Reader V M&S

[Reader]

Hi All, I am in dispute with M&S as they have only provided one side of an application form via CCA request and SAR request, this is their response....

 

"Please note that the application and agreement forms are one and the same. Above your signature on the form returned to us, a statement reads "This is a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Sign it only if you want to be bound by its terms."

 

The agreement is a single document in more than one piece. However, even if this were not so, section 61(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires that the signed document embody all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms.

 

Section 198(4) of the Act provides that a document embodies terms if they are set out in that document or are in another document referred to in it. Either way, the agreement your client signed confirmed to the requirements of the Act". (I think they are confused as I am the client )

 

Are they trying to confuse me?

 

My argument with this on numerous occasions has been

 

• No Prescribed Terms = does not comply with s61(1)(a). That makes it improperly executed.
  
• Improperly Executed = can only be enforced by a Court because of s65.
  

 

I can't seem to get through to them, it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

Comments gratefully received.

 

Thanks Reader

 

[IainHL]

Hello there Reader. Let me guess, does your letter also say it has been reviewed by their legal team? Or did that only happen to me because I felt the need to educate them about how long they have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act request?

 

Anyway, I understand that brick wall feeling. However all we can do is keep on plugging away at them with letters. I was about to send one to them referring to the judgement about the prescribed terms having to be in the "four corners of the agreement". I found a very good post with some appropriate words here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/212597-querty1230-help-agreement-please.html#post2407952.

 

Have you also heard from Collect Direct UK, or are you still paying? They are going to get another one of the "go away DCA this account is in dispute" letters from me soon.

[Reader]

Hi IanHL yes they said that their legal team believe it to be and enforceable document but I suppose the key word there is "believe".

 

Sometimes I think I have bitten off more than I can chew, juggling all balls up in the air as I decided to take on mine and my hubbys creditors in one swoop!

[IainHL]

Sometimes I think I have bitten off more than I can chew, juggling all balls up in the air as I decided to take on mine and my hubbys creditors in one swoop!

 

Yes I have that feeling as well! Nine of my own creditors (including one claiming mis-selling of a GAP policy) plus a running battle with Welcome on behalf of my partner. I need to do a mass scanning session sometime soon then I can start my own threads for each of these.

 

Best of luck with your battles.

[Elgrand]

Hi Reader,

 

Thanks for popping by to my thread,

 

Can i ask what date your application has on it. as you know they haven't even sent me mine and it would be for 2004

[Reader]

Hi Elgrand, the application is dated September 2003.

 

Thanks Reader

[Elgrand]

Hi Reader,

 

I'm gobsmacked, today i have just received my CCA by recorded delivery. I will post up all the details later on my thread

 

Elg.

[Reader]

Hi an update.

 

Letter received with the following from a debt collectors with the following paragraph....

 

"The Ministry of Justice and the OFT have recently issued a consumer alert, warning people of the risks of being mislead over the enforceability of consumer credit agreements. We therefore strongly recommend you now seek legal advice if you intend to rely any further on the alleged breach of any of the acts that govern this account, pertaining to your liability to our client, as your current understanding is inaccurate. We confirm that a copy of this letter and previous correspondence will be made available to the courts and all governing bodies upon their request.

 

In the circumstances, we will not be entering into further protracted correspondence and request the you remit your proposals for settlement of this debt within 5 days from the date of this letter, together with a payment on account. Failure to do so will lead to further action being taken for recover of the above amount, as per our client's instructions."

Reader

[seriously fed up]

bollocks

The OFT/ MoJ document that they refer to concerns agencies that have been set up which allegedly can resolve your debt problems by finding that your credit agreements are all unenforceable - put another way agencies that do for you (for a fee) nothing that you couldnt do through this site. And, if you read around, you will find that while I suppose some are ok, some are very far from OK, taking money up front and doing very little for it. You know, I wouldnt be surprised if some DCAs werent behind some of these organizations - I mean either they get paid for collecting the debt or get paid for making it unenforceable! Cant lose.

Just another threat

I am not sure whether the letter is connected to the M&S account that you began the thread on, but if it is, you suggest in your first post that there are no prescribed terms. In that case the account isnt enforceable only on the order of a court. If there are no prescribed terms anywhere in the "agreement" they have sent you, even a court cannot enforce it (see 127(3)) In that case they are stuffed - though that's not to say they will give up.

[Reader]

Thanks Seriouslyfedup - I like your terminology . I did think they were trying it on, just wondered if anyone else had had that written to them.

 

Reader