Store card debtors to be let off

[PlanB]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

Mr Cohen is in the same mould as our old "friend" Mr Carter.
Bulk filing of claims and see what stick.
They aren't any good when people fight back, but with the help of people like Paul and Watsons (see I named them for you) we have an increasing amount of ammo to use against them and right the balance..

Lewis issue 2,000 claims through Northampton MCOL system every week. They rely on people being too scared to respond. They also sent my LBA only 48 hrs before the summons was issued. It said (exact quote): "If you fail to make payment following receipt of the court papers judgment will be entered and enforcement action will be taken". Er, what about my right to Defend the proceedings first? I doubt Santander even knew the claim had been issued. And it seems they didn't even know about the judgment either until the BBC rang them up for a quote.

Well Howard Cohen certainly met their match with Paul and Watsons :clap2:

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

Santander shut mine, my ex's and his brothers basic bank accounts after we all sucsesfully complained about mis-selling of the account. We asked for a bank account where "you can have direct debits, use the ATMs and put your card across at Tesco!" They quoted us 6 months with a cashcard and they would upgrade us to a debit card.. then said no.

We complained and recived a letter saying the basic bank accounts were being "phased out" and they shut all 3 accounts!!

According to them it was legal, and we all had no knowlegde of legal beagles, but you see they had a bad case of chucking teddy out the pram even then!

[labman]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

No doubt this is a welcome and superb judgment.

A little word of caution to anyone who may have been upgraded from a store card to a credit card without asking for this though. I haven't read the judgment, but please don't assume that you will automatically be in the same position as Plan B, as I suspect you won't!

[Shadowcat]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

Congratulations and thanks PlanB. It took a lot to go through what you did after such treatment. From the bottom of my heart - appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

No doubt this is a welcome and superb judgment.

A little word of caution to anyone who may have been upgraded from a store card to a credit card without asking for this though. I haven't read the judgment, but please don't assume that you will automatically be in the same position as Plan B, as I suspect you won't!

If you didn't ask for the upgrade and have never signed a new agreement then statute is clear. They breached the cca and should be penalised and you have an unenforceable account.

A court judgement doesn't change this, but it is handy to have to say to a judge, look it's this obvious.

M1

[Guest]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

If you didn't ask for the upgrade and have never signed a new agreement then statute is clear. They breached the cca and should be penalised and you have an unenforceable account.

A court judgement doesn't change this, but it is handy to have to say to a judge, look it's this obvious.

M1

I think what Labman is saying is that each case will depend on its own circumstances.
In this case the agreement was obviously not just a variation of the original, in fact it looks that even the orriginal was not enforceable.
This may not be so in all cases.
It may be that the orriginal agreement was perfectly well executed and the new card was just a variation and totally enforceable, it depends on the details of the case.

Peter

[Shadowcat]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

I for one am one of those sad individuals that read and digest Terms and Conditions. Obviously, although I need to get out more reading T&C's is my right to be able to do and I always want to see them for any agreement, new or revised. I would certainly tell any magistrate or judge this.

[ODC]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

I appreciate the words of caution but speaking in particular about the M&S cards I do feel that they are totally unenfoceable. M&S have be given plenty of warnings by the OFT et al wavy back that what they did was illegal. Likewise numerous people have begged M&S to take them to court to prove they had a case. M&S with all their legal backup refused to take anyone to court but instead palmed them off to various low life DCAs before ending up at the bottom of the DCA dung heap that is Clownells

[mystery1]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

I think what Labman is saying is that each case will depend on its own circumstances.In this case the agreement was obviously not just a variation of the original, in fact it looks that even the orriginal was not enforceable.This may not be so in all cases.It may be that the orriginal agreement was perfectly well executed and the new card was just a variation and totally enforceable, it depends on the details of the case. Peter

A restricted use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement (store card) upgraded to an unrestricted use debtor-creditor agreement is a modification and needs all the prescribed terms, signature etc.

In Mayhew the judge ruled the storecard agreement was unenforceable and then ruled the agreement needed a modification agreement for the credit card but since it wasn't it too was unenforceable.

The modification agreement (lack of) had nothing to do with the first agreement status.

The ruling in Mayhew is consistent with statute. I have seen a few times on forums that this is so and i suspect this also explains a previous lack of cases on the subject because many knew the outcome before it happened. Any such upgrade will fail in court unless a new agreement has been obtained. It has always been pretty certain that if a debtor maintains no signature truthfully and thus convinces the judge of such no agreement under CCA will be enforced modifying or otherwise.

M1

[PlanB]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

I for one am one of those sad individuals that read and digest Terms and Conditions. Obviously, although I need to get out more reading T&C's is my right to be able to do and I always want to see them for any agreement, new or revised. I would certainly tell any magistrate or judge this.

But you can't read and digest the Ts & Cs if they haven't been sent to you in the first place :nono: That was the whole point of my case. A storecard cannot lawfully be morphed into a credit card without a whole new application made in writing. A creditor just sending updated Ts & Cs isn't an option.

This scenario probably relates to the accounts 'upgraded' in 2003/4. After that the OFT issued a warning so some creditors starting getting customers to sign new CCAs. But 2.5 million M & S Mastercards had already been sent out by then. A similar number of Harrods ones too.

[Guest]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

A restricted use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement (store card) upgraded to an unrestricted use debtor-creditor agreement is a modification and needs all the prescribed terms, signature etc.

In Mayhew the judge ruled the storecard agreement was unenforceable and then ruled the agreement needed a modification agreement for the credit card but since it wasn't it too was unenforceable.

The modification agreement (lack of) had nothing to do with the first agreement status.

The ruling in Mayhew is consistent with statute. I have seen a few times on forums that this is so and i suspect this also explains a previous lack of cases on the subject because many knew the outcome before it happened. Any such upgrade will fail in court unless a new agreement has been obtained. It has always been pretty certain that if a debtor maintains no signature truthfully and thus convinces the judge of such no agreement under CCA will be enforced modifying or otherwise.

M1

Yes indeed it is constant with statute, however it is only the case in this particulr instance(others may be similar or they may not).

The first agreement is relevant because it may be of the same catergory as the subsequent one, in this case it wasnt but it does not mean to say that it is not in all cases.

This is an exellant result, and a hearty well done to all concerned.

What i would hate to see hapen is that people who do not fully understand the judgment thinking that it applies to them when it does not, what i would hate even more is for CMCs to be able to convince people that it does, and get them to part with there hard earned on the stregnth of it.

This is not a liscence for everyone who has had a new card issued from a store account to claim unenforceability, it may be simmilar it may well be not.

Just a word of caution

Peter

[Shadowcat]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

But you can't read and digest the Ts & Cs if they haven't been sent to you in the first place :nono: That was the whole point of my case. A storecard cannot lawfully be morphed into a credit card without a whole new application made in writing. A creditor just sending updated Ts & Cs isn't an option.

This scenario probably relates to the accounts 'upgraded' in 2003/4. After that the OFT issued a warning so some creditors starting getting customers to sign new CCAs. But 2.5 million M & S Mastercards had already been sent out by then. A similar number of Harrods ones too.

Exactly. Welcome victims - take note.

[Celestine]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

What a FANTASTIC result! Congratulations to you Plan B

An excellent result for PT and Watsons, well done everyone eace:

[mystery1]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

Yes indeed it is constant with statute, however it is only the case in this particulr instance(others may be similar or they may not).

The first agreement is relevant because it may be of the same catergory as the subsequent one, in this case it wasnt but it does not mean to say that it is not in all cases.

This is an exellant result, and a hearty well done to all concerned.

What i would hate to see hapen is that people who do not fully understand the judgment thinking that it applies to them when it does not, what i would hate even more is for CMCs to be able to convince people that it does, and get them to part with there hard earned on the stregnth of it.

This is not a liscence for everyone who has had a new card issued from a store account to claim unenforceability, it may be simmilar it may well be not.

Just a word of caution

Peter

Under what circumstances would a storecard ( restricted use debtor creditor supplier) being changed to a normal credit card (unrestricted debtor creditor) not require a modifying agreement with the prescribed terms signature etc ?

None that i can think of. It's a different type of credit as defined in the act.

M1

[Guest]

Re: Store card debtors to be let off

Store card defined under the act?

could you link

Peter