When to accept and when not to accept the BAIT / compensation cheque

I've read a few responses here that the compensation cheques currently being paid out by HSBC are being made to entrap the debtors and reset the statute barred clock but I'd have to question this after my own experience.

When I joined this forum I was heavily in debt after being shafted by the HSBC. I quit a very well paid job when I discovered the company I was working for at the time were ripping off customers I was procuring for them. As I walked.out of the job on the spot and didn't have another job to go to this left me financially vulnerable. My credit history at that time was very good and I'd had a couple of loans from the bank which I had fully paid back so I used my bank credit card to live on until I found work.

When my card got maxed out for 5K I applied to my bank for a further loan but this was refused due go me using a couple of pay day loan companies which badly affected my credit score.

As a result of this I defaulted on my car payment so the car was repossessed and I was sat on nearly £20k of debt.

I was just about to start using the 3 letter process from here when I found a swifter solution for my problems by applying for a DRO.  I met the criteria, it only cost me £90 and I had just under £20k 's worth of debt wrote off. The moratorium period for my DRO ended last August so it is now not possible for the HSBC bank to chase me for the combined £8500 debt I owed them because they were named in the DRO.

Just a few weeks ago I received a cheque from them for £25 for poor service on "reviewing my account", the week after I received another cheque for £50 for the same reason....which was nice.

So I get home this morning to find another letter from HSBC. This was a cheque for £756 for unfair interest charges. So now they've sent me £850 and have absolutely no way of getting a bean from me as my debts to them are legally written off.

So in regards to entrapping people I'm not so sure unless my circumstances were exceptional in any way. I just thought I'd add this for information purposes.

assassin wrote:Spot on Mr Blue it is to stop the clock ticking and to show the account is being used, once you bank any cheque in relation to this matter it is classed as a transaction and an acknowledgement of the debt as the bank merely state it was issued in relation to this debt.

One thing you have forgotten, has the OP moved bank accounts? weigh up the options carefully here, they may have moved banks, set up an account in anothers name, oir simply use a spouses account instead; in either case they issue a "marked" cheque which passes through the system. OP pays it into whichever account, that account sends it for cashing and they reverse engineer it, cashing account sees which account submitted it and knows the OP's new account and its details, or, they know which other account he is now using which isn't in his name.

Basically they are creating a paper trail which they can follow backwards.  

Hi Awoken2. Check out the above post. This is why you should NEVER accept a cheque from scum like HSBC - or any bank - IF you intend to NOT pay back a single penny in relation to an ALLEGED debt that has YET to be evidenced (as per the docs requested via our GOODF template letters).

It's as simple as that...

I'm unsure what you're getting at. Could you tell me how by banking their cheques is somehow leaving myself open to paying them back any money?

As stated the debt was officially written off back in August via a DRO so how can they pursue me for it? They were named on the DRO so my debt to them no longer exists.

I've explained and so has Assassin. That should be enough

but you agreed the alleged debt when you bought the DRO awoken.
Dont you see how this differs with the 3 letters process? And why it could very well be a trap in some circumstances where the alleged debt is not acknowledged???

Lopsum wrote:but you agreed the alleged debt when you bought the DRO awoken.
Dont you see how this differs with the 3 letters process? And why it could very well be a trap in some circumstances where the alleged debt is not acknowledged???

Yes correct I agreed to the alleged debt and bought the DRO for £90 as I had calculated that by taking on 11 different creditors with the three letters process would probably cost me more in postage and certainly a hell of a lot more time than simply filling out one form and paying £90.

It was a common sense decision, pay the £90 get the DRO and after a year all my debts are gone, wiped.

I didn't post here to decry the three letter process in any way but for my personal circumstances the DRO was the correct way of dealing with things. The advice your mods are giving saying don't bank any compensation cheques is not correct in all circumstances. I'd sooner listen to somebody like Martin Lewis on this kind of matter.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/money/martin-lewis-confirms-bank-refunds-23335964

As I stated clearly, the £800 I've had from HSBC isn't going to get them a penny from me but if I took the advice here I'd be throwing those cheques in the bin.

Who can afford to throw money away like that in todays climate?

good then you wont mind me splitting the thread from the point of your complaint. And im sure its not intentional of you at all awoken, but your advice could land people who have almost reached the end of their battles back in the shit, couldnt it?

Lopsum wrote:good then you wont mind me splitting the thread from the point of your complaint. And im sure its not intentional of you at all awoken, but your advice could land people who have almost reached the end of their battles back in the shit, couldnt it?  

Not if they have the ability to think for themselves and make an informed decision about what's best for them.

I think I'll return to my other forum, it's a little less hostile than this place

no hostility awoken,some playing victim maybe.

Lopsum is spot on in his two posts above.

No one is being hostile. You (Awoken2) either do or don’t see where we’re coming from (arguably that’s understandable as not everyone sees things in the same way / communication can be hard at the best of times).

But nonetheless, hopefully the penny (no pun intended) will drop for you eventually when you see the bigger picture ie that cashing cheques in relation to loan or credit cards long after a default noticed has been served means you acknowledge that the account is yours and therefore the debt.

If you agree to a request relief from a debt (a DRO) then you have have of course acknowledged a debt to the point you wish to be relieved of it. If there was no debt, why would you need to be relieved of it?

All very subtle trickery. But nonetheless it’s trickery and tricking you into acknowledging a debt.

I think we’ve exhausted the subject now haha

I find the fact new thread title was created as an accusation that I was complaining about the general advice given here a little bit petty to be honest.

If you are genuinely trying to help people who get these cheques then why would you change the topic title making it irrelevant to the original?

I wasn't "making a complaint" at all, I was simply making a statement questioning why the three letter system should
not  be used as a blanket approach to deal with all debt.  

The way I dealt with my debts (alleged or not is quite irrelevant as far as disposal is concerned) worked out cheaper and less time consuming fir me than using the 3 letter process. If that fact is too difficult for you guys to grasp that ain't my problem.

If your debts are statute barred or written off by bankruptcy or DRO then any cheque paid as compensation does NOT make those debts come back alive. If this is not the case then prove me wrong.

no need to "prove you wrong" awoken, common sense prevails.
I split the thread to prevent you derailing it by accident.
Sorry for the title, i didnt think too long about it . Feel free to make of it what you like. It seemed to be what you were doing to me . accidentally unintended or what ever.

I do take your point awoken, However i would be very suspicious receiving
cheques from HSBC for a matter which should be closed, Also there is the
time when in applying for the DRO you are addmitting the debt.
I hope it has all worked out for you.But the point being made in the original
post was pointing out HSBC were sending cheques for disputed accounts
that were not settled in any way.

As an idea, what would you (Awoken2) suggest we call this thread?

daveiron wrote:I do take your point awoken, However i would be very suspicious receiving
cheques from HSBC for a matter which should be closed, Also there is the
time when in applying for the DRO you are addmitting the debt.
I hope it has all worked out for you.But the point being made in the original
post was pointing out HSBC were sending cheques for disputed accounts
that were not settled in any way.

The thing is Dave if they are sending out compensation cheques to old customers they ripped off I would guess this is a damage limitation exercise which preceeds a new raft of compensation claims by these claims companies as a result of their own malpractice. This could be the reason why some banks end up going to the wall as part of the great reset agenda.

We've just had the PPI payback thing finished so now a new misdemeanor arises where they were unlawfully adding interest and charges when they shouldn't. Once these claims companies get in on the act it could spell curtains for many banks....don't you think?

Mrblue if you read the first and last paragraph of my.OP you will see I was not making a complaint as this thread title suggests.

If I would have taken the advice of throwing over £800 in the bin over debts which are now officially written off I would now be £800 lighter. This isn't good financial advice in my opinion.

Maybe re-name the thread HSBC refunds, when to collect and when not to collect? As this was the only reason I posted in the first place.

Awoken so hows this? ...
Dont accept if you dont acknowledge the debt !
Do accept if you do acknowledge the debt !
this is also kinda what were saying all along.that by accepting the cheque you accept the debt!!

I accepted the cheques for debts that no longer exist. It's that simple from my point of view.

Your bone of contention here is the fact that I acknowledged the debt at all and dealt with it in a different way.

Whether you use the 3 letters or the DRO the end result is you no longer owe the money. Isn't that the main point?

No im not contending you. This is your complaint thread! .
Your contention is that we are preventing members from benefiting from the compensatory cheque. (iam keeping a straight face and taking you seriously)
but now it seems you have forgotten and are trying to imply that I/we are contending your sound advice in somebody else's success story thread.!!??? This is both very bold and imaginative work Awoken!
by accident derailing it, and causing conflict where there is no good reason for it. whoops sorry im sure you are!!
you do realise we probably cant get past this obvious coming out as a shill statement of yours.