Secondly, did you receive updated T&Cs in March 2009 re the preference account ? And what is the account shown as on your credit reports ?

Firstly .... please take your attachment off view, and edit as all your personal details are on there !!

Yep .... go onto quick reply, and select go advanced. Where you will see a little after the text box, the option to manage attachments. Or load it under photobucket and post the URL link to it. Abs

Thanks for your help and support SG for all of us who are currently seeking guidance ...... your sharing of your knowledge of court and legal procedures is invaluable to us all ... thank you xx

yep, I'm not an expert on the legals of split claims etc, but 've caught a couple of silly girls posts (she's excellent on the legals !), where (I think it was SG) also said that they can not do this on a regulated agreement. So thats a reflection on their grasp of reality. In any event, if they attempt to forgo the split and instead go for a hearing for the full amount, they can't provide a correctly executed CCA for the credit card, as one was never issued or executed - thereby they also can not rely upon a reconstructed version, so game well and truly over on that point. And even if (in a parellel universe) they could rely upon the CCA for the store card for the credit card, there are absolutely no prescribed terms within the 4 corners of the CCA provided (in my case at any rate - which was a one page application form). So they are royally doubly scuppered .... IMHO !!!! Be very interesting to see how they proceed ... not withstanding we also have the Mayhew case (which I know isn't precedent as not HC), but still doesn't help their case !! Keeping all posted on any developments my end . Abs x

Thanks SG, thats good to know, and I assume from this splitting (and the content of my call with them) that they think they will have the option to do this, or at least convince the debtor that they can (so that they will then panic and enter into payment arrangements for the original debt). And just wanted to say the reason they have given behind the split claim (ie - essentially it is debtor driven and purely to save them court and legal fees .... ).

Hi (thanks Skem for directing), I have an MS thread and sigma claim thread, but just wanted to comment on the split claim aspect. Firstly, no they can not just willingly amend the amount they are chasing under an issued claim - it would need to be amended by provision of the court, or they discontinue and start a NEW claim for the revised amount. That being said, I actually phoned these creeps to discuss the claim form recd (wont go into full details as all in my own thread, and don't want to hijack !) ...... anyhoo ...... they told me that they were only claiming the interest since their ownership of the debt as to .... wait for it ..... save ME court and legal fees ... thats right (and said with a straight face by them too !!) ..... I was advised by them that if they pursued the whole amount, I would have 2k - 3k of fees on top of the debt ...... whereby to assist, they were happy to just claim for the interest since assignment, as it meant the fees were very low compared to the 1000's I could be exposed to (I kid you not !!!) Now, you make of that what you will ......... my own view is they think that peeps will pay the relatively (compared to os debt) small sum thinking that this will finalise the issue ...... when of course what they will have done in paying it, is to admit the debt (which HL./Sigma want - and which the mgr I spoke to tried to get me to do during the call), following which their idea is to then go for the lot, with the individual having no where to go, having already made part payment and thrown away any chance of defence .... Abs

Will have a read of the link .. thanks Skem ! Yes, a stay would be interesting, as of course they can lift it in the future and have another go .... we need to push for a discontinuance based on the fact that their claim is completely spurious, a waste of both the courts time and resources, with no chance of success.

Yep, when I rang them to advise that their claim (following my alleged lack of response to their letters - which was untrue), was unlawful as the account was in dispute when sold - they told me they don't get complaint/client files with the purchased debts. When I asked them , what they had based their claim on if they had no docs, they were a bit stumped (and I was talking to the manager of the dept, who was quite rude until he got a bit of his own medicine back), who said he would get it stayed and ask for the docs from MS in the meantime (needless to say, no stay had been submitted by the time I submitted by defence). I sent them a copy of the original bemused DCA letter, within which I had detailed why the account was in dispute with MS, which was based on a CCA for a store card (which had not one prescribed term, apart from the CCA74 regulated heading), and that I wanted a CCA for the credit card that (without my request) replaced the store card. I also discussed the fact that MS tried to firstly claim the CCA for the storecard was also applicable to the credit card (and why that statement was knowingly misleading by them), and then the fact that they claimed the OFT allowed them to do this with provision of revised TC doc. Again I discussed the fact that the OFT said completely the opposite, AND that I was never provided with a revised TC doc (even if that did permit the unsolicited token agreement), and I KNOW I didn't because, I have the original letter saying that the card was being changed to a credit card, with no mention of if you don't want it ring us, or any mention of new TCs or a new agreement, and I also have the origianl card carrrier with the original card still attached to it. Oh, and Sigma meanwhile explained during the call that the split claim, was to benefit me, as if they claimed the whole amount I would face 2-3k of court and legal fees, this way only claiming part interest the fees were much lower, which they thought was fairer to the debtor...... couldn't make it up could you !!!! (and yes there were serious when they said this !) If you have a look back over my own MS thread, you'll see how I handled MS, making them admit that there were not pres terms in the original store card agreement, and that they didn't sent a new agreement for the credit card which was required by law under reg 7 of the CCA - if I can be of any help, just shout as this has been ongoing with MS since 2009 (and several DCAs !). Abs

Hi, just found your post. I'm in the same boat, and have a well documented MS thread on here ... which amongst other areas, discusses the unlawful transfer of a storecard to a credit card without the provision of a new agreement or terms and conditions .... I also have a thread for the sigma part claim ...... in response to your question re the part claim, they advised me when I rang them, that the did this to save me fees, as if they claimed the whole amount there would be about 3k in court and legal fees, but if they just claim the £299, the fees are much lower ..... and wait for it ..... the sole reason for this was to be fair and helpful to the account holder .... I kid you not !!! The also stated they had no knowledge of any dispute, as they don't get any complaint files with their purchased debts ..... when I asked in that case, what they had based their claim on, they couldn't answer me, and stated they would place a stay on the claim whilst they obtained the file from MS. I CPR31'd them, to no avail, and submitted my defence 8 Aug - all quite up to now. Hope this helps Abs

Just wondered Cosalt if there had been any more movement on this ? I've updated my own thread, that there has been nothing, but just wondered if they had responded to your defence yet.

Just an update, arrived back from hols and not a dicky bird from them, following my defence |(8 Aug) and provision of a separate letter to them (27 July) illustrating and confirming the points of fact and law, that render the alleged agreement unenforceable.

How do we deal with this though, as I expect the same response, ie an offer to discontinue for a repayment offer.

So by that offer, they know they have nothing.

Hi all ... Well you guessed it nothing in the post ... and still no stay registered with the courts. So I have submitted my defence today (on line), not sure what happens now ?? Will update as and when. Abs x

Good luck .... I'm submitting mine today too ..... will update here (for your info), and on my own Sigma thread too (so as not to hijack !! ;-) ) ....... Keep us posted ... Abs xx

Thanks shadow ... my hero !!! Abs xx

I think I may as well put my defence in then, as I'm on holiday from Sat and have to have it in by Monday 13th.

Did they reply with the docs ? Their 7 days are up with me today ... no response or acknowledgement, no surprise there !, and just wondered if you had heard anything. Abs x

Yes please Sarah, upload (remember to take out/obscure any personal details). xx

Whats the probs Sarah ?

Hi gang .... have confirmation of delivery today of my CPR request. They have until next Monday to respond ..... Abs xx

Agreed Debbie .... hoping they poop, but if they don't well then they'll have to put their money where their mouth is .... !!! ...... To be continued .......... xx

Well said Debs xx

Ooh Debs, you sure are a girl to have on side !!! In my letter explaining to them the basis of dispute, ie - storecard to credit card without the execution of a new CCA, I cited in respect of the credit token aspect, the breach of Reg 7 of CCA84, and also suggested they review the Mayhew case, for further guidance on the legality of the OCs claims. I also made it clear that the CCA for the storecard, was in clear breach of CCA74 s60(1), and clearly a mere application form. As you know I also stated that now they were in full possession of the facts that the claim be immediately withdrawn. I have checked the RM site - and they recd this info on Thursday, I'm trusting that they will well and truly fill their pants, realise what a bucket of poop they have purchased, and discontinue the claim ... if not well ... bring it on .... the hard part is although you know what the issues are, formatting them in a way that the court will accept - to which I thank you Debs, Mike, Skem and indeed all who are helping me !! Lets see what the week brings from the pip squeaks .... !! Abs xx