Morgan Stanley/Goldfish

[manc1976]

I CCA'd these lot earlier in the month and they have replied with a CCA.

 

I cannot read any of the terms on the last 2 pages.

 

Any Advice??

goldfish.pdf

Edited May 28, 2008 by manc1976
forgot attachment

[Rhia]

Hmmm! this is very poor. Do you know if they are claiming which is the back and which is the front.

If the page with the terms on is the back then it seems it does have the prescribed terms as specified under the CCA 1974. However as it is all illegible this makes it unenforceable.

[manc1976]

Hmmm! this is very poor. Do you know if they are claiming which is the back and which is the front.

If the page with the terms on is the back then it seems it does have the prescribed terms as specified under the CCA 1974. However as it is all illegible this makes it unenforceable.

 

The last 2 pages in the attachment was on both sides of 1 page.

 

I couldn't read any of it.

 

What should I write back and say?

 

Thanks

[Docman]

Well, apart from the last 2 pages, all the rest are from Barclays, who only recently took over the Morgan Stanley/Goldfish accounts. Therefore most of the docs could not relate to your account.

The last two pages seem to be from Morgan Stanley but are illegible and therefore unenforceable. The last page looks like it is a 'cut & paste' job with information from other documents. What is interesting is that someone has certified that these pages are true copies of the original document. If the case ever came to court, they would have to produce the original and can't now say they didn't have one.

[manc1976]

Tomorrow, I am sending the following letter (courtesy of Rory) to Goldfish to see if they do indeed have a legible copy.

 

Thank you for responding to my previous letter.

 

Having taken the time to look over the documents supplied in response to my statutory request made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I have the following concerns.

 

The document entitled “credit card agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974” which appears to bear my signature fails to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557). In particular section 2 of the Regulations.

 

As you will be no doubt aware, the Copy Document Regulations requires that documents are easily legible and clearly the terms of the agreement are not easily legible, infact far from it. Many of the terms are blurred and cannot be interpreted and I am further unable to make out the prescribed terms as required by schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). After taking advice on this matter, I am of the belief that this agreement that you have presented before me, as it stands would be unenforceable even by court order. Therefore, I require that you provide me a clearly legible copy of the agreement, where all the terms are clearly legible

Should you not be able to supply a clearly legible copy containing the necessary prescribed terms, I would suggest that you give consideration to canceling this account and reducing the balance to zero. Of course the alternative would be to seek a declaration of my rights under Section 142(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I am advised that with the documents that you have supplied there would be an extremely good prospect of success with such a declaration. However, I am mindful of additional costs that such action could incur both on my part and on yours so I trust you will give consideration to this request

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Will keep you updated.

[creditcardmug]

Goldfish are cutting/pasting all the time, i have 2 CCA replies from them, they seem to think it's acceptable to do this, none of it would stand up in court. in a fair country this would be viewed as fraud, i.e. a criminal offence.

[manc1976]

Had a reply from GoldFish this morning:

 

 

 

 

 

Any comments???

[creditcardmug]

I have had the exact same rubbish from them, and have decided to ignore them completly, i am not paying them, and will let matters take their course.

 

They won't listen to reason, and are even at odds with trading standards on this, by their own admission

[Rhia]

Yep MOH has had exactly the same. This does not constitute a properly executed credit agreement with the prescribed terms. They are bluffing and hoping you won't query it further. Push 'em some more.

[Docman]

I agree with Rhia. They are bluffing as they will have to produce the original if the case went to court. They have stated twice now that they have supplied a copy of the original, so they can be asked to produce that original under the court's procedure rules.

[manc1976]

Got a letter from Barclays today to say that they have taken over from Morgan Stanley.

 

Still doesnt change anything lol

[creditcardmug]

Both of mine have been bought by cabot, i CCAd them app. 4 months ago, still nothing.

[manc1976]

Both of mine have been bought by cabot, i CCAd them app. 4 months ago, still nothing.

 

I have a Liverpool Victoria/Goldfish/Barclays with Cabot and have not heard anything for 4 months!!!!

[manc1976]

I sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to Goldfish for 3 accounts that my wife holds with them and got this strange reply from them today:

 

 

What a load of BULL !!!!!

 

Is there any suitable letter that tells them to just get on with it, as i do not need to supply the information requested.

[Fred Bassett]

Well, apart from the last 2 pages, all the rest are from Barclays, who only recently took over the Morgan Stanley/Goldfish accounts. Therefore most of the docs could not relate to your account.

 

The last two pages seem to be from Morgan Stanley but are illegible and therefore unenforceable. The last page looks like it is a 'cut & paste' job with information from other documents. What is interesting is that someone has certified that these pages are true copies of the original document. If the case ever came to court, they would have to produce the original and can't now say they didn't have one.

 

Docman,

 

Only the first page has been 'certified' as a true copy of the original document. This could be significant because the terms and conditions are on the page that has not been certified. Maybe I'm just being picky.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Docman]

Fred

 

You are right to be 'picky' because it is previsely these 'picks' that unravel the cases brought by banks & DCAs. Only pages 5 & 6 of the document (the application forms) look original. The rest are clearly more recent documents. Creditors try yo claim that current terms are acceptable. maybe for S78 requests but not when cases get to court. The case law is quite clear on the point .

 

 

As TUCKEY LJ said in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd

 

 

"33 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.

 

 

I repeat in case the banks didn't get the point -

 

"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. "

[Docman]

Manc,

 

SOorry I forgot to comment on your SAR letter - total bovine excrement!

 

If Goldfish/Barclays etc are happy to write to you at your address, then their request is totally over the top. I suggest you write back and tell them you consider they are in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that you will report them to the Information Commissioner if they do not acceed to your lawful request within the next 7 days.

[Docman]

I mant Goldfish's response, not your letter of course!

[foolishgirl]

Got a similar letter from Goldfish, manc1976, some months ago. Wrote & told them 3 times to supply info. as requested as they have all the ID they need re. my address etc. as they have been sending me statements regularly. This would be a breach of the DPA if they now query my existence at this address!

 

Got absolutely nowhere so now reported to ICO & I'm STILL waiting!!

 

Haven't really got time or funds at the moment to take it thro' the courts but will do in due course if ICO don't pull their fingers out. What are they there for?!

 

Just so you know what to expect....Sigh...

[broken arrow]

I eventually got Goldfish to eventually comply after sending 3 letters and a long converstion over the phone,they eventually sent me info apart from a Notice of assignment.

 

I have rang them over the last few days to get them to send a copy of NOA, their reply we have fully complied with your SAR and that the NOA comes from the DCA( which is incorrect).

 

What I have found over the last few days is their behaviour has been very strange from hanging up to pretending they can not here me when I asked questions they could not answer.

[manc1976]

Thanks for the replies, at least it build up a case against them!!!

 

I will write a letter and see what happens!

[manc1976]

How ironic is this:

 

Today we got a statement from Goldfish, so I have copied it and sent it with the letter as ID

 

If they can send us a statement then that is enough ID for the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) imo

[manc1976]

Had a weird letter from Goldfish RE: Morgan Stanley account

 

The account number that they gave has nothing to do with me !!!!

 

 

[Hopster]

I CCA'd Goldfish who took over Liverpool Victoria credit card and who are now being taken over by Barclays. They have sent me what you have but I now have this agreement (copy they say ) of the 'please call 0800 389 etc' and the reverse of the page headed 'Credit card agreement regulated by barclays bank plc etc.' The original letter, which I have, that they sent me was similar content but the headings have been changed from Liverpool Victoria to Goldfish on the front and regulated by Goldfish to regulated by Barclays Bank.

This cannot be right surely.

They have sent me a copy of the application for the Liverpool Victoria c/c which has my signature. This has been certified by Customer Liaison on behalf of Goldfish !

[Hopster]

I have just posted a reply to someone (you hopefully) re. correspondence that i have today received from Goldfish having CCA'd them. They have substituted bank names both sides of the 'please call 0800 etc' letter, Goldfish for Liverpool Victoria on the front and Barclays bank for Goldfish bank on the back ! I owe them plenty and have not paid them for two months and have complained bitterly re. numerous phonre calls and they have agreed to call off the telephone dogs for four weeks.