HSBC small business tariff problem.

Vizard

Sparx wrote: »

I would cut your losses, they've done you a good-will favour. I don't think the FOS would be interested.

For the sake of a few letters and a bit of effort I don't think I will cut my losses, no.


I suspect I can prove on the balance of probabilities that the bank should have advised me.


If anyone has any constructive argument to assist me I'd be grateful, but "don't bother, you won't be successful" has already been, in part, proved incorrect.

Nasqueron

Vizard wrote: »

For the sake of a few letters and a bit of effort I don't think I will cut my losses, no.


I suspect I can prove on the balance of probabilities that the bank should have advised me.


If anyone has any constructive argument to assist me I'd be grateful, but "don't bother, you won't be successful" has already been, in part, proved incorrect.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. A lender pays a fee of up to £950 for an FOS referral, paying you £750 is well within the "hope they go away" range of payouts with the intention you accept and move on.

You would need to prove that the business manager's job was to advise you of something (balance of probabilities is about civil court claims, not FOS) and that they failed. Do you have details of the business manager's daily tasks, their list of tasks etc?

[Deleted User]

Vizard wrote: »

If anyone has any constructive argument to assist me I'd be grateful, but "don't bother, you won't be successful" has already been, in part, proved incorrect.

Has it been incorrect though? Earlier, you estimated you were out-of-pocket £10,000. The Bank have offered you £750 simply to avoid paying the FOS fee, not because they accept any actual liability.

You can certainly refer the complaint to FOS, and it will be interesting to hear what they say, but do realise that you risk coming away with nothing at all...

Vizard

Nasqueron wrote: »

Don't confuse correlation with causation. A lender pays a fee of up to £950 for an FOS referral, paying you £750 is well within the "hope they go away" range of payouts with the intention you accept and move on.

You would need to prove that the business manager's job was to advise you of something (balance of probabilities is about civil court claims, not FOS) and that they failed. Do you have details of the business manager's daily tasks, their list of tasks etc?

Breaking this down to its most basic form:

1. I asked the bank if we were on the best tariff for us.

2. They said yes.

3. We weren't.

4. The bank either made an error or misinformed us.

5. We believe the bank is liable, based upon 4.

I don't think we need to prove what was in the account manager's job description.

dunstonh

Breaking this down to its most basic form:

1. I asked the bank if we were on the best tariff for us.

2. They said yes.

3. We weren't.

4. The bank either made an error or misinformed us.

5. We believe the bank is liable, based upon 4.

I don't think we need to prove what was in the account manager's job description.

Breaking down like that does make it simpler. However, it gives a different scenario to what you said earlier on.

martinsurrey

Vizard wrote: »

Breaking this down to its most basic form:

1. I asked the bank if we were on the best tariff for us.

2. They said yes.

3. We weren't.

4. The bank either made an error or misinformed us.

5. We believe the bank is liable, based upon 4.

I don't think we need to prove what was in the account manager's job description.

1) When did you ask?

1) What does "best" mean? in context of what the bank knows, and by this, I mean for example an Iphone 7 is matter of fact better than an Iphone 6, but an Iphone 6 might be more appropriate.

Have you got any record of this conversation?

When did the various tariffs become available?