Basa48 v Tesco

[Angry Cat]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

I have pm'd, Amethyst!

[basa48]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

I have pm'd, Amethyst!

Thanks AC - will await Amethyst

[Amethyst]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

Pm'd

Interesting that the default charges in 1999 were £10.

We should get lists together of definitive charges amounts for various c/cards since the early 90's as thats an easy way as a first check if the T&C recons sent are the correct period ones.

[basa48]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

Hi Amethyst and AC

Thanks for the jpg's. Very informative.

Whilst the principle of the application is likely to be similar, it is clear from comparison with my copy of the application form TPF have sent me that mine is quite different from AC's version.

ACs version would make the T&Cs occupy approx. one third of the reverse of the whole application form. My application form looks considerably smaller, maybe A4 size overall, so it is difficult to imagine what space the T&Cs would have occupied on the reverse (if indeed that is where they were).

With reference to the Waksman / Carey judgment he (IMO) clearly refers to reconstructions only in response to s78 requests, calling them for 'Current Information Purpose' i.e NOT 'so that the debtor may be satisfied that he did indeed enter the agreement by signing a document which was a properly executed agreement (i.e. “the Proof Purpose”)'. Also Waksman states 'Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 [of the Copies Regs] requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request'.

In light of this I would argue TPF would need to produce a copy of my original application with the T&Cs on the reverse. They have a copy of the original application front (signature) page, but thus far have not produced the T&Cs that may have been on the reverse at the time of signing. I suspect they would not have kept a copy of those T&Cs.

The danger for me is that they find a copy of 'my' style of application including what would have been on the reverse and produce that as part of 'my' agreement.
How would I prove they were a reconstruction.

I found this bit of the Carey judgment interesting although not sure this is how Tesco operated.

177.
(1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by “the terms and conditions attached”; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;
(2) The form (referred to as “a signature page” in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey’s details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;
(4) Ms Carey would then have been invited to read the agreement, consisting of the signature page and attached terms and would then have signed and dated the signature page. It would then have been countersigned by the bank;

This describes an application being filled in and sent to the lender, who then prepares another form with PTs for signature by the debtor. This suggests application forms don't always contain PTs. These are prepared from the applicants details and sent for signature as a separate process.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

I know for a fact that they hold the April 2000 issue T&C's.

[Amethyst]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco




The detach and moisten before folding part suggests there was a part you tore off and retained before posting so it could have been longer, on the 1999 one theres an additional section for direct debit info - so if wasnt something you took off they may have taken the DD instruction off to send to the bank.

Also ref the Carey bit you mentioned, no your appplication was not precompleted with your details and sent to you to sign, you can see that from the copy, as you handwrote your details on, most likely on a form leaflet picked up in store, and sent it off. When Tesco executed the agreement (and stamped it) they sent you a copy of the executed T&Cs with your card.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

The detach and moisten before folding part suggests there was a part you tore off and retained before posting so it could have been longer, on the 1999 one theres an additional section for direct debit info - so if wasnt something you took off they may have taken the DD instruction off to send to the bank.

Also ref the Carey bit you mentioned, no your appplication was not precompleted with your details and sent to you to sign, you can see that from the copy, as you handwrote your details on, most likely on a form leaflet picked up in store, and sent it off. When Tesco executed the agreement (and stamped it) they sent you a copy of the executed T&Cs with your card.

The 1999 issue application form, also states:
Detach & Moisten here before folding.

From memory, the application form was attached to a Tesco flyer advertisement about Tesco clubcard points and their new RBS/TPF affiliate credit card.

You will see similar leaflets in Sainsbury today Re: Nectar; these are in the same three page fold format, the terms and conditions of same take up a third of the Nectar form.

The form/leaflets were in all Tesco stores; one could fill them up in-store and hand to customer service or, take them home to complete and then post oneself.

Agree, the 2000 issue form is slightly smaller than that of 1999 form and the Tesco Perosnal Finance 2000 issue Terms and Conditions are approximately one inch smaller than the Tesco Visa Card 1999 Terms & Conditions, which were sent later with the Card(s) & Welcome Pack.

Note, the terms & conditions that take up a third of the reverse of the application form(s) are in very reduced font and IMHO would not have been read by many, if any [Emphasis Added]

[Angry Cat]

Re: Basa48 v Tesco

A little reading:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...d-1251544.html