maharg v m&S

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

Has any DCA bee successful with one of these M&S Storecard to Credit Card claims? I have lost track of the number DCAs who have chased me for this. The Leeds Losers seem to have a load of them now but are subcontracting them out to some of their minions
:colbert:

[PAWS]

Re: maharg v m&S

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

But, its certainly not a bad result

PT, you say the loveliest things!!!!!! Can’t wait to hear the outcome.

I have a Santander store to credit card issue (now owned by Arrow) so I am watching this thread with more than a little interest.

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

My understanding is that M&S issued over 3.5m unsolicited, unrestricted MasterCard cards as replacements for their existing customers restricted use store chargecards despite the OFT ruling that this was illegal and that M&S agreements were non transferable to their new &More card.

No new &More credit card agreements or mandate to purchase unsolicited credit card PPI were ever served. M&S claim that the existing agreements, chargecard lines of credit and PPI mandates are transferable to their new &More credit card without any no new paperwork and that the original chargecard agreement is an overall credit agreement.

I will post the result of FOS review asap

In the meantime perhaps brown1950 would be prepared to disclose the grounds his claim was upheld on?

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edit-card.html

[ashlea]

Re: maharg v m&S

Many thanks, this info plus several other articles already sent to ombudsman with details of claim

[FlamingParrot]

Re: maharg v m&S

PT, you say the loveliest things!!!!!! Can’t wait to hear the outcome.

I have a Santander store to credit card issue (now owned by Arrow) so I am watching this thread with more than a little interest.

You are, no doubt, familiar with this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803

Some issuers of store-branded credit cards may be unable to collect debts run up by some of their defaulting card holders, following a court ruling.

Judge Henrietta Manners ruled at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court that Santander could not collect a debt of £5,126 on a Harrods card.

She said this was mainly because the store card's terms and conditions were not properly supplied and signed.

But its later upgrade to a credit card was also not carried out correctly.

The Harrods card-holder in question, Diana Mayhew, said she never asked for the upgraded card, issued in 2003.

You may also know about PT's involvement: :yo: :yo: :yo:

Paul Tilley, who works for Diana Mayhew's solicitors, Watsons of Llandudno, said: "The upgrade was not just a simple variation of the terms, but was a completely new creature, it turned the store card into a credit card. The whole structure of the agreement changed."

"It wasn't just a variation, which is what Santander said it was. It was a modifying agreement [but] there was no new signed agreement.

"If they [customers] weren't provided with a copy of a new agreement, with the new card, to agree to and sign and return, it would lead to unenforceability," Tilley added.

:high5: :high5: :high5:
This is what he had to say:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...nder-v-mayhew/

Lets also stop and point a finger at good old Santander now, this was a bank that alleged this had happened and Ms Mayhew was just wrong, yet Santander could not provide any evidence before the Court and trust me they were aware this was a live issue from an early stage, now surely they would have had a copy of the terms they say are applicable?? it beggars belief that they couldnt put any evidence before the Court to satisfy the judge on balance of probabilities that there were terms.

...and this was the icing on the cake: http://legalbeagles.info/santander-c...ew-misc-14-cc/

15. It follows from what I have said above that the claim is dismissed. The claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed

:whoo: :whoo: :whoo: :whoo: :whoo:
Costs which were estimated at around £50k! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Although strictly speaking, the above case doesn't set legal precedent, it's not very likely a judge would rule in favour of the claimant in similar circumstances, as that would be like saying Judge Henrietta Manners was wrong and, from what I've heard, Miss Manners wasn't exactly sympathetic towards Ms Mayhew, she just had to rule according to the law. :thumb:

As a county court judgement, the ruling is not binding on other courts.
But it opens the way for other defaulting card users in a similar situation.
They too may be able to argue in court that their cards were also upgraded improperly and that their debts are therefore similarly unenforceable.

[FlamingParrot]

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 £2000 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 ?

I'm afraid they can, as long as there's an outstanding balance, any redress can be offset from it. Banks can even offset from another account you may have with them, for example, a current account to pay a defaulted credit card.

The lack of terms means the card may be unenforceable in court as was the one quoted above, but it doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist, so yes, they can offset. The FOS doesn't usually get involved in enforceability issues as that's up to a court to decide. :juge:

[PAWS]

Re: maharg v m&S

Thanks for that FP. :hug: Arrow have gone eerily quiet for the last few months since my last letter informing them that their failure to comply with my document request etc., etc:yell:. but deep down inside I still wait for the ‘big bad letter’ to hit the door mat. I fully expect them to get heavy with a lot of these ‘no agreement cases’ in a rush to grab as much as they can in case those new rules come into force next April. (SeeThread: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views)
Normally I am quite brave especially after reading inspirational posts on LB. I have an excellent paper trail and have many points to argue. I would love to add to the LB cache of wins and see someone like PT pocket a nice fee but in the ‘wee small hours’ I just want it all to go away. :fear:
During tonight’s wee small hours however I am listening to a ferocious wind howling around the house and wonder just how little of my greenhouse will be left standing tomorrow!!!:mmph:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: maharg v m&S

Thanks for that FP. :hug: Arrow have gone eerily quiet for the last few months since my last letter informing them that their failure to comply with my document request etc., etc:yell:. but deep down inside I still wait for the ‘big bad letter’ to hit the door mat. I fully expect them to get heavy with a lot of these ‘no agreement cases’ in a rush to grab as much as they can in case those new rules come into force next April. (SeeThread: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views)
Normally I am quite brave especially after reading inspirational posts on LB. I have an excellent paper trail and have many points to argue. I would love to add to the LB cache of wins and see someone like PT pocket a nice fee but in the ‘wee small hours’ I just want it all to go away. :fear:

You may want to read another inspirational post and see what another OP has been sending with regards to his M&S storecard turned credit card: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Dear Sir / Madam

Account No/Reference No: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 6 June 2013.

I refer you to my previous correspondence, particularly the letter sent to your Pre Legal Recoveries team on 13 November 2012 which clearly states my position.

Turning to the issues at hand, the documents provided in reply to my section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act request do not discharge the burden placed upon you. I should not need to point out to an experienced financial institution the errors within the documentation.

I have also been referred to a case which you will no doubt be aware of called Santander v Diana Mayhew (2012) whereby an agreement identical to the one underpinning this agreement was found to be unenforceable. The Mayhew judgment is available on the BBC website, and also on BAILII, which you will no doubt be aware of.

The agreement that was signed does not contain the prescribed terms required by schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 and this is evident from the signed application that you have provided to me. Since such an agreement would be unenforceable per the long line of Court of Appeal and House of Lords authorities and should you seek to take legal action I will instruct solicitors to defend such vigorously and place reliance upon the Mayhew ruling along with other such authorities.

Furthermore you have now admitted that no consumer credit agreement was signed for the alleged mastercard account. I am attaching some documentation, outlining that a new credit agreement would have been required as a storecard and mastercard are completely different products. Your letter will be shown to the Judge in case of litigation.

As we are clearly going around in circles I have decided to cease all communication with you. Further letters from you will be filed but not replied to.

Should you instruct a third party to deal with the matter, they will be told that that the alleged account is in serious dispute and I will not discuss the matter with them.

Should you decide to sell the alleged debt, the buyer will be informed that the alleged account was sold whilst in serious dispute.

Any court claim will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully

Mr $quanda£ot

During tonight’s wee small hours however I am listening to a ferocious wind howling around the house and wonder just how little of my greenhouse will be left standing tomorrow!!!:mmph:

Oh dear! You must live very far away from me because I've just looked out the window after reading your post and there isn't even a breeze!

[PAWS]

Re: maharg v m&S

Oh dear! You must live very far away from me because I've just looked out the window after reading your post and there isn't even a breeze!

[/QUOTE]
Mr S’s letter is pure class!
We live on a hill surrounded by trees near the coast and it is blowing like hell out there. My friend lives in Bermuda and they have just been hit by a hurricane – haven’t been able to contact her since Thursday so I suppose it could be worse!

[brown1950]

Re: maharg v m&S

I'm afraid they can, as long as there's an outstanding balance, any redress can be offset from it. Banks can even offset from another account you may have with them, for example, a current account to pay a defaulted credit card.

The lack of terms means the card may be unenforceable in court as was the one quoted above, but it doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist, so yes, they can offset. The FOS doesn't usually get involved in enforceability issues as that's up to a court to decide. :juge:

Many thanks for response.

In their PPI settlement letter M&S advised the set off clause was within the Credit Card terms & conditions !
No Credit Card conditions exist.? or could they being refferring to the original StoreCard application form ?

[Kandis]

Re: maharg v m&S

Some excellent reading there, thank you peeps. Enough to help me at the moment!! Walls have ears and I'm not sure if this is in VIP or not.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: maharg v m&S

Some excellent reading there, thank you peeps. Enough to help me at the moment!! Walls have ears and I'm not sure if this is in VIP or not.

It isn't. You will notice some of the posters are not VIP members, this is an open thread, but there isn't much to worry about, we are not plotting something super-secret that no one should be made aware of, we're just quoting some well known cases where the court had to rule in favour of the defendant to stay within the law. :juge:

[ODC]

Re: maharg v m&S

I dont think any of the DCAs have had a successful CCJ of an M&S Storecard converted to Credit Card

[FlamingParrot]

Re: maharg v m&S

I dont think any of the DCAs have had a successful CCJ of an M&S Storecard converted to Credit Card

Probably only in cases where they have obtained default judgment or where the defendant has admitted the claim due to ignorance.

After the Mayhew case, it's unlikely they'll be willing to go ahead with a defended claim but may still try it on hoping for an easy ride.