Basa48 v Tesco

[basa48]

With a default judgment they should really be applying to set aside the judgment against them rather than bring a new claim unless it is on a different cause of action. Different issues on same account would be different cause of action.

My original PoC was for:

1. Declaration of unenforceability
2. Removal of damaging data
3. Repayment of default charges

The anticipated claim will be for balance of account (for which they will have to prove an enforceable agreement).

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Ouch. Probably a good job they didnt defend lol. You got a thread?

[basa48]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Ouch. Probably a good job they didnt defend lol. You got a thread?

You're probably right. This was all over a year ago, when I was a lot greener.

Not much to see (except the 'agreement') here > Basa48 v Tesco

I'm a bit more clued up now should I have to defend.

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Ummm, looks enforceable to me. They may not have sent you the original reverse of the agreement but those in force at the time of your request but they only have to reconstruct it and it is clearly linked to the front page (overleaf etc). Only other option is to locate an original reverse of this type of agreement from TPF and see if it does lack any prescribed terms (which I doubt tbh) and use that to counter the recon. But, they have to get past the default judgment bits first.

[diddydicky]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

its a fair bet also that the DN may be grossly out on the amount required to remedy the default

[basa48]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Ummm, looks enforceable to me. They may not have sent you the original reverse of the agreement but those in force at the time of your request but they only have to reconstruct it and it is clearly linked to the front page (overleaf etc). Only other option is to locate an original reverse of this type of agreement from TPF and see if it does lack any prescribed terms (which I doubt tbh) and use that to counter the recon. But, they have to get past the default judgment bits first.

Not sure I want to agree with you as the Carey judgment asks for "a copy of the executed agreement in its original form" (Reg 7) and clearly that 'recons' are only good for s78 "current info".

Also it is not clearly linked as the application says "general conditions set out separately".

[basa48]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

its a fair bet also that the DN may be grossly out on the amount required to remedy the default

Unfortunately not

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Not sure I want to agree with you as the Carey judgment asks for "a copy of the executed agreement in its original form" (Reg 7) and clearly that 'recons' are only good for s78 "current info".

Also it is not clearly linked as the application says "general conditions set out separately".

The declaration says '' I have read and agree to be bound by the general conditions applying to the card as set out seperately and the details about the card as set out overleaf and as may be amended from time to time. ''

But I agree the recon of the terms set out overleaf should be a recon of those at inception not last statement date.

The front signature page is not a recon, it's a copy. The terms from the reverse are missing / a recon, they should be those from inception, but if they do that (and can't imagine why they wouldnt unless they had no record of applications from 2000) it will be accepted by the court as we have seen many times before.

So if it satisfies s78, and they can satisfy balance of probablities on evidence of what you agreed to.....

They need the inception ''details about the card as set out overleaf'' .



These are what are sent WITH the card after your application is accepted and is your copy of the executed agreement - (same as yours I think). They don't suffice as it needs to be those from inception
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...Tesco-CCa1.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...Tesco-CCa2.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Tesco-TC1.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Tesco-TC2.jpg


2005 - £15

November 2000 - APR 4.9%

[Angry Cat]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

Got a feeling that I may have an original application leaflet from that time.
Will take a look.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

The three page folding application forms were temptingly placed in racks in all Tesco Stores; the credit cards were a joint venture by RBS and TPF.

About the reverse:

The top part of the folding application form showed, Tesco Visa Card Terms & Conditions

Second and middle part was the prepaid response address:
Tesco Personal Finance
200 Priory Crescent
SOUTHEND ON SEA
SS99 9QY

The third and last part was advertsing:
See whats special about the Tesco Visa Card: additional text;

Clubcard points wherever you shop: additional text.

Tesco customers could fill these out in-store and pass the to the Tesco Customer Service or, fill them out at home and then post in the normal manner.
[Emphasis Added] Please note, Tesco employees were not trained in givng advice about PPI but they did provide their personal view(s)

When an application had been accepted, the customer would receive a Tesco Visa Card Welcome Pack; a booklet that contained a three page double sided folding leaflet: *Tesco Visa Card Terms and Conditions and if applicable a;

Certificate of Insurance:
Tesco Visa Card Purchase Protection Insurance.

*The Tesco Visa Card Terms and Conditions leaflet, was not provided until the customer received the Tesco Welcome Pack.

However, the Terms & Conditions were shown on the top part of the folding application form/leaflet.

Lastly, the Terms and Conditions provided in response to the OP's s78 request, must match the Terms that were shown on the reverse of the TPF application form, issue date: March 2000, as well as the Terms a varied.

It would assist if the OP will advise as to which issue date T&C's he/she has been provided with: the purported inception T&C's.

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

You are a star AC.

Just noticed we've kind of hijacked Josh's thread for BAsas Tesco claim, so if y'all agree shall I move the tesco posts elsewhere ? (or is Josh Basa and I've got myself all conuddled again ?)

[Angry Cat]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

My aplogies, Amethyst!

I do have other information but will wait until you have finished moving basa48.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

[Quote] by AC:
Lastly, the Terms and Conditions provided in response to the OP's s78 request, must match the Terms that were shown on the reverse of the TPF application form, issue date: March 2000, as well as the Terms a varied.

It would assist if the OP will advise as to which issue date T&C's he/she has been provided with: the purported inception T&C's. [Quote]

Will wait for basa to respond.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Claim Struck Out - Now Being Re-issued

[quote=Amethyst;182686]:
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...Tesco-CCa1.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...Tesco-CCa2.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Tesco-TC1.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Tesco-TC2.jpg [Quote]

Agreed, none of the above are the inception Terms for the relevant period!

[basa48]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

by AC:
Lastly, the Terms and Conditions provided in response to the OP's s78 request, must match the Terms that were shown on the reverse of the TPF application form, issue date: March 2000, as well as the Terms a varied.

It would assist if the OP will advise as to which issue date T&C's he/she has been provided with: the purported inception T&C's.

Will wait for basa to respond.

They have not provided inception T&Cs - only current terms. What you see OTR is all I ever got.

I'm interested you say the T&Cs were on part of the application form. I could really do with a copy of that application form. Can you scan and email me a copy if I PM you my email addy?