maharg v m&S

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

I am trying to access the link you gave as I have similar issues with a M&S charge card to &More Master card transfer, despite the OFT ruling that they had no right to do this and that their actions were illegal under CCA74 s51 by the way they also breach CCA74 s61 s127 (3) and CC(Agreements regulations 1983 Regulation 7 requiring a new compliant agreement. I also drew attention to Santander v Mathew and Wilson v First County Trust and : OK authority as it was upheald on appeal that without a valid agreement monies are a gift.

This is relevant to my PPI claim as 2003 unsolicited upgrade has no new agreement Credit PPI was included with the &More card and set up as I had it on the old charge card, which they cancelled and transferred the balance to the credit card account despite my objection I was told the upgrade was automatic and there was no option to keep my old card.

They claim that the original Charge card agreement is an overall agreement and that I did not have a pre existing condition in 1986 when this was taken out, they admit being made aware of my injury in 1995 and claim that the Credit card PPI policy was not new in 2003, they also claim that the new credit card PPI cover simply continued to cover my credit line on the same basis as previously.

I am going to challenge this on the grounds that the OFT have already ruled that agreements cannot be transferred between cards. The PPI facility is a standard part of the original agreement, as there is an opt out tick box on the signature page an no other agreement exists. Cancellation of chargecard automatically cancelled protection in 2003, M&S were aware of my pre existing conditionin as I had made a claim in 1995. There is no valid agreement all monies are a gift,

Please not the account is still active and in order I did however cancel PPI after claim rejection from M&S.

The most recent claim is that being an insurance product PPI is transferable between different types of card irrespective of OFT ruling

For belt and braces I am would like to be able to find precedent or statute to kick this into touch

Any help would be appreciated

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: maharg v m&S

Santander vs. Mayhew should be your main defense. Whilst it does not set a precedent as such, as our very own Paul says, it would be very difficult for any judge argue about it. The fact that M&S Financial Services (HSBC) themselves never take people who have this kind of card to court speaks volumes. Court action is normally started by debt purchasers who hope that people don't defend.

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

Thanks for this, paras 11&12 of Santander v Mathew establish that CCA74 s61 and reg 7 are applicable to a card upgrade and no agreement exists in not complied with s127(3) also applies as this is pre April 2007.

They are claiming that the chargecard PPI facility falls outside of this and is a continuation of an existing facility on the same basis so can be transferred to a credit card

Bizzare as the protection opt tick box is within a section on the chargecard signature street that also states the PPI rate is 64p per Ł100 of the outstanding balance (see over for details) .

This obviously refers to the PPI policy details on the reverse side of the original Chargecard agreement, NOT supplied of course, however this still provides a clear link confirming that they are one and the same thing.

What I am looking for is case law/history or precedent confirming that a restricted facility cannot be transferred to a unrestricted facility without a new agreement.

The legislation is there but case history is required.
Any takers

[pt2537]

Re: maharg v m&S

PPI can be a red herring, it can be the case that PPI is not part of the agreement, rather it is a purchase made on the credit token itself.

[Guest]

Re: maharg v m&S

I am trying to access the link you gave as I have similar issues with a M&S charge card to &More Master card transfer, despite the OFT ruling that they had no right to do this and that their actions were illegal under CCA74 s51 by the way they also breach CCA74 s61 s127 (3) and CC(Agreements regulations 1983 Regulation 7 requiring a new compliant agreement. I also drew attention to Santander v Mathew and Wilson v First County Trust and : OK authority as it was upheald on appeal that without a valid agreement monies are a gift.

section 74 ?



This is relevant to my PPI claim as 2003 unsolicited upgrade has no new agreement Credit PPI was included with the &More card and set up as I had it on the old charge card, which they cancelled and transferred the balance to the credit card account despite my objection I was told the upgrade was automatic and there was no option to keep my old card.

They claim that the original Charge card agreement is an overall agreement and that I did not have a pre existing condition in 1986 when this was taken out, they admit being made aware of my injury in 1995 and claim that the Credit card PPI policy was not new in 2003, they also claim that the new credit card PPI cover simply continued to cover my credit line on the same basis as previously.

I am going to challenge this on the grounds that the OFT have already ruled that agreements cannot be transferred between cards. The PPI facility is a standard part of the original agreement, as there is an opt out tick box on the signature page an no other agreement exists. Cancellation of chargecard automatically cancelled protection in 2003, M&S were aware of my pre existing conditionin as I had made a claim in 1995. There is no valid agreement all monies are a gift,

Please not the account is still active and in order I did however cancel PPI after claim rejection from M&S.

The most recent claim is that being an insurance product PPI is transferable between different types of card irrespective of OFT ruling

For belt and braces I am would like to be able to find precedent or statute to kick this into touch

Any help would be appreciated

Wilson lords judgment(which over ruled the one you mention) regarding the section 1 HR issues. Sums due under an unenforceable agreement are still owed just not capable of being recovered through court proceedings.

as said the PPI issue is a none starter

section 74 ?

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

I take your point however the charge card ppi came as standard with the original agreement which contained a opt out tick box within the signature sheet and also quoted the premium stating see over for details, the flipside of the agreement has not been supplied but there is a clear link to the PPI cover facility being part of the original agreement.M&S claim T&C s with PPI details were in desperate documents, bringing compliance with CCA74 s61 into question.

In 2003 they automatically upgraded their charge card customers with unsolicited &More credit cards transferring balances and PPI facilities to the new card without advance written requests or serving a new agreement for signiture.
This breaches CC(A)R83 R7 and CCA74 s51 s61 s127(3), modification requires new agreement served, supply unsolicited credit token an offence, no compliant properly executed agreement meeting specified format and no signed agreement respectively. Absence invalidates agreements making them unenforceable.

The OFT also took M&S to task stated action sending out unsolicited cards was illegal and that charge card agreements were not transferable to credit cards.

No valid original agreement, PPI cover sold as part of agreement, M&S cancelled charge card 2003, automatic upgrade to &More credit card and credit card PPI facility unsolicited, no new agreement served, no signed complains agreement exists.

Charge card use restricted to M&S shops, &More card use elsewhere accepting MasterCard including internet, two totally dissimilar products with totally dissimilar levels of PPI cover required, hence OFT non transfer ruling.

A Claim that a transfer is possible because PPI is an insurance product IMO is a bit like claiming pet insurance on my cat named zippy can be transferred to my barnyard cow named Bungle after running over poor zippy on grounds that they are both mammals,

Now how did that tune go?

Serious note, Facts speak for themselves but Any regs, case law etc to kick this into touch, for belt and braces style appreciated

[pt2537]

Re: maharg v m&S

I take your point however the charge card ppi came as standard with the original agreement which contained a opt out tick box within the signature sheet and also quoted the premium stating see over for details, the flipside of the agreement has not been supplied but there is a clear link to the PPI cover facility being part of the original agreement.M&S claim T&C s with PPI details were in desperate documents, bringing compliance with CCA74 s61 into question.

In 2003 they automatically upgraded their charge card customers with unsolicited &More credit cards transferring balances and PPI facilities to the new card without advance written requests or serving a new agreement for signiture.
This breaches CC(A)R83 R7 and CCA74 s51 s61 s127(3), modification requires new agreement served, supply unsolicited credit token an offence, no compliant properly executed agreement meeting specified format and no signed agreement respectively. Absence invalidates agreements making them unenforceable.

The OFT also took M&S to task stated action sending out unsolicited cards was illegal and that charge card agreements were not transferable to credit cards.

No valid original agreement, PPI cover sold as part of agreement, M&S cancelled charge card 2003, automatic upgrade to &More credit card and credit card PPI facility unsolicited, no new agreement served, no signed complains agreement exists.

Charge card use restricted to M&S shops, &More card use elsewhere accepting MasterCard including internet, two totally dissimilar products with totally dissimilar levels of PPI cover required, hence OFT non transfer ruling.

A Claim that a transfer is possible because PPI is an insurance product IMO is a bit like claiming pet insurance on my cat named zippy can be transferred to my barnyard cow named Bungle after running over poor zippy on grounds that they are both mammals,

Now how did that tune go?

Serious note, Facts speak for themselves but Any regs, case law etc to kick this into touch, for belt and braces style appreciated

Youre over complicating a simple point to take.

When i pleaded the Defence in Santander v Mayhew, i never even bothered with PPI, PPI is a red herring, it is a purchase made under the agreement and therefore it is irrelevent,

[Guest]

Re: maharg v m&S

Have to agree. The PPI is not a part of the agreement, is a product purchased by the credit issued on the agreement.

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

Brilliant stuff, many thanks you have just confirmed what I have been trying to get across to M&S, that you can't make a purchase under an agreement when there is no agreement.

My fault for not making it clear that I am not defending a default but am trying to get the money back I paid out since M&S stuck me with &More card with PPI that I never asked for whilst knowing that I was disabled.

Over thinking can become a habit when you have time on your hands

Hence the need for info relevant to PPI.

Unsurprisingly dealing with them is like having to demolish a wall brick by brick.
Many thanks for you time

[Guest]

Re: maharg v m&S

Then it is a simple task of any premiums made on the policy plus any interest charged, or if operated in credit , then statutory interest from the dates the payments were made at 8%

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

Yep This is exactly what I have been chasing them for I had to go down the no agreement route as they claim that I did not have a pre existing in 1986 when I signed up for a chargecard with protection. I had an accident and they paid out in 1995. They sent me unsolicited upgraded &more credit card in 2003 claimed transfer of agreement OFT ruled s51, illegal, agreement non transferable etc
M&S cancelled store card, claim ppi transfer of facility to credit card, no signed agreement, they say I did not have pre existing in 2003 !!!

I am not in default,

I thought Wilson was upheld on appeal and read that nobody's HRs had been breached, now a bit confused.

Re s74? Queried as it was in the link I could not access. I thought this referred to overdrafts and exemption from part V etc

You guys know a lot more than I do

[Kandis]

Re: maharg v m&S

Anyone know what happened to the claim on this one as no further posts from the OP
Thanks

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

Under FOS review

[brown1950]

Re: maharg v m&S

Had usual M&S Store Card (1995) changed to M&S Credit Card (2003) - Claimed PPI -refused by M&S so after 12 months FOS
upheld my claim. Received offer from M&S however they have deducted over Ł2000 as a set off against the balance owed.

Have the usual store card application form and no agreement for the credit card - Can M&S claim the set off against a credit card with no agreement and a store card with an application form ?

Should i go back to FOS (will they understand?) or should i persue M&S and get the usual template replies ?

[pt2537]

Re: maharg v m&S

Anyone know what happened to the claim on this one as no further posts from the OP
Thanks

yes, but its a case of waiting til the result can be disclosed

But, its certainly not a bad result