my view would be that this depends on M&S's ability to show that the T&Cs (original ones) were part of the same document as that which you have posted. If it is all part of the same document (eg was on the other side of the page) then probably enforceable. If not, then I would suggest its not. M&S werent exactly on the ball at this time - it was round about then that they just transferred everyone on Chargecard to &more with no sig required.

had a letter from 1st crudit recently with what they claim is a true copy of my agreement with the original lender - usual stuff - computer dump T&Cs with my address typed on. Leaving aside that they try to create the impression that because what they have sent is (they say - but read on, see below) enforceable because it satisfied s77-79, the fact is that this CANNOT be a true copy of the agreement and I can prove this . It cannot be a true copy because the original agreement wasnt with the lender they claim to have got the T&Cs from (lets call them lender 2), but with another lender (lets call them lender 1) who sold their credit card business to lender 2, who simply sent me a new card. I can prove this because a few years ago I reclaimed their fees (late payment, that sort of thing) and got a letter from lender 2 to tell me that their records only went back so far and that for statements before then I should contact lender 1. Therefore the document they have uttered as a "true copy" (their phrase) CANNOT be a "true copy". I am going to write to them to tell them this, but I recall that I think it was the OFT who were annoyed with first's naughtiness in the past . Is this the sort of thing they, or FSA would be interested in? Or should i just tell first to get lost? Ta SFU

could it be that we are all making the assumption that at the end of the debate the Sheriff issued a decision. This could have been reserved and is yet to be handed down?

I can think of worse ways than that of whiling the time away, Caro

what pity the Scots language never embraced Schadenfreude:razz:

Problem is AJS that for whichever team loses, its going to be a long summer for their supporters. Edinburgh's not that big a place! Definitely hero or zero.

all the best when you get them to court AJS

you mean not unlike the bank's concept of fairness - it is there, but we just cant see it :lol:

I prefer hypothesis:oops:, based on previous behaviour that the banks prefer not to take on cases that they might just lose for fear of the creation of a precedent.

POSSIBLE that Clydesdale have done a Santander and folded with further ado because the alternative - a court decision - would be worse all round (all round the banks that is). Perhaps they have added a "no publicity" clause as well, which would be disappointing for us. If so then one would hope that, without going into specific/ particular details about the Reid case, if the above is correct, Mike Dailly / GLC (or someone looking over Mike's shoulder ) could post details of the argument and process? In other words without describing the cake, give us the recipe . One last things that puzzles, is that this page shows up as 65, but there are supposed to be 68 pages, but this seems to be the last :???:

True enough Batman, but really does today's letter alter anything much? They havent sent a new document or anything. Perhaps the key thing here is that you havent paid anything toward this account since December 2007, which means that in about eight months this account will be statute barred (note to English colleagues, Blueda is in Scotland where statute barred is five not six years) and so after that they will get the square root of hee haw. I would either ignore it, or send them another copy of your last rebuttal of their claim.

sounds like you are on top of this SS. About the only thing I would add is to draw their attention specifically to paragraph 12 of Mayhew which makes crystal clear that if you send someone an unrestricted use credit card you had better send them a new agreement - Regulation 7 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regs 1983 says so. GE never bothered and Santander lost as a result. I cant see any difference between Mayhew and your own case. Even if the other reasons for Santander losing dont apply to you (even the chargecard agreement was defective and they got the default notice wrong) - any one of these would be enough for them to lose. Dont imagine the goons they have set upon you will know about Mayhew (or even if they did that they would care) - but it would be another stick to beat them with if you did point it out to them.

None of the cases - Reid, Walls or Sharp - are particularly recent cases (Sharp probably first went into court about 18 months ago). Being Scottish cases it may be that they cant be claimed back further than five years, but this would be since the the case first went into court - for instance if I am right about Sharp then it would be five years back from end of 2011 - so 2006 at least i would have thought. But we just dont know - best to wait for events on Monday 2nd.

what the GLC blog says is that some of the same arguments are to be used in Reid v Clydesdale Bank which will go to debate in Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday 2nd April. The good news is the same arguments are being applied in Sharp and Bank of Scotland, and the bank was concerned enough to try to kick it into the long grass procedurally the same argument having been used by Santander, they have preferred to fold and pay up. If Clydesdale lose Reid, then I strongly suspect they will appeal (supported by the British Bankers Assoc) and this too may get to the Supreme Court just to get some more delay in. But, I think we will learn more on/after the 2nd - or I hope so. If Mike Dailly has come up with a further development of his argument then that might be why he was reticent to show all his cards last week.

marks and spencer will be pleased. What a total Horlicks!

Probably true - but still exciting, isnt it?

there may be some connection with s136 Dougal, I dont know - have to wait for Mike Dailly to tell us. BUT there is a big difference between the two cases in your posts above and Walls v Santander - and that is in the two cases referred to in your posts it is the bank who is the pursuer, who is bringing the action. Walls is different - she's is pursuing the bank to recover her charges, so it is Walls who is the pursuer and Santander pursued (so to speak!). Moreover, it did seem to me that Santander were paying up to avoid a court decision. I take all you say into account - and its the sort of things many on here will be accustomed to - but these guys might be totally immoral but they arent fools. They know the difference between paying out to one customer and a court decision.

Mike Dailly tweeted this about 6.00 on Friday. I am pretty sure that when the news is released in detail that he will be doing it in such a way as to maximise publicity. I dont think Friday night is the time to be doing that. Lets see what the new week brings. In any event if Santander have settled as he suggests in the Tweet, the issue isnt if its happened, but how - ie that nature of the argument.

seems fine. I suspect you either wont hear from them again or they will come back all aggrieved that you have challenged their professionalism - the fact that you did so correctly will only add to their grief. BUT, as I think I warned you on this thread already, you might well hear from another "family member" in due course. They dont give up easily. But you have the story, and I would suggest sticking to it.

i think that is the way to do it - you have them cold on enforceability. Dont let them induce you elsewhere. Glad to help (btw, you are dealing with one Scotsman who doesnt drink - but I do strongly suspect there are others drinking mine)

yes, basically what they have done is to roll over each and every legal issue that you have raised - not least that a Chargecard isnt a Mastercard. What they have picked up on is the use of consent. I would simply write back repeating that there is no legally enforceable agreement for the Mastercard, only a document relating to a Storecard and even then no more than an application form. Dont get into consent issues - it just complicates things and gives them more to twist. For instance, taking you from Storecard to Mastercard was more than an upgrading - it was moving you to another financial product altogether (and you actually refer them to this - this is what I mean about rolling over), but its not worth arguing that point - just ignore it and stick to your guns about no enforceable agreement which I think should see them off. I suspect they think so too since otherwise they wouldnt have sent you this pile of rubbish in reply.

yes - nice size now. Only problem is that both"my 1st letter...." and "page 2 ......" both come up the same - think you missed out page 1. I suspect the solution to how to reply is on that page. Essentially what they are doing is rolling over the technical enforcement issues you have raised there and trying to get you to say that there has been fraud or that without M&S's consent you used the card. You arent suggesting the former and the latter is total nonsense since M&S gave you their consent when they sent you the card and said "get on with it" without requiring another agreement be signed. They know this perfectly well. Lets see page 1 and we can go from there

no you havent made them large enough - be interested to see them when you can. However, from what you say it SOUNDS as if they are trying the moral argument - did you take the money, did you use it etc? My inclination would be just to ignore that, to write back asking them for an enforceable agreement as I expect you will have done with them all so far. This approach usually suggests a total failure of imagination - we cant get them on technical grounds (believe me if they thought they might you would have been in court a long time ago) lets try to shame them into it. The thing I always try to remember is that if there is one group of organizations that will weasel out on ANY sort of legal technicality it would be financial organizations - try claiming your insurance. Our boiler started leaking over the summer, but because it was leaking on the outside of the house (it was the overflow) and not the inside it wasnt covered! Good enough for them obviously so why not for us. That said, I would never advise engaging them in this sort of conversation - just go past it, stick to your line.

I have a feeling that Sharp v BoS was on the roll for last Thursday (2nd) with Sheriff Deutsch - was expecting to have heard something but nothing has there been - perhaps another delay? Nothing new on the GLC site, but I'm sure if anyone knows they will put it up here.

i suspect you may well be right. When you see some of the pap that they send out and, hand on heart, swear on the lives of their children that they are enforceable, when they cant send you anything at all, it is quite remarkable. On the other hand it is VERY unusual for them to fess up to this. Were I you I would write back to them giving them a reasonable time - say a month - to come up with the missing two, OR admit they cant find them. Re the application form, I will bet you it has no interest rate, credit limit (or how this would be determined) or repayment arrangements on it. If I am right and it doesnt, it is hopelessly unenforceable.