AA99 v Barclaycard No2 a/c

[AA99]

Originally Posted by slick132

Thought I was reading a soap opera here !!

My life as turned into one! Wait till you see me in court Have often been told I resemble Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous - you aint seen nothing yet, sweetie

[AA99]

Well, well, well, BC have now produced the original Morgan Stanley agreement from 2005! Part 1 Application form, Part 2 The Agreement, on the back. Signed and dated !

[slick132]

If you aren't entirely sure about it's enforceability, post the doc't so it can be checked.

Read this first - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...greements.html

[AA99]

Thanks Slick, exactly why I didn't bother posting it! It is definitely a 2-sided copy of the original. They have, however, copied both sides onto one page so is very small. I'll see if I can enlarge it first and then let you all rip it apart like a pack of mad dogs

[AA99]

[slick132]

Hi AA,

I can't read the doc't properly. Have you checked as per the "credit agreement" link I posted last time.

[AA99]

Slick, it is totally illegible, except the first page is Part 1 - Application Form and the second page is Part 2 - The Agreement. Date of signature is 19 Oct 2005 and was with Morgan Stanley. However, received this last week from Debt Managers Ltd. Home-made letterhead with 26 A4 printed off pages attached. 20 pages consist of their travel insurance policy

[slick132]

So what was on the other 6 pages ?

[AA99]

These are pages 1 and 2 constituting the contract and there's 4 pages of general T&C's numbered 1 to 20 The quality of copy is exactly as received The reference to the Credit Limit (A) will not be set below £15,000 is a bit strange Never been above £5,400

[middenmess]

What is section D about??

Originally Posted by AA99

These are pages 1 and 2 constituting the contract and there's 4 pages of general T&C's numbered 1 to 20 The quality of copy is exactly as received The reference to the Credit Limit (A) will not be set below £15,000 is a bit strange Never been above £5,400

[AA99]

Originally Posted by middenmess

What is section D about??

No idea! Let the Judge work it out

[slick132]

Umm...

Where's your signature.

[AA99]

It just won't show up

[slick132]

Sorry AA,

Is your signature on the doc'ts at all, or not ?

[AA99]

LOL Yes, per post #45

[slick132]

DOH !! What a donut !!

Right, surely the answer is to write back saying they have failed to fulfill the requirements of Regulation 2, Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983.

Accordingly, the a/c clearly remains in dispute and, if they make demands of you, they are in breach of the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection. You'll report any such breach to the FOS as a formal complaint.

[AA99]

Done that first on 14 Nov 08
Made Formal complaint on 6 Jan 09
Again on 12 March 09
Again on 2 Jun 09

Just had a quick flick through the file also and received threatening demands/Postcards/threat/threat/threat from the following

24 Oct Mercers
04 Nov Scotcall
10 Nov Mercers
05 Dec Mercers
08 Jan Calder Financial
05 Mar Barclaycard
23 Mar Mercers
27 Apr Barclaycard
04 May Debt Managers Ltd - URGENT FINAL DEMAND
14 May ditto - NOTICE OF LEGAL ACTION
26 May ditto - SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITY
26 Jun 09 ditto - CCA sent

This card not been used since Jun 08 and so far over £700 charges added

Also, 39 calls from Mercers from 12 November 2008 - 06 Jan 2009
19 in December alone! Haven't done an update recently but there's plenty more

Also, stressful visit to the doctor on 3 Feb 09 who has made a note of it

OH and I have 2 other accounts with BC who have frozen interest and charges and are on a repayment plan. WHY not this one???!!!

I really want to sue them

[slick132]

Have you considered using the CPR strategy as a means of:-

1. Getting sight of the original credit agreement so it's enforceability can be properly considered. You can then seek an injunction to stop further collection on the a/c if the agreement is not valid.

2. Using the court action to also reclaim charges and interest at their Contractual Rate

[AA99]

Slick, I didn't bother with the CPR route because they have sent a copy of the original, haven't they post #45

[slick132]

Hmmm,

They've sent a copy but it's not legible and the a/c shouldn't be enforced in a court based on this doc't.

But CPR may produce a legible doc't, or a ruling on the existing doc't.