Well, it seems that M&S have got themselves well and truly confused over the last few weeks. I have had, in various order, letters stating that:- they've sent everything they've got they're investigating my complaint my account is in arrears they're investigating my complaint AND - the final two, both received on the same day: If I want a copy of my CCA, I must send them £1 and a default notice Have pointed out to them that they had my £1 back in June and that the same person who's now saying they need me to send £1 has been in correspondence with me since July about the useless information they've sent. Also, their default notice said they wouldn't contact me again after 2nd November but, guess what, I'm still getting phone calls!! Not that I'm answering them. And I thought they might actually stop phoning and take whatever action comes next at this point Reckon I've confused them so much with what was, originally, a very simple request for information that they simply don't know now what they need to do next.

Don't know how much help this'll be or even if it's going to stop the calls I was getting permanently, but anything's worth a try. I got a letter off them (about 4 months after I wrote to them telling them to communicate only in writing) stating that they would like to do this, but that I:- don't answer letters had never answered any of their calls, leading to repeat calls and that this did not constitute harassment was ignoring them I wrote back immediately stating that:- I do answer their letters (as could be proved by them reading this one) I did answer their calls a number of times (and have proof from the SAR they sent me that they have noted this, but that I wouldn't answer security. I had stopped answering their calls due to their dreadful lack of understanding of the Data Protection Act and their insistence that I answer their security, which would be in breach of the Data Protection Act because they need to prove their identity to me. That an average of 25 phone calls a day is, indeed, harassment as it prevents me from using my phone line that I pay for, for my purposes. I've not had any more phone calls since they signed for this letter. It is early days (only about 2 weeks) but must be the longest I've gone without a call from them in about 3 months.

Right, a fair bit happened since I last posted. Went back to BC and explained that I was still missing a lot of info including the original agreement. Got a reply stating that they had fulfilled their obligations under S78 and demanding payment in full of the account. Wrote back to them to say that it was no longer an S78 request and that they were in breach of the Data Protection Act by withholding my data. They promptly passed the account to Mercers. Mercers started phoning multiple times a day. Started off by refusing the calls, then went to answering the odd one at random and insisting on taking them through ID (amusing when the phone numbers they give you as theirs never match the one they're calling from). Sent Mercers the standard letters - CCA, account in dispute, and revoking the right for them to call at the house. Mercers have had the account for all of 2 weeks now and, today, I've got a card from them stating their intention to call at the house. Am sending the 3 letters again, with a note stating that as the person who opened the original set clearly can't read, I'm forwarding copies. However, although the day and times they've said they'll call there will definitely be no-one home (day-time, mid week - what do they really expect), I'm actually really angry at this as they've already been told that if they want to finish this, they'll have to take it to court. I'm not in the least intimidated by these idiots - they simply won't be coming in to the house (if they do turn up) and I'll have the police remove them from the property. However, I have a question. We're away for a large part of December. But we'll have a housesitter in. Can I actually prevent them from harassing the housesitter or do I just tell the guy to call the police if these people show up?

This is where it gets tricky. Guidelines state that they should be able to resolve within 8 weeks. However, many companies that cannot resolve within this time will send a further holding letter stating that they need longer. The Ombudsman guidelines are that you should wait until you have a response from the company and are at a deadlock before you contact them. However, if you think they are simply stalling for time and aren't going to reply, you could complain to the Ombudsman explaining that you've already waited over 8 weeks for a reply and that you don't think that there is any hope of a reply appearing any time soon given that it should have been a straightforward complaint to resolve. If the Ombudsman accepts the complaint on this basis, then they will contact MBNA themselves asking for their side of the story. This may at least mean that MBNA are forced to provide a reply. If you can wait until the 22nd, and you think they will actually answer then, it might be quicker to wait until then as I would think it would take the Ombudsman longer than this to get this underway. In the meantime, you might want to send them a letter stating that the complaint should have been easy to resolve; that you will wait until the 22nd but that if they then try to extend the time again, you will go direct to the Ombudsman as it appears that they are just stalling in providing a response.

Thanks for the info. I know what to look for now. I do, indeed, enjoy forcing them to reply again after they've said they've sent their final response. Well, if they're going to keep annoying me with phone calls and letters, then I want to be just as difficult right back. To be honest, I can wait them out quite easily - they and their pet DCA's are an irritation, but I don't find them particularly worrying. Certainly not irritating enough for me to spend money on taking them to court! My mobile phone book now has some very interesting names in it, so I know exactly when they're calling me to ignore them completely if I can't be bothered winding them up. The thing that's really making me laugh with these guys is that they could've avoided all of this. When they wanted to switch everyone onto their credit card, they asked me to switch. I didn't want another credit card at the time, so refused. They asked me every month after that to think about switching so eventually earlier this year, I filled in the credit card app asking for it to be a transfer from the old store card. Now, I'm quite sure that this would have ended up an enforceable agreement. A couple of weeks later, they wrote to me stating that I couldn't have one of their credit cards because they didn't want to extend me any more credit at that time (I didn't want any more credit, I just wanted the slightly better interest rate on the credit card). Two weeks after that, they increased the limit on my store card by another £650! So, the lack of consistency really wound me up. What they seemed to really be saying was I could have more credit, but what I couldn't have was the better terms from the credit card As a result, although I've also now taken on my other card providers, M&S finished up first in the firing line simply because I thought what they were doing was rather unfair business practice given that I'd always paid them (the late payments were years and years ago and were always made, just sometimes a week late - and I'd had a number of limit raises since then) and had been a good customer for about 10 years. And now it's looking more and more likely that they've shot themselves in the foot on this one as at the very least they're going to have to refund every single charge that's been applied to the account - with interest!

So, the SAR information turned up today (some of it at least - there's still bits missing). What they're calling the agreement is exactly what I've seen posted elsewhere - the signature form and some T&Cs. If I recall correctly, someone won a case against them recently based on this signature form being used by them as the agreement? So this one's looking a little better for me at this stage. In addition, my husband has had a secondary card on this account since day one - had forgotten I took this one out after I met him but before we got married. The signature form they've supplied has only my signature on it and there's no additional form with his signature - yet they accepted his signature on transactions, apparently without holding a copy on their records. Now I would have thought that this must put them in breach of something. And the information they've sent me states that I didn't want PPI, but it's been charged - and quite a large amount at that. One of the documents that's missing is from a letter I sent them about a year ago. There were a few successive months where my statement kept arriving on the payment due date, so they charged me a late payment fee every single month. I wrote to them about it, and I got a letter back stating that there was nothing they could do about it and I'd have to pay by direct debit if their statement production was causing late payment. Personally, I think this should be an important document because they've pretty much said that although they acknowledge there's a problem, they're not prepared to do anything about it. They also refused to refund any of the charges, although that's about to change now whether they like it or not!

Legally under regulatory guidelines, they're allowed 4 weeks to respond to a complaint, with an extension for a further 4 weeks provided they let you know before the first 4 weeks expires. Sounds like they're going to take the maximum allowable time, but they are allowed to do this. Frustrating, I know, but sometimes investigations do take longer than expected hence the guidelines. We all know that they shouldn't need this long to sort out charges and PPI, but I reckon they'll take as long as they can. However, if you've claimed interest on the charges and PPI, the longer they take the more they'll have to pay.

Well they can claim what they want really. When they do finally take it to court - I can see already that this is where it's going as we're now at complete deadlock, I will produce the documents they sent me to prove that they are illegible. And then I'll get to see what they actually hold. Still waiting for my SAR request to be fulfilled too - they've only another few days on that as I know there'll be charges etc going back over a few years as I had this account when hubby was out of work for a bit and did incur quite a few charges at their old higher rate, and the balance isn't that big on this one anyway so charges + interest will bring it right down even if they have got a better copy of the agreement (and assuming it's enforceable).

Well, yes I agree with you there. The FOS don't appear to have been of much help to others on here and, although these companies seem to be keen on us all using the FOS to complain, I hadn't thought it was really within their remit - it's not technically a mis-sale or poor financial advice and is really a legal issue. But I did find it amusing that they couldn't even manage to enclose the leaflet! I will definitely be sending the OFT letter though - thanks for the template link. And I'm going back to M&S anyway to explain that I don't accept their 'belief' that the document is enough because legal fact states that it must be legible. I'm planning to tell them to either send me something legible if they've got it or to go ahead and take it through court if they think they can succeed. Maybe I'm pushing their hand a bit early, but I'm a bit bored with their template letters and having to think of a way of explaining to them using words of only one syllable that they might understand:roll: - a bit difficult when the most important word is agreement. Then I'll sit back and refuse to answer any more correspondence unless they actually come up with anything of any value.

Well, they've said that if I want to take it further, I need to contact the FOS so I guess it is their final response. They also said they'd included an FOS leaflet, but didn't. Fortunately, I already know how to make a complaint to the FOS. Am going to go back to them one more time anyway explaining, again, why an illegible copy isn't good enough. I mean, seriously, if I've had to assume what the APR says because that's how it calculates, then it's just not legible enough as I can't really be sure that I'm matching back to the APR that was listed. And that was one of the more legible areas of the T&C document. Am also going to tell them that I'll be adding a note to my own credit files explaining exactly why they shouldn't be adding anything themselves and why the payments haven't been made. I was going to wait to do this in case I didn't need to in the end, but reckon I might as well just get it done while I'm in letter writing mode. I really don't expect to get a positive response, but when I don't, I'll just sit back and wait for them to either offer me a F&F or try to take it through court. Don't see why I should have to pay fees to take them to court when I can just wait for them to proceed (unless anyone knows a reason why I should make the first move). Can someone confirm for me please what Act they're in breach of if they continue to process personal data when they shouldn't. Is it Data Protection or Consumer Credit or both?

Well, that's made me sit up and pay attention! Just added up the PPI I paid before I cancelled it early in 2007 and it's nearly £2K before I even start adding any interest. And there's another 3 1/2 years' worth on there if I can persuade them to part with some earlier statements. The interest calculation's going to be evil to tackle, but clearly will be worth it as this alone will wipe a huge chunk off the balance and I can then continue to argue over the agreement on the rest. Surprisingly few charges on the account - I must've been better behaved with my payment record than I thought. Maybe I've just remembered the few times I did get charged quite clearly. Still added them on though - might as well have everything back that I can.

One more quick question for now, please. The interest rates on the copy they've sent me are very difficult to read. However, the monthly rate is definitely listed as 1.93%. The annual looks like 23.7%, but I guess could conceivably be 25.7% - the copy really is that bad. I make 1.93% monthly as 25.78% APR, which should then be rounded to 25.8%. While I still think this is understated as I'm sure the real rate was more than this and am waiting for my copy statements to check this, if the rate is supposed to read 25.7% would that be OK, or would they have had to round it up as is mathematically correct?

Hi Not yet. Just back from holiday, so that's going to be my homework for the next couple of days. I know there's a few on there from times when they've changed the payment date so wanted 2 payments in a month etc

Hi Slick. You're right, that's exactly what they've done. Precisely 6 years of statements and nothing else! New letter on it's way out to them

Still nothing at all from MBNA except more phone calls and a threat of trashing my credit file if I don't pay up. Here we go with the next round of letters. Should I now use the one that states that as they've still not complied, I'll give them another 21 days to produce the document and assume the account to be closed if nothing is forthcoming?

Ah well, would you believe it - still nothing at all from Barclays. So I guess it's onwards and upwards to get the court order to force them to produce my documents.

Thanks Iain and apologies for the very slow reply - have been away on holiday. No phones, no internet - bliss!! I take your point about the CRAs. Possibly not worth my worrying about at this stage. I already have all the insurance I need and our mortgage has been running for several years now, so shouldn't require a credit check as it's always been paid on time and in full. I guess if it ever came to us needing to move mortgage or whatever, I could always review the situation then. Came back to an interesting reply to my earlier letter about the legibility of the alleged agreement that M&S had sent me - stating that what they have sent me is sufficient in their opinion and they refute all my allegations. Am now tempted to tell them that if they want to finish this, they'll have to take it to court so that the agreement has to be produced due to the illegibility of the document they sent me. Or should I just tell them that I now consider the account closed as they've not supplied the legible copy (although I'll have to wait another few days to do that as they've not had their full 21 yet)?

That call was only earlier today, so not much action yet....but they haven't called back again and usually they would have called back about an hour later. Some days, I know I don't have the patience for them - I try not to answer their calls then. I hate reaching the point where I lose control and end up shouting at them, particularly because I know I can get rid of them calmly and effectively. But, I do have an advantage because, although it's a completely different area, I do work in financial services so I do have to work to FSA and Data Protection guidelines every day so I can say these things to them confidently which helps. I'm guessing the next call I get will be from the guy they put on to me last week who just talked over everything I said - to the point where I had to tell him to shut up and listen because he might actually learn something!

Well, not had time to go through my earlier recordings - too many things to get ready for our trip. But I did have an interesting call with one of them. It's not the best call I've had with one of these call centres, but they were definitely struggling at some points and did eventually terminate the call when they ran out of answers. Them: I need to ask you a couple of security questions to confirm who I'm speaking to. Me: No, you have that wrong. That would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. You've just called me from a withheld number and I have no idea who you are. It's you that needs to answer my security questions so I know who's calling me. Them: Yes, I do understand that. We work with the Data Protection Act all the time. If I give you the end of your postcode, can you give me the first two letters. You see, anyone could have just answered your phone and be pretending to be you. Or your phone could have been stolen. Me: No, I can't do that. I've just explained it to you. I think you'll find it would be quite difficult for someone to steal my landline anyway and I'm not in the habit of inviting the whole street in to answer my phone for me. But if you answer my security, then I might be able to talk to you. You're not understanding the Data Protection Act though. If you call me on a number you have listed for me and I confirm that I am me before you tell me where you're calling from, then that should be sufficient for you. Them: Yes, I understand. Can you call me back on our freephone number then if I give it to you? Me: No, because if you are trying to [problem] me, then you'll just have a friend there to answer the number you're about to give me who will then take me through security etc etc and I still won't be sure who I'm talking to. Them: OK, yes. Well can you call our head office then. We really need to speak to you to try to arrange a way forward with you. Me: No, I don't have anything to say to your head office either. If you want to talk to me, you'll have to put it in writing. Them: But we need to talk to you about the arrears on your account. (And they've still not managed to ID me before telling me it's about arrears) Me: But I'm not going to call them. I have asked 3 times for a true copy of my Agreement with you and had no response - not even an acknowledgment. A phone call will not get me this document. The request has to be in writing - you will only ignore anything I ask for verbally. You are in breach of the Consumer Credit Act and will remain so until you supply the information I've asked for. As a result, you are not legally entitled to pursue any alleged debt until you rectify this breach. The account is in dispute and I do not acknowledge any debt with you unless or until you can supply me with a true copy of my agreement and it is deemed enforceable. Them: Right, but if you would just call our head office, they could speak to you about this and we could look at sorting it out. Me: But there IS nothing to sort out. When you send me the information I've asked for, then I will review the situation and, if necessary, I'll speak to you then. Them: You will continue to receive calls. We can't stop them. They're computer generated. Me: Well, somebody must have programmed the computer to make these calls. I'm going to tell you again, you cannot request payment on this account while you're in breach of the Consumer Credit Act. I will be sending you a phone harassment letter tomorrow because you're pursuing a debt that can't be pursued and you've been phoning me several times a day over the last few days. After that, if the calls don't stop, I will report you to Ofcom, Trading Standards and the OFT. I'm not in the least bit worried about making these complaints. Them: I can't continue this conversation as you haven't confirmed your identity. If you won't call us back....we're trying to help you. Me: No you're not. If I answer your security questions, you're going to try to convince me to make a payment. Them: Yes, we're trying to sort this out for you. Me: Well, as I already explained twice, I acknowledge no debt to you so there isn't anything to sort out is there? Them: But there is. Me: Not without the information I asked for, there isn't. Them: I would really advise that you call our head office to sort this out. Me: What, by making a payment on a debt I don't acknowledge? Them: Well, yes but you do have a debt. Me: No I don't. Not while you're in breach of the Consumer Credit Act. Them: But the debt is on our records. Me: But not on mine - until I get my information. Then I'll review it. Them: I would still advise you call our head office. Me: But I'm not going to. And as you could now be said to be giving me financial advice to call and make a payment - are you a qualified IFA? Them: No, but I wasn't giving you financial advice. Me: But you were...you just advised me to call head office who only want a payment from me. You've already admitted that's all they want so you're actually advising me to make a payment. You are FSA regulated aren't you? Them: Yes, but... Me: But are you regulated by the FSA to give advice? Them: No, I don't think so. Me: Well then you've just breached FSA regulations haven't you. You do realise that you as a company could get into a lot of bother for that with your regulators. Them: I can't continue to discuss this with you. You still haven't confirmed your ID. Me: OK then, bye

I would be inclined to question the agreement given the different document date references on what they're saying are the front and back pages. But then you're really asking to see the original document as proof that the two pages are from a single document, and I doubt they'll go for that unless you can force them to produce it in court. I don't know whether or not you can keep the account in dispute on this basis though, or even if it's advisable to continue non-payment with an agreement that might be enforceable - can anyone else advise on this point please?

Did you send your original request by recorded delivery? If so, you should be able to prove whether or not they received it. You could also check if they cashed your £1 postal order.

Oh well, they must like you better than me then.

Reading it more closely now... The terms on the app refer to conditions 2.1, 2.4 and 13.1. None of these conditions are contained within the app. And there's no reference to when, or if you should have received the full T&C document. I would have thought they might need to send the T&C document referred to before they've completed your request as you can't actually check all the conditions. As it stands, it seems to be referring to conditions that aren't included within the document, although it does refer to a separate document. I'm not quite sure what, if anything, this does to the enforceability of the agreement. Hopefully someone who's seen an app like this before might have a better idea of whether or not that's significant.

Fair enough. Always worth checking with these - they can be a bit sneaky like that. If the dates tie up though, it probably is your agreement. How did you manage to get them to send it though? Was it a standard CCA request, or did you add in something else? I've been waiting months for them to send mine. Have you got all your statements so you can check the APR etc? It has to be accurate. You should be able to do a charges and interest reclaim anyway if you've paid any, and PPI if you had that added. But if you haven't got your statements, you'll need to send them a Subject Access Request to get them so you can confirm anything you've paid that you might be able to claim back.

Are you sure they're off the same document? The first page is postmarked 8th September 2000, but the second page is date-stamped November 2000.