This is an account of my troubles with HSBC Auto Finance following my corporate relocation with MNC to Asia in August, 2006. Given HSBC’s global footprint and slogan “The World’s Local Bank,” I would have expected far better understanding of the needs of expatriates. Due to my outstanding balance on my auto loan, we elected to put the car on blocks in MNC’s company storage. As part of this arrangement, MNC self-insures all stored employee assets for full damage coverage at replacement value.

In the fall of 2006, we received notice from HSBC asking us to provide proof of insurance coverage. At this point, JY in his capacity as an official representative of MNC provided a letter dated November 30th, 2006 guaranteeing that the vehicle was insured through MNC’s self insurance policy that temporarily resolved the issue although the initial $40 charges from HSBC were never refunded.

In spring 2007 we received a new request for proof of insurance coverage. On May 14th, 2007 we resubmitted the letter of November 30th to Customer Service. After reviewing the letter the agent agreed it to be satisfactory and instructed us to fax an additional copy of the letter to customer service.

Assuming this matter was satisfactorily resolved, we were surprised to notice monthly charges of $64.25 being charged to our account starting May 30th 2007. Upon receiving this KR (Replaced Mr. Y) provide notice on October 30th 2007 certifying that the vehicle was fully covered by MNC’s self insurance policy. After this proved unsatisfactory, K spoke with JE in HSBC to identify the exact wording required by HSBC. K provided this revised wording to HSBC on November 21st, 2007.

Once again assuming this was satisfactorily resolved, we were surprised to receive a letter from DK indicating that HSBC still did not view MNC’s proof of self-insurance as satisfactory despite using the exact wording requested by J in the letter of November 21st. In this letter, Mr K indicated that MNC (misspelled in letter) has not provided proof of casualty insurance protection without indicating what this proof should entail.