M&s s/card converted to m/card-need help to reply to legal threats!

[prettyprincesscharlie]

HI EVERYONE

 

Just seem to be going round & round in circles with M&S again. Ill try to briefly sum-up my story:-

 

Had old storecard taken in 1997 with m&s with £500limit. they converted it to a mastercard (without my asking/signature) in 2003 with a £4,500 limit! By 2003 my credit file was full of defaults etc due to relationship breakdown, new baby etc so I know that they never even credit scored me in 2003 as I definately would not have passed (owed around £30k in loans & cards by then and it was all on my credit file).

 

I CCA requested them and they sent me a bad copy of STORECARD £500limit and it is headed "APPLICATION FORM" I have read many threads on here re unenforceable agreements and my case is very similar to SFU. I am pretty certain that this is not legally correct - thus not conforming to CCA rules. I have also SAR requested them & to be honest they have sent me loads of stuff that is very hard to understand as its heavily coded etc.

 

In between all this every now n again they send a DCA after me - then I write to DCA telling them of the issues between me and m&s and then obviously i get sent back to m&s (been thr about 3 or 4 DCA now!)

 

Please can someone take a look at the last few letters between me and m&s and just confirm I'm on right track and what you think should be my next move (ie - do i bother to reply again only to have most of my issues ignored? or just wait to see m&s next move which i guess is gonna be another DCA!)

 

Its worth mentioning that the application form they have sent me which I supposedly signed (and originally in their earlier correspondence they said I was the one that completed this form - they are now saying that THEY completed it tho!), there are various inaccuracies on this form the biggest being my first name spelt incorrect and I dont believe this is actually my signature - although how i conclusively prove this I don't know! But please - i dont really want advice on this part so dont get hung up on this bit pls!

 

This is getting me really down now - i just wish they'd either go away or take me to court but i'm a little scared in actually going that far in a letter! Please help. ive loaded up the original app form/?agreement form?! also for reference.

 

THANKING ALL OF YOU IN ADVANCE FOR HELPING ME HAVE THE COURAGE AND THE NEVER ENDING INFORMATION HERE! Special thanks to SFU also whose information/support has been next to none!

 

HELP HELP HELP!!! :

 

 

 

[prettyprincesscharlie]

sorry remaining attachments!

 

 

 

 

 

[seriously fed up]

Hard to know where to start here. Lets do it the easy way by referring to a couple of points in your letters to them. Perhaps the most instructive is where you put s51 (sending out unsolicited credit tokens) to them. I do think they will ever reply to this because, quite simply, they cant. I know I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but according to a friend who was in the credit card trade on/about 2003, the industry was gobsmacked when M&S took it upon themselves to simply send out &more cards to their Chargecard customers with no further ado. First of all it go them fined by the FSA (s 51? Dont know - but they promised not to do it ever again). But more to the point, in a legal sense, an agreement has to have some degree of definition, some degree of specificity - it cannot be infinitely adjustable. The problem for M&S in this case was that the Chargecard and the &more card were simply quite different animals - the former could be used only in M&S and generally had quite low credit limits. In contrast &more was simply another Mastercard and could be used anywhere with a much higher credit limit, by and large. So quite different, so some sort of new agreement - and one signed by the customer - was absolutely necessary, but M&S (or HSBC actually) couldnt be bothered doing this, and just sent the cards out with a letter inviting you to enjoy yourself. Is this an offence under s51? Maybe it is - but its an argument that cant be batted to one side with the comment "dont be stupid" - it is a reasonable argument. But the main contention has to be that the two sets of T&Cs (the one for the Chargecard and the one for the &more card) were SO different that they were two different agreements and thus needed two sigs. THIS M&S never bothered to do. Yes they will suggest that the Chargecard sig can be rolled forward for the &more card, but they seem remarkably unwilling to have it tested out in court (this is another way of saying that I have never heard of them actually getting a case to court - they have issued papers - they did it to me - but it doesnt actually get a hearing). They screwed up in 2003 and cant really afford to have that formalised in a court decision, or they really will be in trouble because then we would all know.

I would make that suggestion to them - when I signed what were the arrangements in place for me to see the prescribed terms? They will insist that all their reps were trained to take you through at least the main financial information (ie the prescribed terms) and to issue you with a set of T&Cs. Did the reps do the former? On a busy Saturday afternoon? Dont think so. And what would you do with your set of T&cs - bottom of the shopping bag. That is if you got them. We have to remember that at this point the aim of the banks was not legal compliance, but maximising the number of cards taken out. Now that particular hen is coming home to roost

What about what they said? Well some of that is just nonsense, but what is most interesting is the comment that your form was probably filled out not by you but by one of their instore ambushers. Banker Rhymes With had a very funny illustration of this but sadly I think its down now like all his posts (pity!) , but basically it described how this would happen - target customer is seen staggering away from the till with two, or better still three bags of shopping, and is engaged by M&S Money in store rep. "Excuse me Mr/MRs/ Ms Gullible, have you thought about taking out an &more card (cue spiel of advantages .........)" . Of course either because she (because usually it was) manages to make it sound like something for nothing, or because the customer is so nackered they would sign a statement confessing to all the unsolved crimes in the UK, they agree to sign up. "Great, now can you just me give me your name? Are they two Ls in Gullible? Thank you. And your address ........" And on it goes till we get to "just sign here". At this point, if you are still watching, the target should be getting shown a copy of all the T&Cs, but on a Saturday afternoon, having done the shopping and thinking mostly about getting back to see what's on the telly, most of us would rather have the soles of our feet cut off with a bacon slicer than read all that! But in any event that is probably not necessary, because the ambusher has a target to meet - get xx cards taken out or you're out a job (either that or back on the tills). So its just "just sign here Mr/Mrs/ Ms Gullible". Now the notion in the CCA is that when you sign you have before you, at least the prescribed terms. What you get with one of these signed up in store jobs is a form on clipboard passed across to you to put your mark on it. Would that stand up in court? Well of course the problem is that they have to prove that that's not what happened, when the reality is - and I have worked this through for &more but knowing M&S it wouldnt be that different for the CHargecard - that is pretty much how it happened for a lot of people. This is particularly so as even M&S have taken this point on board. Next time you are down at your local M&S have a look at their new &more application form. The bureaucratic maybe on another page - but the sig box is on the same page as the prescribed terms (and indeed most of the terms) - it will be hard to get out of that one! They are learning. However, remember its the different sets of T&Cs (Chargecard and &more) that is the key thing here - one signed (Chargecard) and one not (&more). Of course if it was as described above, you might not be lucky and get some crusty old judge who says "caveat emptor" and all that - "they should have looked and not just signed" - well yes maybe so sir. But its not good consumer practice, your Honour, is it? Something even M&S seem to have taken on board.

Other points - s78 is about information - and indeed what they assert is the information that they say you are due - "THIS is your agreement". But is it? Did you ever sign for an &more card? Ask them if they have a signed &more agreement - if they dont then OFT guidance is that they should fess up to this (I doubt if they will though - they will have some weasel way to allow them to slip round their errors). But as above, they cant really own up anyway? Even for a bank it would be hard going to say "nah, we dont have any agreement but you owe us the money anyway" (well maybe a bank could bring themselves to believe it - though others would think it was pushing it). Also while they might have (or might not - where/what is the executed agreement for the &more card if we argue that its quite a different thing from the Chargecard?) satisfied s78, but that isnt about proof.

As they seem to recognise this is about s61. They refer to s61 1b, but this is the difference between embody and contain. I can hardly believe that they are still pushing this one. They must KNOW they are on a loser here. What they say is actually quite right - there must be a document, which can be in more than one piece, which contains all the terms and conditions, other than, as they say, the implied ones. But the part of s61 that gets a lender into bother is a and not b - its a that ends up with s127 (3) preventing the court from issuing an order. What a requires is that there is a document which embodies the presribed terms (interest rate, credit limit and repayment arrangements), as well as the sig - all of these things must be in that single document. Whether they have to be on the same page is questionable - following on from Carey it does seem they can be on different pages but they do have to be part of the same document - in other words the prescribed terms cannot simply be embodied, they must be contained. So that whole section of their letter is quite simply nonsense.

As for the rest of it - the agreement is compliant and our legal dept say it is - what do you expect them to say - no its not compliant and our lawyers are suing us? Of course they are going to assert its compliant.

And this brings me to your suggestion that you are fed up going round in circles. I do expect you are fed up btw and am not unsympathetic - I have my own to deal with, so I do know what its like. But what we need to appreciate is that the banks have screwed up but want to at least minimise the damage. So, while M&S probably know the bull**** content of that letter is pretty high, what they are hoping is that if they send you enough bull**** letters like that, and/or set enough DCAs on to you, to send you letters, to phone you and generally to make your life less pleasant than it would otherwise be, that you will get fed up and give them something. They would much prefer 100%, but even 20 or 30% is better than 0%. Sorry, but this is likely to go on. Some have been successful simply ignoring them - read letter, have good laugh, put in bin. Others - like me - go to the trouble of replying to their nonsense so that they know you are still up for it (and to get a bit of practice in). Maybe there is a road through the middle of these. But you need to decide. There is no way to be rid of them (other than giving them what they want).

[prettyprincesscharlie]

hi SFU

 

First of all, thank you so much for replying so quick to me - you and your story have helped me no end to which I'm very grateful!

 

To be honest, all I really wanted was another pair of eyes on the sort of letters I have been doing to let me know that I was on track. So, just to confirm with you:-

 

(1) Even though I probably have got a valid point on the S51 part (sending out unsolicitored tokens), you think I'm better off highlighting the S61(a) as this is the bigger thing that any court should recognise. With regards to the T & C, and also that there is a big difference between a storecard £500 limit agreement and a m/card £4500 (unsigned for and unasked for) agreement.

 

(2) Its worth pointing out that in their recent letter they state that the shop assistant must have filled out the form for me but they believe i signed it. (re my name spelt wrong) however, i am sure that in some of their early nasty letters they state that I completed it and posted it! anyway, i diverse..

 

(3) I do know for absolute definate tho that i did not sign any new agreement for the m/card. it was exactly the same as yr story - they just sent me it with a letter saying that if i didnt want it then to call - if not - then they assume i want it! I can clearly remember it as at the time I had a new born baby, a partner just walked out on me, stuggling with huge debt - my credit record was BAD.... i thought all my christmas's had come at once!!

 

(4) I have asked them for a copy of the m/card agreement on several occasions and they just state that the storecard and the m/card is the the same thing!! which i know is the same story as you and many others on here too have been told by them. So not sure really if I can threaten the OFT thing as they wont actually admit they dont hold a m/card agreement for me!

 

(5) I have been to m&s recently and picked up one of their recent forms and i did actually send one to them recently - pointing out how the new one conforms to the CCA. to which they replied that since it had been over ten yrs since my application/agreement - they had revamped it so to speak!!! Funny that seeing at the new one conforms exactly to the CCA!!

 

(6) Do you know if i have any valid point with regards to how they ascertained my credit worthiness in 2003? As i know for a fact that i would not have passed any credit check back then (or now!) - reason i ask is (a) they are supposed to confirm the Lending Code which has about "responsible lending" in it - clearly giving me such a huge credit limit increase with a card i could use anywhere - this is not responsible lending! reason i ask is i did read up that when the OFT told m&s off back in 2003 - m&s apparently said that they would only give out these cards after credit checking customers and being a responsible lender. i read this on the OFT archive. do you think i have any levy on this point?

 

(7) i found yr info re FSA fining m&s back in 2003 very interesting. However, i did go onto the fsa's site today and try to find any details about this but i couldnt. closest i got was HSBC being fined in 2005 but not to do with m&s cards tho. But i do so hope yr friend is right on that one! do you know any more info on it?

 

(8) oh and SFU, ive always thought that if it does actually ever go to court - i was going to use your defence that you posted on here a while ago (ive printed it all off just in case a long time ago!) But, bit worried now as i think your in Scotland and i know the courts bit different there to England. Do you know if that would make any difference to me?

 

oh and lastly, SFU - you mention that all of Banker Rythes with posts have all gone? do you know why? i love his informative posts! Luckily in the past i have printed out probably pretty much all of his and yours but still - whyy no BRW?

 

Once again, thank you very much for all your help and everyone elses support on here.

 

ps. dont worry you dont have to answer all of my points but would be grateful if you answered nos 1 6 7 and 8!!! thanks again! (and sorry to go on!)

[seriously fed up]

1. the enormous advantage of s61 1a is that if you can get them on that then that should be that - if they dont get that right then s127 (3) says a court cannot issue an order - its not a judgement thing for the court - they simply arent supposed to issue an order. S51 on the other hand is a technical offence by M&S. You might want to suggest this prejudiced you - "they forced this card into my hand and made me use it" - I dont know that a court would buy that. But, it is still technically an offence and M&S did have a degree of bother with it back in 2003. But for you, the fact that, if your situation is at all like mine, they didnt even begin to comply with s61 1a, which requires a document containing the prescribed terms and your sig, so they cant get an order (this btw, is why they refer to 1b,but while they are literally correct, its just a smokescreen really)
   
2. you might want to suggest that you filled the application out in store in the way I described (or rather BRW). They will say "nonsense", but its important to remember that if they did go to Court (and while I remember, I really dont think they will - its just **** and wind) you can say that you will testify that you were stumbling through the shop, laiden down with bags ........ etc. For anyone who has ever been in M&S that version of events is at least realistic.
   
3. you almost certainly didnt - if you had they would have come up with it and wouldnt be preaching arrant nonsense such as the chargecard agreement will be fine.
   
4. see 3
   
5. that is what I would have expected them to say
   
6. at that time they (and I dont just mean M&S) were handing cards out like sweeties - the main aim was market share and that meant the maximum number of card holders. That might be commercially nuts (as you are offering credit to people with little hope of paying it back) and morally bankrupt, but its not illegal (though there is OFT guidance on this now - not sure what it was like back then). 'Responsible lending' is a relatively recent development - a major element of the banking collapse was the sub-prime mortgage market coming home to roost.
   
7. I think if you to my M&S thread you will find an internet address there from Welshmam.
   
8. the logic of the defence - Chargecard and &more are essentially different products with different T&Cs so they should have different agreements, so the &more card falls foul of s61 1a, and no order can be issued - could be the same. But, the way in which its expressed should be in line with English "formatting". There are loads of defences on here set out in that way, so what you need to do is to work out how this is done in England - its really only stylistic/ using different words etc.
   

BRW is a major loss imo - seemed to be some kind of "falling out" - not sure of the details. Just sad!

[prettyprincesscharlie]

HI SFU

 

Once again, thank you for yr swift reply.

 

I'm going to start my next merry-go-round letter to m&s on Thursday (on my day off-something to look forward to!) and my main point being S61 (a) and the difference once again between storecard and mastercard (probably to be ignored again-but hey ho - i can only try!)

 

I haven't had a chance yet to go over your threads and look up the Welshman link but will do sometime before Thursday.

 

Thank you for explaining (in normal lay man terms) the difference between the Scottish courts and English if it should ever go that far. I shall start some more research on that as well on my day off!

 

By the way, I thought I had read up on the Carey v HSBC case before but had a quick look yesterday - very hard to understand quickly tho through the legal jargon but bit worried about some of the points the Judge ruled against. When I read up on this case a while ago i thought that the main problem was that it was the debtor (carey &co) was the one's that took HSBC & co to court and hence, the problem being (once again in lay man's terms) that it was then down to the debtor(s) to prove that HSBC & co did not get the debtors to sign the correct CCA agreements. In other words, the onus was on the debtors not the creditors. Whereas, if it had been HSBC & co taking the debtors to court - then the onus would have been on HSBC & co to prove that they did have the correct agreements signed.

 

Have I got that right? or am I mixing it up with another court case?! I have read a few so its possible I may have. What I thought I worked out from that one was - never take a bank to court - let them take you!! I know I'm a little thick on this but in basic terms as I right? should I be worred about this?!

 

As for my point about the Lending Code and "responsible lending" - I know that the Lending Code is new and I know that the responsible lending thing is in it heavily. However, I know that before the Lending Code was the Banking Code and I know that there was a section in this about responsible lending - probably not as much as what's in the lending code now (due to current economical situation), but there definately was a section in it about this. Im going to find my copy of the old Banking Code and do some research on it - i'll let you know. However, this too is probably a technical offence by M&S - but any ammunition is good surely!

 

Plus, I did read on the official OFT archive that M&S promised the OFT back in 2003 to give out these cards in a responsible lending manner - to properly ascertain their customer's credit worthiness first before handing them out - which they obviously didn't! I did actually send M&S a copy of this article - which surprise surprise - they ignored!

 

Lastly, so sad about BRW - an invaluable source of information who managed to articulate on here in layman terms that even I could understand (not to mention he's wicked sense of humour!)

 

Thank you again SFU for yr time in replying and basically for caring! I'll keep you posted on anything else I manage to dig out. Afterall - knowledge is power!!

 

x

[seriously fed up]

By the way, I thought I had read up on the Carey v HSBC case before but had a quick look yesterday - very hard to understand quickly tho through the legal jargon but bit worried about some of the points the Judge ruled against. When I read up on this case a while ago i thought that the main problem was that it was the debtor (carey &co) was the one's that took HSBC & co to court and hence, the problem being (once again in lay man's terms) that it was then down to the debtor(s) to prove that HSBC & co did not get the debtors to sign the correct CCA agreements. In other words, the onus was on the debtors not the creditors. Whereas, if it had been HSBC & co taking the debtors to court - then the onus would have been on HSBC & co to prove that they did have the correct agreements signed. the point about Carey imo is that it was an unusual case for being brought by the debtor - usually its the lender. So the burden of proof this time wasnt on the lender, but on Carey who had to show that they had NOT signed a compliant agreement. In that judgement there were some unhelpful comments by the judge to the effect that the lender might have lost the orginal (eg in a fire) and that a reconstruction, allied to a witness statement that "it was our process to get them to sign a compliant agreement like this"might well suffice. But then its important to put that in context - the onus wasnt on the lender (HSBC in this case), but on Carey so all they had to do was to put up enough evidence to cast doubt on Carey's case that she had not signed a compliant agreement. This is - or I would hope it was - a very different situation from where the lender is chasing the debtor (eg HSBC had been bringing the case against Carey) as the onus would then be on the lender. For instance would it really be enough for a lender - who has no copy of the original agreement to say, as above "it was our process to get them to sign a compliant agreement like this one"? One would very much hope not as it would just blow a hole in any concept of evidence and proof. On the other hand there are many lenders and DCAs who would like us to believe that this is the situation - even if its not.

 

Have I got that right? or am I mixing it up with another court case?! I have read a few so its possible I may have. What I thought I worked out from that one was - never take a bank to court - let them take you!! I know I'm a little thick on this but in basic terms as I right? should I be worred about this?! My advice would be NEVER to take them to court - let them to do that to you, if it comes to it.

 

As for my point about the Lending Code and "responsible lending" - I know that the Lending Code is new and I know that the responsible lending thing is in it heavily. However, I know that before the Lending Code was the Banking Code and I know that there was a section in this about responsible lending - probably not as much as what's in the lending code now (due to current economical situation), but there definately was a section in it about this. Im going to find my copy of the old Banking Code and do some research on it - i'll let you know. However, this too is probably a technical offence by M&S - but any ammunition is good surely! You are probably right, but the fact is that if a lender breaches the Banking Code, unless its in the style of the Corleone family, or the Sopranos, they are likely to get nothing more than a letter asking them to change their practice and not do it again. There might be a fine, but how much good is that to you?

 

Plus, I did read on the official OFT archive that M&S promised the OFT back in 2003 to give out these cards in a responsible lending manner - to properly ascertain their customer's credit worthiness first before handing them out - which they obviously didn't! I did actually send M&S a copy of this article - which surprise surprise - they ignored! Again you are probably right, but - in addition to the above - by the time the OFT gave M&S a bit of a row, you probably had your &more card.

 

One thing to remember is that s61(1)(a) removes discretion from everyone - its mechanical - no compliance with s61(1)(a) then their claim ends up perished on the rock of s127 (3). Bringing their other errors to the notice of court is fine, but they only give the courts or the financial authorities discretion and you can never be sure how they will use this. We can discuss the degree of prejudice in favour of the banks - and I am quite sure it exists - but that is how it is. How likely is the present government to issue legislation that could be seen as prejudicial against the banks?

 

Re the difference between Scotland and England, better be quick. Mr Salmond is working hard

[prettyprincesscharlie]

Hi again SFU

 

Thanks again. Yep everything you confirmed is exactly what I thought. Oh and don't worry - I have no intention whatsoever of ever taking them to court (much as i think they would like me to by some of the comments in their letters!!

 

Well im looking forward to my day off writing my next reply to m&s!!! Ill keep you posted on any of their nasty replies - if they manage to come up with something different that is (which I doubt), have noticed that they keep coming from different people there so I guess I'm getting passed around the office in between getting passed around the DCA's!!

 

One last thing tho - Im probably being thick here but your last comment re Scotland and England - whose Mr Salmond?!

[seriously fed up]

You'll learn:wink:

[prettyprincesscharlie]

[ATTACH]33790[/ATTACH]Hi SFU and everyone else!!

 

Just to keep you all updated, been doing the same merry-go-round that everyone else seems to do with m&s. Every now and then i get a letter from a DCA asking for money (for their client m&s) - I send them a letter (attached), stating account in dispute etc - then (normally), the said DCA sends me a letter saying sorry they didn't realise (yeah!) - and they will forward said debt back to m&s. That's the story probably for the last year or so. Oh and normally a different DCA each time!

 

Anyway, got the normal "give us the money within 7days or else" letter this time from Credit Security (which is a new DCA for me!) - so i reeled off the same letter as normal (attached). But this time I got a different reply - which has sort of left me scratching my head! Wondered if SFU (pretty please!), or grateful for ANYONE else's opinion please. Haven't replied yet - need advice!

 

Its worth mentioning that (I think), Credit Security are sort of saying - regardless of you not signing the correct credit agreement - you used the card - unless (tongue in cheek I think!), unless I believe I have had a fraud on my card! But I'm not sure on if this is what they are saying, and if they are - how best am i to reply?!

 

Thanking you all in advance, grateful as always.

Edited February 27, 2012 by prettyprincesscharlie

[prettyprincesscharlie]

dont think ive managed to scan these large enough! gotta go work now! will re size later! sorry everyone!

[seriously fed up]

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.

[prettyprincesscharlie]

Hi SFU - thank you so much for the speedy speedy reply (as always!)

 

ive had another go at scanning the said letters - if you get chance have quick look - mainly their reply to me to see if you think thats what they are saying. be very grateful!

 

If they havent scanned big enough this time - no worries (ill just chuck the bloody pc out the window!!!) :frusty:

 

oh and me too had very similar problem with my boiler too!! same old same old - you buy insurance "just in case" and when the "just in case" happens - its NO SORRY YR NOT COVERED! all bloody crooks!

 

thx again SFU

 

just had quick look and me thinks i got it scanned good now!!

credit security -their reply to me feb2012.pdf

my 1st letter to DCA page1.pdf

page2 my letter to DCA.pdf

[seriously fed up]

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

[prettyprincesscharlie]

lol!! I'm so sorry!!!

 

this should be it page one!! ...

PAGE ONE!!!!.pdf

[seriously fed up]

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.

[prettyprincesscharlie]

Oh thank you SFU! So grateful for you quick reply and patience with my scanning!!

 

ok i will roll out similar letter to the first one then and conveniently ignore the fraud/i used the card bit! Was a bit worried that if i started to address the fact that i used it - would probably get me in hot water and glad i ran it past you first!!

 

thanks again SFU and if im ever in bonnie Scotland I will definately buy you a drink!!!

[seriously fed up]

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)

[prettyprincesscharlie]

my reply pg2.pdf

 

Hi SFU

 

Yes you really must be the only Scotsman that doesn't drink!!!

 

I've compiled my reply today (sorry 3 pages!) but the first page is pretty much going over my last letter. on 2nd and 3rd pages - new and interesting information I found on Credit Security! Have a quick read if you get a chance, let me know if I've said something i shouldn't if you get time. But it put a smile on my face when typing page 2 and 3!!

 

Thx again SFU.

 

ps. i've doubled checked the attachments and they are all there and big enough! LOL!!

my reply pg1.pdf

my reply pg3.pdf

[seriously fed up]

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.

[prettyprincesscharlie]

Hi SFU,

 

thx for reading it - ill special deliver it tomor.

 

And as for their family - oh my - what an extended family these DCA seem to have!! (worse than the Waltons!!- showing my age now!).

 

I know they wont give up easily, but i refuse to be scared by their bullying anymore!!!

 

As always SFU - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! :hail:

 

LOL! got bit carried away with the smilies!! they so good!!

[mystery1]

Google Santander v Mayhew.

 

M1

[seriously fed up]

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

[ajs444]

I'll drink to that!

[debbbbsy]

GE Money did exactly the same as M&S, they too were converting Storecards into Credit cards without getting the consumer to sign a new agreement. GE also got a slap on the wrist by the OFT.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2004/09-04

 

A converted storecard is not enforceable in court, the T&C's of a credit card are different to a storecard.

 

Debbie x