Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

[middenmess]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Debenhams Options was the original card they say you had.

Their witness statement at 10 says you do not deny entering into a cca with Santander and refer to JPM1 as being that agreement.

Is the 1999 agreement that you have posted the one which is referred to as JPM1 because that does not refer to Santander unless Santander owned Debenhams at that time which I think unlikely.

As said before I believe that a new agreement should have been entered into and signed and that agreement should be the one that they should be referring to and sending you and the court a copy of same.

[BillandBen]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Is the 1999 agreement that you have posted the one which is referred to as JPM1 because that does not refer to Santander unless Santander owned Debenhams at that time which I think unlikely

It wasn't Santander at this time

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Their witness statement at 10 says you do not deny entering into a cca with Santander and refer to JPM1 as being that agreement.

Is the 1999 agreement that you have posted the one which is referred to as JPM1 because that does not refer to Santander unless Santander owned Debenhams at that time which I think unlikely.

Yes the 1999 agreement I posted is JPM1. As they have changed ownershop/name para 4 of the Witness statement & exhibit JPM3 which I attached here, does this not mean that it is with Santander that I entered into a CCA with ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

The agreement is for a Debenhams Options Account which allows spends at restricted stores and cash advances from ATM's as per that para 2 you posted below. When you have talked about it changing in to a credit card - do you actually mean changed into an unrestricted use card (in Feb 2007) you could spend in argos, tescos, online as well as at debenhams stores ? and the limit changed from the intial £400 ?

The Amendments since 1995 doc is dated at the bottom as September 1999 ( 9/99) so as you took the card out in October 99 that scans fine.

Also page 2 and 3 obviously came together as the end of page 2 runs on to the beginning of page 3.


The 'agreement' number on the DN looks like the number from the front of the card rather than the account number on the agreement that starts 6000000000. I presume the card number would be issued after the account number and changed when lost cards etc took place. Really both should have been quoted on the DN but there will easily be a paper trail to remedy that.


The bit about Santander - it is standard when companies take over not to have new agreements for everything just a one off assignment of everything and a note sent out to customers to tell them. To all intents and purpose you have an agreement with Santander, seeing as they own GE. (ooo you just posted the change docs lol)

(I'm not technical on these things so just saying as I see it common sensey wise, it might help, it might not)

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Wheres your CAG thread on this ? I cant search over there and I'm assuming the beginning of this issue are on there?

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Okay yes the credit limit increased to £1400 (from first post in this thread) as its a credit card theres a clause (Clause 5) saying they can amend that from time to time, which we know is acceptable.

Still a bit unsure of whether you were able to use the card elsewhere tho (because yes that would be a major change in terms and would have had to be a new agreement, new t&c's etc)

(b)to the extent that it is allowable by law we may make any alteration (not already provided for above)to this agreement by givingyou 7 days written notice.

Now does (b) above include changing account from storecard acc to credit card acc?

I dont think so but couldnt be 100% ''extent allowable by law'' kinda covers most things.

[middenmess]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Loooong shot but do you know when
GE Global Consumer Finance Ltd. changed name to
GE Capital Global Consumer Finance Ltd.?


and did anyone ever give an explanation as to why the ''assignment'' was headed up as ''Salami week 419?'

IMO--Your original agreement could not have been with santander cards as they weren't formed until 2000....

Company name - SANTANDER CARDS LIMITED


Company incorporation date - 24/02/2000

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

The change of company bit is fine, the agreement isnt recreated.

This DOA has the Salami Week on too, No 583 instead of 419 - The Consumer Forums (I cant view it tho not being registered there)

The only issue in my eyes is this upgrade to unrestricted use credit card from restricted use store card.

[middenmess]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Salami no 2from over there--best to delete if not allowed!

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Cool thanks MM, some useful docs for comparison there.

Bloomin' Salami Week lol.

[middenmess]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Bloomin' Salami Week lol.

The only explanation I can come up with is to assume that they are using 'Salami' in its common slang sense of a penis and that 'Salami week' is their pathetic sense of humour translating as 'week X and another sucker about to be ****ed by using this freshly typed up document'

I hope I'm wrong.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

soooo cynical middemiss

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hiya

The agreement is for a Debenhams Options Account which allows spends at restricted stores and cash advances from ATM's as per that para 2 you posted below. When you have talked about it changing in to a credit card - do you actually mean changed into an unrestricted use card (in Feb 2007) you could spend in argos, tescos, online as well as at debenhams stores ? and the limit changed from the intial £400 ?

The agreement for debenham option account only allows spend in Debenham & cash advances from Debenham only, not ATMs. Changing it to Debenham credit card change the whole terms because now it allows an unrestricted use of card and I could spend it anywhere including Debenhams & takeout cash advances from ATM

The 'agreement' number on the DN looks like the number from the front of the card rather than the account number on the agreement that starts 6000000000. I presume the card number would be issued after the account number and changed when lost cards etc took place. Really both should have been quoted on the DN but there will easily be a paper trail to remedy that.

there lies my question, if there is a paper trail that linked the 2 accounts, they should have given it to me by now & include it in disclosure list.

Wheres your CAG thread on this ? I cant search over there and I'm assuming the beginning of this issue are on there?

I haven't got one over there. This is the one & only thread I have for this case.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

The only issue in my eyes is this upgrade to unrestricted use credit card from restricted use store card.

That's what I think too... Again, if they have it why didn't they just give a copy.. my suspect is that they never had it in the 1st place...

[Amethyst]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

In here http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/j...10_00000-1.jpg It says 'We will write to you if your cards may be used to obtain cash from cash machines, ATMs' etc

In 2004(or 2007), how did you know you could use the card in places other than Debenhams ? Did they send you a new card ? If so then there would have been paperwork with it, which they should supply copies of. And thats what the judge has adjourned for them to supply ? It then comes down to was it necessary to have a new agreements and if you needed to sign/execute the agreement.

Once they supply that, what then ? If they don't then then I would say that the agreement post 2004 (or 2007) is unenforceable and any part of the debt incurred after that date (although without any paperwork I dont know how you prove that - I would guess your statements would show the change ref the first spend outside the restricted suppliers) can be defended on that basis - is that what you are thinking?

Is my rambling helping at all. lol.

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

In here http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/j...10_00000-1.jpg It says 'We will write to you if your cards may be used to obtain cash from cash machines, ATMs' etc

As far as I know you can't obtain cash from ATMs, either the Debs staff told me this or I tried to obtain it mysef when i was having financial difficulty

In 2004(or 2007), how did you know you could use the card in places other than Debenhams ?

Because it says mastercard rather than Deb card and I just assume I can use it everywhere, tried to use it elsewhere outside Debs when having financial difficulty and it works.

Did they send you a new card ?

yes they did give me a new card, the option card is Blue colour whilst the new one is pink with the mastercard logo on it.

If so then there would have been paperwork with it, which they should supply copies of.

That's what I said to the judge. The key problem here is they supply no paperwork regarding this credit card acc except for DN & my statements.

And thats what the judge has adjourned for them to supply ?

Partly I think. well, it was adjourned mainly I think because I have issues with their Witness statement and so Judge told me to prepare the amended defense. At the same time he ask Mr B to inform client to supply the missing link.

It then comes down to was it necessary to have a new agreements and if you needed to sign/execute the agreement.

good question. Didn't think of this till now ... IMHO, i think it was necessary to have a new agreement because the status of the card changes from "restricted" to "unrestricted", what do you all think?
was it necessary to have new agreements?
I am vey sure I've never signed anything realting to the credit card acc

Once they supply that, what then ?

On the basis that in the agreemen that I signed there is no mentioned of upgrading. having said that however, the2nd page ( that I've just discovered) of the agreement for store acc also stated this



Question is when they changed it from store card to crdit card, as far as i am concerned they haven't notify any changes to T&Cs.

If they don't then then I would say that the agreement post 2004 (or 2007) is unenforceable and any part of the debt incurred after that date (although without any paperwork I dont know how you prove that - I would guess your statements would show the change ref the first spend outside the restricted suppliers) can be defended on that basis - is that what you are thinking?

in short yes.