Thread: Please help, Mercers/Barclaycard

Mercers and Barclaycard have become the bain of our existence. They were harrassing us and even sent doorstep collectors to harrass me and my children. When I argued back with the man, he did some damage to our personal property, which we are fighting. I found CAG that day. I CCA'ed them but really cannot tell if this is an enforceable agreement.

Can anyone help?

Similar Threads:

• barclaycard-mercers
• Barclaycard/Mercers
• Mercers and Barclaycard
• mercers / barclaycard
• Barclaycard Mercers

Oh deary me. This is clearly a mailer application.
B'card strike out again and here's why:

This is taken from another thread;

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Under SI 1983/1553 the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document to be valid, having them on a seperate sheet headed T&C or similar ISN'T acceptable.

SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6)

This applies to all agreements pre May 2005.
So basically this is unenforceable, under 127(3).

Just to add to my comments re terms witin signature doc.
This was covered off in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated
consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting
the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said

333 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the
agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and
backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be
orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.
As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and
the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which
are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the
minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

Sorry to say Mercers, B'cards inhouse "people" only understand ONE thing, MONEY.

Well they normally only hang in there for 3-6 months before selling the debt to another DCA for action.
Seeing how this is unenforceable that will likely be their next move.

In all honesty it depends on the judge on the day.
There is a school of thought that nothing but the original agreement would be acceptable, but as we have seen judges interpret CCA in their own way.