the point i was trying to get over was that relating to storecards GE told the competition commission in 2004 to quote section 35 "Fees and charges are applied by GECF only to cover costs." however in section 36 they say "and nothing on a store card. " meaning they do not apply late fees and overlimit fees to storecards -- this has been checked out and found to be correct. the obvious conclusion is that the costs are extremely small indeed hence they make no charge. Now it does seem reasonable that admin charges for overlimit default charges and late payment fees for a storecard credit card are of a similar order to the admin charges to cover the banks costs regarding a bank account. The aim of the post was to suggest that the admin costs by GE's own admission are very negligable and not £12 and that banks admin costs HSBC etc are of a similar order in tending to zero hope this makes it clear the point of the posting

36 Consumers who borrow on credit cards are more likely to have fees and charges applied to their account during the life of an outstanding balance, compared with customers who borrow on a store card. Customers who use store cards typically make a payment five days late on the account 1.11 times each year21. As credit card fees for late payment are approximately £2022 this same repayment behaviour would, on average, cost a typical customer £22.20 per year on a credit card and nothing on a store card. section 36 backs up what was suggested in section 35 of a formal document submitted by ge in 2004 which confirms that the cost to GE is actually virtually nil !!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1360980.html GECF's application of fees and charges on store cards differs from that of many credit card issuers. Fees and charges are applied by GECF only to cover costs. GECF believes that many credit card providers apply late payment fees and over-limit charges to a much greater proportion of customers in any particular month than is the case for GECF and that for some of these providers fees and charges represent a significant source of net income20 whilst the above statement applies strictly only to GE storecards it gives an insight into their costs (meaning very little) it is believed that they charged zero cost for default notices and overlimit credit card fees but this needs confirmation

although the following relates to GE storecards ..... 35. GECF's application of fees and charges on store cards differs from that of many credit card issuers. Fees and charges are applied by GECF only to cover costs. GECF believes that many credit card providers apply late payment fees and over-limit charges to a much greater proportion of customers in any particular month than is the case for GECF and that for some of these providers fees and charges represent a significant source of net income20. however the author has reason to believe that GE in fact did/do not charge default charges or overlimit fees ....? .... could someone verify this the conclusion being that the the 'costs' are virtually nil see Store Card Credit Services - Initial Submissions - Responses from store card providers GE Consumer Finance Limited Document: submission from GE Consumer Finance Limited (pdf, 274kb) initial_subs_providers_gecf.pdf

apologies for "quoting" legal sources that are copyright that resulted in post 1 on the above thread being removed suffice to say the posting was highly significant supplying information from the highest sources

how many other style have they got ??? think someone should pick up on this

remember mercers ( part of barclays ) are calling themseves calder financial " an old dog trying new tricks" sorry it won't work see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/121119-payment-demand-out-help.html

AND THEY LOST THE BATTLE typical na*zi's

see this case and the 'abuses' that creditors 'used to' 'get away' with First Personal Bank Plc v Sim [1998] EWCA Civ 1194 (10 July 1998):cool: note the bit about assignment should also have highlighted the real point of reference to this case which is the need for the original terms and conditions regarding an agreement

just to mention monument (part of barclays) has taken many people to court however they never issued any "proper" agreements as they were simply rapid response forms

IF THE account was legally assigned then for the assignment to be valid they must have notified you at the time. If they did not then the legal assignment is invalid and they own nothing.

5.2 if in any month you incur interest and it is less than 50 pence we will make a charge of 50 p which will be added to your account in place of interest. so they are saying if you don't spend money -- meaning get into debt we will make a penalty charge : interesting idea .... seems like there is mileage in this statement 16.2 mentions assignment 'rights or duties ' as opposed to 'rights and duties ' see thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/127756-reason-why-mbna-cannot.html 17.1 is also rubbish

DAVEY 77 ask them if they believe what they have sent you will stand up in court also have you got a copy of the original terms and conditions from them -- this is just as important

this 1.24 paragraph is taken from a draft document headed Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as amended by the 2004 Amendment Regulations Consumer Credit (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2004 Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 link http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft786a.pdf so may i suggest ??? that the old regs apply to any case pre approx 29/4/05

is it the section 75 bit ?? House of Lords - Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v. Lloyds TSB Bank plc and others (Appellants) and others (Respondents) "Section 75(1) is consumer protection legislation for the benefit of the customers of United Kingdom "

the following is appendix 7.9 from Store Card Credit Services Inquiry type: Market Status: Completed Date: 18.03.04 - 07.03.06 for speed reading certain words are highlighted link http://www.mmc.gov.uk/inquiries/completed/2006/storecard/pdf/prov_find_app_7-9.pdf see also Competition Commission - Inquiries - Store Card Credit Services whist strictly this relates to storecards many trade secrets regarding assignment are revealed APPENDIX 7.9 Switching provider of a store card programme: providers’ approach and customers’ rights 1. This appendix presents the conclusions of the CC’s scrutiny of the legal requirements and the industrial practices relating to the transfer of a store card programme to a new provider. The CC drew these conclusions from the responses to questionnaires it sent to store card providers and the Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate of the DTI relating to the assignment of customers’ contractual rights and providers’ contractual obligations when a portfolio of store card receivables is transferred to a new provider. Store card providers were also asked about the different ways in which the switch of a store card programme from one provider to another can take place. Assignment of customers’ contractual rights and providers’ (including in-house providers’) contractual obligations when a portfolio of store card receivables is transferred to a new provider 2. The questions were based on the premise that the identity of the person/corporate entity with whom the customer contracts changes as a result of the transfer (and not a situation where a customer has a contractual relationship with a corporate entity and it is only the ultimate ownership of that entity which changes). Question 1: Is each customer required to sign a new credit agreement with the new provider or is this unnecessary in certain circumstances (eg, if the original credit agreement includes clauses on the right of the incumbent provider to transfer the rights to a third party)? A7(9)-1 Summary of responses, with CC comment • The Consumer Credit Act (CCA) does not prohibit assignments of regulated consumer credit agreements. However, uncertainty exists on whether a customer is required to sign a new credit agreement with the new provider. • The uncertainty stems from the law of contracts and revolves around the effectiveness of consent to assignment, in fact, at common law, rights under a contract can be assigned, but duties under the contract can only be assigned with consent. Generally, consent can be given via a clause in the original contract or at a later date in which case a signature is usually required. • Two schools of thought exist on whether, in the case of Regulated CCA agreements, consent for the transfer of obligations to a third party can be given via a clause in the original contract or must be given in writing (ie, by signing a new agreement), failing which the agreements may become unenforceable against the borrower. • All providers have included in the terms and conditions of their credit agreements with customers’ clauses on their ability to transfer rights and obligations. Therefore, according to the view that consent can be given via a clause in the original contract, by signing the credit agreement, a customer gives his or her consent to the transfer of his/her duties to the new provider and there should be no need to sign a new agreement. • However, if a provider agrees with the opinion that consent for the transfer of obligations to a third party for Regulated CCA agreements can only be given in writing, to avoid the risk that the agreements with the customers become unenforceable, the contract between providers may be structured so that the new provider acts as an agent for the incumbent. • Furthermore, ’clauses in agreements permitting the assignment of rights and obligations (like those in providers’ terms and conditions) may also be subject to challenge as falling within the ‘grey list’ of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Schedule 2, paragraph 2(1)(p)) which states that a term which has the object or effect of ‘giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement’ is deemed unfair and will therefore not be binding on the consumer’. • This risk, however, can be mitigated by wording such clauses in a way that clearly indicates that the transfer would not have a detrimental effect on the customer’s rights. Question 2: Is there any legal requirement for the customer to receive any notification of the transfer of their contract to a third party? If so, please specify. Summary of responses • Industry practice is to send customers notification of the transfer of a portfolio. Question 3: Are there any constraints/limitations imposed by the Data Protection Act or the Consumer Credit Act on the ability of the incumbent provider to transfer the portfolio to a new provider? If so, please give details. Question 4: Does either of the statutes in © affect the way in which the transfer is carried out? If so, please explain. Summary of responses, with CC comment • Neither the Data Protection Act nor the Credit Consumer Act impact on the ability to transfer portfolios of receivables between providers. However, providers must ensure that their data protection notifications permit the transfer and receipt of the cardholder’s personal data.1 Different ways in which the switch of a store card programme from one provider to another can take place Question 5: How does the process differ when the existing portfolio at the termination of the contract is not transferred to the new provider, who instead launches a new store card programme? Summary of responses, with CC comment Transfer of a portfolio: • The new programme needs to offer customers terms identical to, or more favourable than, the ones of the previous programme, otherwise customers must be issued with a new credit agreement and their written consent must be sought. • New provider does not commence recruitment of customers from scratch but instead sends customers a ‘notice of assignment’ informing them that the company servicing the account has changed. New programme without transfer of existing portfolio of receivables: • The new provider can design the product from scratch without concern as to whether changes could be described as having an adverse impact on customers and can issue entirely new product types. • New provider commences recruitment of customers from scratch either at point of sale or through mailing customers based on the previous use of a customer list, if available. This means that customers will be given/sent a new credit agreement to sign. 1All providers’ credit agreements with customers analysed by the CC include such clauses. • Incumbent provider usually2 ceases actively promoting the old programme soon after the launch of the new store card programme but retains the rights to collect outstanding debt and continues to service accounts in the same manner until balances outstanding are paid. • Incumbent provider gives adequate notice to customers that the facility to make further purchases using the card would be terminated from a given date. The new provider issues new cards to customers whether it acquires the existing portfolio or not. Question 6: On a change of provider, which is the more common occurrence, the acquisition of the existing portfolio or the launch of a new programme by the new provider? How would you account for this? Summary of responses, with CC comment • According to providers the more common occurrence is the acquisition of the existing portfolio. The advantages of this approach include: — a more seamless transfer from the retailer’s and the customers’ perspective; — enabling the incumbent to realize the value of the asset in advance; and — providing the new provider with an income generating asset. • Providers have submitted that restrictive clauses in contracts can make the transfer of portfolios difficult. The CC’s analysis of contracts shows that older contracts tend to be silent on what happens to the existing portfolio when the contract expires. Lack of contract clauses on retailers’ or third parties’ right to purchase the portfolio, together with confidentiality clauses on customers’ credit data, might create issues for the transfer of a portfolio to a new provider. 2This would not be the case if the retailer decides to continue accepting the cards issued by the incumbent provider as well as offering the cards of the new programme. This scenario, however, is unlikely to occur as current market practice is for providers to have exclusivity for the supply of a store card programme. • More recent contracts, however, include clauses on the rights of retailers or third parties to purchase the portfolio of receivables. Question 7: Are receivables transferred only when a new provider is brought in? Or do transfers of receivables occur in other circumstances (eg securitisations)? If so, please describe these circumstances and provide an indication of the frequency of such transfers. Summary of responses, with CC comment • According to all providers receivables3 are only transferred when a new provider is brought in (be it an external provider or the retailer). Only one provider seems to have direct experience of securitization, having securitized its debt in the past. Overall conclusions 3. Switching between providers of store card programmes can take place in two ways: • by transferring the portfolio of receivables from the incumbent to the new providers; and • by launching a new programme without transferring the portfolio of receivables. 4. The first approach tends to be the most common and presents the following advantages: • it allows a more seamless transfer form the retailer’s and the customer’s’ perspective; • it enables the incumbent to realise the value of the asset in advance; and • it provides the new provider with an income generating asset. 3Excluding receivables sold to debt collection agencies because considered uncollectible. A7(9)-6 5. Recent contracts between retailers and providers include clauses on transfer of portfolios that aim at facilitating the sale and purchase of the portfolio of receivables when a contract expires. Older contracts are often silent on this matter and that might have created problems in transferring portfolios. 6. Neither the Consumer Credit Act nor the Data Protection Act impact on the ability to transfer portfolios of receivables between providers. 7. Where a portfolio of receivables is transferred to a new provider, and the original credit agreement with the customers includes clauses allowing the incumbent provider to transfer/assign their rights and obligations under the contract, customers need to sign a new credit agreement only if the new store card programme reduces their guarantees and rights or they are offered a completely new product. 8. Where a new programme is launched and the portfolio of receivables is not transferred to the new provider, customers are notified that the old programme would be terminated at a certain date (after which it would not be possible to make purchases on the old card) and that only the accounts with outstanding balances would continue to be serviced by the incumbent provider until the balances are paid off. The new provider would start marketing the new store card to customers from scratch. 9. In all cases customers must be notified of the change in provider.

sorry TOM thanks for spotting my error i was thinking of the legendary "cohens" & CL Finance who are always too quick off the mark (getting an assignment and issueing a court order before the notification of legal assignment arrives in the post) ,(thus rendering the legal assignment invalid) -- they were operating their 'techniques' in the early 1990's but have only recently been rumbled.

now looking at a set of goldfish credit card terms and conditions it says 12(a) in so far as is permitted by law you agree that we may at any time transfer :- (i) our rights and benefits under the agreement and your liability on the account. (ii)our duties and obligations (including without limitation any obligation on our part arising from your rights under condition 2(a)) under this agreement: to any other person without having to give you prior notice. Any such transfer will not affect your obligations under this agreement or your statuatory rights including your rights under the consumer credit act 1974. (b) we may fom time to time vary this agreement to such extent.......... now this set of terms and conditions introduces the word obligations into the equation. Which by its very existence weakens the mbna case. Out of interst goldfish go on to score an own goal "without having to give you prior notice" ( this invalidates any legal assignment) however they do cover themselves with section (b) by being able to vary the terms . However of couse the original terms and coditions are a must. Be it suggested that everyone needs to check the above and by showing other companies terms and conditions the variations and errors become obvious

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/128121-provisions-legal-assignment-debts.html

as has earlier been highlighted

it is believed nobody has as yet has questioned the validity or invalidity of the and/or mbna will not be aware of the discrepency until now

173 Contracting-out forbidden (1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective ( meaning unexecuted) regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act. (2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the Director only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability ======================== now we have two definitions “unexecuted agreement” means a document embodying the terms of a prospective regulated agreement, or such of them as it is intended to reduce to writing; “executed agreement” means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing; it is suggested that so long as a statement such as ..... we may vary the terms and conditions from time to time ....... is not included in the “unexecuted agreement” [time=t0] then it cannot suddenly appear in the “executed agreement”.[time=t1] consequently on the next renewal of the agreement [time=t2] then the terms and conditions must be the same as [time=t1] meaning the terms and conditions cannot change as described in section 173

Moreover 173 Contracting-out forbidden (1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void (rights or duties) if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent (rights and duties) with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act. (2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the Director only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability

in the consumer credit act 1974 creditor is defined as :- “ creditor “ means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor; just as debtor is defined as :- debtor” means the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement includes the prospective debtor;

'ESTOPPEL ' ???