Re: Tony3x -v- Morgan Stanley DW

**tony3x** · 6th February 2010 21:09

There are 3 BC accts.

1 always BC
1 originally Goldfish
1 originally MSDW

Can you start a thread for the MSDW maybe as BC ex MSDW.
I will work out which one is ex Goldfish and maybe you can do the same for that.

thanks

**slick132** · 7th February 2010 00:34

MSDW thread ready to go.

**tony3x** · 8th February 2010 21:58

Received this from BC who now own the acc. Does not look right to me but some advice would be appreciated.

**the_shadow** · 9th February 2010 12:47

What was this in response to? s78 or SAR icon

?

As was pointed out to me on my agreement, what happened to numbers 5,6,7 and whats the white square over number 4.

If that is the front and back of an agreement then if they can explain away the paragraph above it is enforceable imvho.

S.

**slick132** · 9th February 2010 12:48

Hi Tony,

Did you receive this after intervention from the fos icon

?

Have you read through the credit agreement guide at Link No5 in my signature icon

.

Could you say if you think the 2 items above are the front and back of one document, or not.

**tony3x** · 9th February 2010 20:09

I received this only after intervention by the fos icon

.

I have found the copy I made when I applied for the card and can confirm that the area under 4 that has been blanked out was password, other cardholder and balance transfers. I did not blank this out on the copy sent by BC it was done by them.

Not sure if it is one document as I only have a copy of the front page of the original application.

**gazab41** · 9th February 2010 20:52

HI Tony but I do not see this as being enforcable imho the reasoning as I see it it would appear to be an application or should i say preapplication as in section 12 they talk about credit scoring and supplying you a standard card if a gold card not appropriate also it does not show full terms and conditions icon

only some and states you would need to look at card terms and condions for full info I am lead to belive the section at the bottom is the orig back of this application from memmory but as shadow mentions 5.6.7 all missing and also where is the date that MSDW approved/signed application hope this helps a bit

**tony3x** · 10th February 2010 15:49

note your point about the date.

Not sure whether relevant but my name and address were pre-printed so this was probably something that came through the post.

**patrickq1** · 10th February 2010 16:18

funny how they changed the second page to just MORGAN STANLEY INSTEAD OF MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WHITTER this second page never existed it is a addittion from 2003 when dean whitter ceased to be named on all MORGAN STANLEY PAPERWORK ...
was the initial document you filled in done through an application and before 2002/3 ? otherwise where does the DEAN WHITTER COME FROM
i can see dean whitter on the first page but looks like the whole document has been made up in parts from other documents ?

**patrickq1** · 10th February 2010 16:35

ime glad i noticed the payment protection part ,protects your payment even longer than 12 months in case of illness, well well well they have a lot of explaining to do as my payments lasted 12 months ,with two defaults during the insurance payments plus they then charged for a secondary PPI icon

in case i took ill again unfortunitley for me my illness is permenant so they got some explaining to do .......only problem is they will not communicate with me and the FSA wont get involved in singular claims FSO have lost several documents over the last four years and still not acted on my complaint besides which they sold the debt to my pal HFO whilst still in dispute from 2005 ...or should i say its been through 7 DCA icon

's and is now back with HFO i digress my apoligies ,anyway i would love to see them bring that complete document into a courtroom as i think we all knowingly suspect this is a made up reconstruction that is so far from the origional ime afraid this will land them in serious hot water and could be the one that strikes right into the heart of the recent judgement on reconstructions they should also have informed you that this is a reconstruction
patrickq1

**patrickq1** · 10th February 2010 16:40

where is condition 14 15 16 ?

**patrickq1** · 10th February 2010 16:57

condition 17 is missing as well..i see its 2002 then the second page is made up and not the back of the application as there was no back except for advertising and MSDW ADDRESS only some terms and conditions icon

existed on this application but were not the complete thing as you were asked to write for the full terms and conditions icon

in other words signed without full terms and conditions icon

if required please write to them ?.......

**Desperate Daniella** · 14th February 2010 11:54

This is yet another cut and paste job. What's amazing is that their cut and paste jobs have so many variations. They are now trying a new tactic by removing more questions from the front of the agreement and putting in the prescribed terms on as though they were always there.

I cannot really see them ever wanting to produce any of these in court.

Or if they did, we could all turn up with all our different variations.

DD

**tony3x** · 15th February 2010 23:08

Have now received the following from Credit Solutions. Are they just the next in line after Mercers & Calders?

**tony3x** · 15th February 2010 23:13

Default notice here:

**noomill060** · 16th February 2010 00:06

Did you sign and date the Payment Protection part?

Yeah, this is a cut and paste job. Top part pre 2003 and lower part, 2003 on

MSDW letter headings gave way to Morgan Stanley in 2003.

**noomill060** · 16th February 2010 00:09

Any over limit or late payment charges?

If so, you can claim them back (as well as interest icon

applied to the charges) to reduce the amount owed...

**Mitch524** · 16th February 2010 00:15

noomill,
Not highjacking but just a question on signing and dating for PPI icon

I only remember ticking a box and then no further forms or policies etc etc etc.
Would this give me grounds to claim back PPI ?

**patrickq1** · 16th February 2010 00:45

if you were self employed or you had told them you have a serious illness then yes if you did not sign the PPI icon

box

**Desperate Daniella** · 16th February 2010 00:47

Hi Noomill,

Happy New Year!

I was about to contact you about this thread because I'm sure you had the same (or almost the same) supposed Page 2 as this one, and I know you saw them off.

DD

Thread: Re: Tony3x -v- Morgan Stanley DW

Thread Tools