed obligation

Principal is not a corporation or a government created fiction and I, nor Principal, give you permission to make a legal determination about Principal or Principal's legal fiction, MS STRAW WOMAN. You have repeatedly failed to provide evidence of a contract between either Principal or MS STRAW WOMAN and SDC and/or Slimy Lawyers, despite having been given ample opportunity to provide such verification, and you have failed to sign your offer of contract under penalty of perjury. Said failure constitutes your agreement that you are a third party interloper, you have no legal standing, no firsthand knowledge of the matter and that your claim is fraudulent. You are further barred from filing any notice of lien and/or levy and are also barred from reporting any derogatory credit information to any credit reporting agency. Failure to provide proof of claim as previously outlined will result in Estoppel. Further unsubstantiated claims will constitute harassment for which SDC and/or Slimy Lawyers agree to pay Principal the sum of $1000 for each and every attempted contact and will be reported to ASIC and the relevant ombudsman and pursued.

I thank you in anticipation of your attention to this matter.

(beolow goes right side of page - side of Creditor)

For and on behalf of Straw-Woman
By,





John-Doe, Authorized Agent for Principal


Reserving all inalienable God Given Rights, Powers and Privileges. Waiving none ever. Only in my correct capacity as beneficiary to the original jurisdiction. Permission must be sought in all matters of privity, where mutuality of interest occurs.

[yozhik]

I see this in simple terms.

1. show me the signed document/agreement that establishes my consent, a meeting of minds and a binding bilateral contract, that contains full disclosure of the facts.

2. disclose the full, audited bookkeeping entries to establish the consideration from the HSBC towards said contract and a verifiable "loss", upon which your claims are based.

Now, if a contract does not exist and there is no consideration, then any and all attempts to extort money from your friend, via threats and demands of payment, are fraudulent.

In my opinion ...

[bsmurph83]

yeh exactly, that's pretty much all contained in the notice i posted, except the request to see the verifiable loss sustained by the claimant, which probably doesn't really matter anyway, because that would be covered by due consideration, etc...

i have about a million of these types of templates so if anyone finds them useful and wants some more posted i can... just have to remove the personal details...

as you well know, yozhik, the whole debt collection system is based on legal fraud. they need us to not know the basic laws of commerce to pull their little scam. asking to see the contract that created the obligation really throws a spanner in the works eh?

[yozhik]

as you well know, yozhik, the whole debt collection system is based on legal fraud. they need us to not know the basic laws of commerce to pull their little scam. asking to see the contract that created the obligation really throws a spanner in the works eh?

That's always step #1
... and such a simple request.

I like to keep things very simple at first.
Reason being, if you send them a heavy handed pseudo-legal hand grenade right out of the gate, they're likely to get their legal backs up and their pack of wolves baited and blood thirsty.

Lulling them into a false sense of security for the first salvo, which will hopefully also bring with it a careless, casual erroneous admission or awkward and damaging use of words, would be my preferred modus oprandi :)

[yozhik]

as you well know, yozhik, the whole debt collection system is based on legal fraud. they need us to not know the basic laws of commerce to pull their little scam. asking to see the contract that created the obligation really throws a spanner in the works eh?

That's always step #1
... and such a simple request.

I like to keep things very simple at first.
Reason being, if you send them a heavy handed pseudo-legal hand grenade right out of the gate, they're likely to get their legal backs up and their pack of wolves baited and blood thirsty.

Lulling them into a false sense of security for the first salvo, which will hopefully also bring with it a careless, casual erroneous admission or awkward and damaging use of words, would be my preferred modus oprandi is some situations ... depending on my mood :)

[bsmurph83]

That's always step #1
... and such a simple request.

I like to keep things very simple at first.
Reason being, if you send them a heavy handed pseudo-legal hand grenade right out of the gate, they're likely to get their legal backs up and their pack of wolves baited and blood thirsty.

Lulling them into a false sense of security for the first salvo, which will hopefully also bring with it a careless, casual erroneous admission or awkward and damaging use of words, would be my preferred modus oprandi is some situations ... depending on my mood :)

hmmm... well in my limited experience and based on the observations of others, we're not going to get any casual erroneous admissions or awkward and damaging uses of words when dealing with debt collectors or their legal team (except in rare cases... you got any examples?). i mean, you know as well as i do how precise and deliberate lawyers are with their terminology. the debt collectors are silly monkeys but their gig is pretty much up when you ask to see the binding contract. that's when they hand over to the lawyers...

do you find the content of that notice to be a bit... vexatious? my first notices aren't like that, but that was far from the first i'd sent these clowns. in fact, if i could edit it and send again, i would specify that i wanted a reply in the form of proof of claim within 72 hours of the RECEIPT of the Notice, but i accidentally left it as "72 hours from the date of this notice" would could be construed as vexatious i suppose. hell, we could give 'em 720 hours, we're still not gonna see any evidence of a legal obligation owed to them!

i'm curious as to what you mean by this casual and erroneous admission in tthe context of this thread! my attitude is basically; they know damn well we have no obligation to give them any money. they know there's no contract. we ask to see the contract and state we are happy to pay any lawful obligation as evidenced by said contract, otherwise there is no debt owed and the matter is settled and they agree to such. as you say, keeping things simple. i think this notice is pretty simple, yeh?

i'm not a legal expert, so the last thing i wanna do is make things more complicated than they need to be. i stick with what i know of the laws of commerce. no contract - no obligation! interested for you to elaborate on previous comments if ya feel that way inclined...:)

[yozhik]

Sorry ... what I meant was that if you don't go hard out balls to the wall from the get go, then their initial responses tend to be your typical garden variety, shaker maker, reply ... which usually has standard fodder legalese "threats" and will form a generic base or premise from which they are arguing.

Often, these are relatively weak ... or at least weaker than something more specific and legally charged, which would more than likely be the response should you give them an all salvos fired approach, from round 1.

What I'm suggesting is, as an alternative tactic, (if appropriate), passive resistance might ... MIGHT ... put them in an embarrassing situation of premature ejaculation in terms of their legal premise, which then leaves them with a substandard money shot in the latter stages of the lovefest.


Quae malasunt inchoata in principio vex bono peragantur exitu.
Things bad in the commencement seldom end well. 4 Co. 2

Debile fundamentum, fallit opus.
Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2068.

[bsmurph83]

Sorry ... what I meant was that if you don't go hard out balls to the wall from the get go, then their initial responses tend to be your typical garden variety, shaker maker, reply ... which usually has standard fodder legalese "threats" and will form a generic base or premise from which they are arguing.

Often, these are relatively weak ... or at least weaker than something more specific and legally charged, which would more than likely be the response should you give them an all salvos fired approach, from round 1.

What I'm suggesting is, as an alternative tactic, (if appropriate), passive resistance might ... MIGHT ... put them in an embarrassing situation of premature ejaculation in terms of their legal premise, which then leaves them with a substandard money shot in the latter stages of the lovefest.


Quae malasunt inchoata in principio vex bono peragantur exitu.
Things bad in the commencement seldom end well. 4 Co. 2

Debile fundamentum, fallit opus.
Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2068.


lol such graphic and colourful verbiage! classic. you're always good for a maxim or two huh, yoz... sweet as. yeh, i thought you meant something else entirely than what you have now clarified. i think you're right in your idea of how to approach these things (it's the essence of my approach as learned from sources more knowledgeable than i). standard letters will yield standard excuses and rationalisms. Notices can't simply be ignored and they seem to compel more action as they are legal documents, so it cuts to the chase and gets the ball rolling. forces their hand earlier and exposes the fraud quicker, whilst putting it on record.

[yozhik]

Sometimes I think it more beneficial to ask questions first, to comprehend the position of your opposition.

If we go in with statements, those statements may be based in a premise that is irrelevant to the opposing argument.

Simply a case of "know your enemy".

Asking questions is not stating a position, so it also follows that if your initial contact is in the form of questioning, you are neither revealing your standing and thus your weaknesses or tactics, nor are you commencing with a controversy or an ill-founded and off target challenge.

Once their position has been stated, then OK ... its a declared war of words and the games can commence. :)

Horses for courses ... sometimes its better to be the pace maker, sometimes its better to sit in a trailing position and kick home nearer the finish line.


EDIT
Guilty as charged ... I am, alas, addicted to Maxims of Law.

[pdcdp]

i generally try to employ the theory that if/when the matter in hand gets to court, i want my paperwork to demonstrate a steady, thorough, honourable administrative process, which, when compared with opposing evidence, will leave little doubt about who is in the wrong.

simple is definitely best, but it really helps to be able to lull your opponent into a predictable action to which you have already crafted an impressive rebuttal or counterclaim.... ;)

don rely on templates, do the knowledge! ;)

[fishingforthoughts]

i generally try to employ the theory that if/when the matter in hand gets to court, i want my paperwork to demonstrate a steady, thorough, honourable administrative process, which, when compared with opposing evidence, will leave little doubt about who is in the wrong.

simple is definitely best, but it really helps to be able to lull your opponent into a predictable action to which you have already crafted an impressive rebuttal or counterclaim.... ;)

don rely on templates, do the knowledge! ;)

Yup,

I like that.
cheers