maharg v m&S

[mystery1]

Re: maharg v m&S

Well the date on the letter is correct. It would have perhaps been helpful if it hadn't but no big deal.

An application for disclosure is the way forward. The game playing letter won't do them any favours.

M1

[mahargrisch]

Re: maharg v m&S

To court with an application.

I agree with your thoughts regarding contract and assignment. Is the date of assignment on the pocs 30/1/13 ?

M1

POC,s state assigned to the claimant 30/01/2013

[mystery1]

Re: maharg v m&S

So my question is where do I go from here?

To court with an application.

I agree with your thoughts regarding contract and assignment. Is the date of assignment on the pocs 30/1/13 ?

M1

[mahargrisch]

Re: maharg v m&S

Received reply to my CPR 31.14 request and from the content solicitors are stating that neither the agreement or the assignment are specifically mentioned in the POCs.


Copy attached



The claim form from Northampton County Court under particulars of claim states


The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance from the Defendant under a contract between the defendant and Marks and Spencer Financial Services Ltd dated on or about xx/xx/1986 and assigned to the claimant on xx/xx/2013 in the sum of xxxx.xx
Particular sa/c no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Am I missing something here?
Does contract mean something different to agreement? If something is assigned on a particular date, is it not an assignment ?


They have attached a Notification of Account Transfer To A New Agency which they say confirms the assignment.


Copy attached

Again this is not a copy of the assignment from m&s to arrow global as mentioned in the POCs but just amounts to AG informing me that they have instructed someone to manage the account.


In this letter they state the date of the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT 1986 and that it was for a CREDITCARD.


They also refer to ORIGINAL ACCOUNT NUMBER.


I have most of my statements and when I SAR'd m&s I received a copy of the chargecard application form on which they have stamped the ORIGINAL chargecard account No which is obviously different to this notice and the a/c No given in the POCs.


I have given them 7 days to supply copies of these documents using CPR 31.14.
Telephoned after 9 day sasking for them to send them and having checked the recording the solicitors legal Executive agreed to request a copy of the contract from AG.
Only to receive this letter saying that they aren't mentioned so presumably I can't have copies and in the case of the Notice of Assignment AG would have sent this prior to the solicitor being instructed.




So my question is where do I go from here?

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

Truecall machine up and running.

I know I don't have to inform that the call is recorded but they at no point informed me that they were recording the call for any purpose.I assumed they were and replied accordingly.

When they pressed for an admission that I had a credit card, I informed them that they are using in their POCs an unenforceable chargecard application and that the supply of an unsolicited credit token is illegal.

LOL You seem to have these muppets well in hand

[mahargrisch]

Re: maharg v m&S

I hope yo taped the call. They were seeking and admission from you. They still must prove you applied for a Credit Card

Truecall machine up and running.

I know I don't have to inform that the call is recorded but they at no point informed me that they were recording the call for any purpose.I assumed they were and replied accordingly.

When they pressed for an admission that I had a credit card, I informed them that they are using in their POCs an unenforceable chargecard application and that the supply of an unsolicited credit token is illegal.

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

I hope yo taped the call. They were seeking and admission from you. They still must prove you applied for a Credit Card

[mahargrisch]

Re: maharg v m&S

You can ring them and tell them that, since you are a litigant in person and they have not complied within 7 days, you'll need more time to submit your defence. You are entitled to an extension of up to 28 days under CPR rule 15.5:

Get them to put their agreement in writing so you can then notify the court. You've still got time, a lot can happen in 19 days so there's no need to panic and rush with an N244. :nono:

OK contacted them and they said that I had POCs so what is the problem.
I explained that although I had POCs I wanted the documents that they referred to in them.
Their answer was why?.It is a simple money claim.They then asked whether I admit to having an M&S credit card.
I explained that I applied for an M&S chargecard and as that was the document to which they refer in their POCs ,I would like a copy of the agreement.
Eventually after telling me I was being deliberately obstructive by not admitting anything they agreed to send the documents requested and to put in writing a 14 day extension.

Re: maharg v m&S

And I'm the Virgin Mary

Virgin on what - the preposterous? :grin:

Re: maharg v m&S

And I'm the Virgin Mary

and you are seriously deluded msl:

[PlanB]

Re: maharg v m&S

And I'm the Virgin Mary

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

I'm Spartacus

Re: maharg v m&S

LB has over 30,000 members and I did not provide a username.

True...
You did not actually post that Di Mayhew is really me.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: maharg v m&S

Blimey,,I hope she doesn't mind being named in full and 'outed' as an LB member..don't think I'd be best chuffed unless I was asked first (you did ask her first I hope)??

I'm sorry if it came across like that, I didn't think I was 'outing' anyone. The links I posted are in the public domain and have been quoted time and again, the case has been doing the rounds of the forums for a couple of years, I saw no reason not to refer to them as I constantly refer to, say, McGuffick v RBS or Cabot v Bachelier.

LB has over 30,000 members and I did not provide a username.

Furthermore, the member in question has, in the past, made quite a few posts admitting to being involved in the case, so I saw nothing wrong with re-quoting, however, I'd be happy to edit my post if there's an issue...

Re: maharg v m&S

I have PMd PT2537 :yo: who dealt with the Santander v Mayhew case which refers to a very similar card, where a storecard had been turned credit card without a new agreement. You probably know that Di Mayhew WON and Santander LOST, with co$t$ awarded against them! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


Di Mayhew is also an LB member. :grin:

This is the case with comments from PT: http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...nder-v-mayhew/

This is the case as reported by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803

Blimey,,I hope she doesn't mind being named in full and 'outed' as an LB member..don't think I'd be best chuffed unless I was asked first (you did ask her first I hope)??