BARCLAYCARD is CCA ENFORCEABLE? Morgan Stanley, Mercers

[thereisanotherway]

Hi,

Just received response to CCA request from Barclaycard, original application to Morgan Stanley.

This has taken them months, during which time, they have phoned constantly (oh, how I love caller ID!).

Now after producing this document, they have set Mercers on my case(who phone using a withheld number), demanding full payment, lovely letters!

Please can anyone advise if this is enforceable, supllied enlarged, 2 single-sided sheets, stapled together - any ideas what they've blanked out at point number 4? (theat whole block is their erasure and not mine).

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq154/thereisanotherway/Barclaycard.jpg

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq154/thereisanotherway/Barclaycard2.jpg

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq154/thereisanotherway/Barclaycard3.jpg

 

Thanks for your time.

[slick132]

Hi TIAW,

 

I'll see if this can be checked for you.

 

Have you suffered penalty charges on the a/c and do you have the statements (for the last 6 years) to quantify them. If not, you can get this data using a SAR.

 

It looks like you were charged PPI on the a/c. Have you looked at the PPI forum to see if this is something you should also reclaim.

 

[stroke a badger]

Looking at I don't think what has been produced is enforceable as there is no APR, mention of repayment or credit limit.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi thereisanotherway,

 

I got my oddly blown-up to A3-size MSDW application form with all sorts of discrepancies. Note the reference to Condition 16 about data which is nowhere to be seen, on what they have sent you so must be in the leaflet. Did they enclose the leaflet of the full T&Cs?

 

Then there are references on the Financial and Related Conditions to other conditions in a separate leaflet too.

 

I'm confused because on my "agreement" application there are Financial and Related Particulars like yours which refer to the interest charges, and so on. Prescribed terms have to be on the agreement, but I really don't know if "sort of" prescribed terms which include references to the other bits being in the leaflet meet the requirements of CCA 1974.

 

I wrote back to them on 16th January asking about these discrepancies and haven't had a reply, BUT I totally missed that on my agreement, just like yours, No. 4 is missing!

 

I'll write a follow up letter on that tomorrow!

 

DD

[noomill060]

The application form is a A4 size sheet.

 

The prescribed terms are not on it- they wont fit. This is why they send these on a blown up A3 sheet -to disguise this fact.

 

In response to a CCA request a while back, I got the application form and bottom part, both of which had been *reduced* to make them both fit on to a A4 sheet.

[noomill060]

PPI looks dodgy...just a tick.

 

Methinks you have been mis-sold this financial product...

 

(and we know what that means...)

[noomill060]

Have a look at the bottom part of the application form. There are clearly lines which prove this is photocopy of a A4 document.

 

The other bit is part of another document...

 

Have you got all your statements yet?

[TheDebtWarrior]

Hi I've just received a virtually identical MSDW application form from B/C. Printed on A3 paper similarly to ThereIsAnotherWay and section 4 is also blanked out.

 

No prescribed terms and "application form" is referred to several times throughout the document.

 

The second A3 page has "Financial & Related Conditions" which are a basically a subset of the terms & conditions which were not sent and not referred to in the application form. They refer to section 16 in the main document but it is nowhere to be found on the second page.

 

At no point does any of the information on the 1st page refer to the conditions on the second page.

 

Totally unenforceable and makes you wonder what B/C is trying to hide.

[TheDebtWarrior]

Hi I've just received a virtually identical MSDW application form from B/C A3 document to ThereIsAnotherWay and section 4 is also blanked out.

 

No prescribed terms and "application form" is referred to several times throughout the document.

 

The "terms attached are also identical and the first document doesn't reference this subset of the T&Cs.

 

Totally unenforceable and makes you wonder what B/C is trying to hide.

[the_shadow]

I feel left out... barclaysharks have only sent me t/c for their card rather than the original 1999 t&c for my MSDW card.

 

Tried CPR route but no response to first letter

 

How old are everybodys app forms?

Edited March 7, 2009 by pmw1971
are for is *im a pleb :-(

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi PMW,

 

Mine is 2000. *

[Desperate Daniella]

Sorry, posted in error.

 

Mine is 2000. It is now almost eight weeks since I wrote asking them to explain the discrepancies.

 

DD

[TheDebtWarrior]

mine is 2000 also.

[Harrassed09]

HI all

 

Has anyone else received a response from Barclays?

 

My OH received a copy of a similar MS (I believe unenforceable) CCA and we wrote back accordingly, then last week we received what seems to be the current letter stating that they had complied with s77/78 and the next day a default notice was received. We have again drawn their attention to the CCA (application form) not being enforceable and re requested the information under CPR.

 

My B'card response was the standard T&C and then passing the account to Barclays and Debt Managers Ltd.

 

Just wondered if we were all at the same stages? or if anyone had anyting different to report!!

 

Thanks

[Desperate Daniella]

I just got sent to Barclays DML for the Goldfish card. Told them I was waiting for the original CCA. That was last week. Nothing since then.

 

DD

[equinox747]

:)i know its a long time since last thread but would just like to say thanks to everybody that puts their response on to these forums , i too got two dodgy forms back from mercers masquerading as application form/credit agreements with section 4 blanked out, so if it had not been for me reading these threads i may have been duped as well, one more phone call from mercers and I'm reporting them to my trading standards office:

i would like to add Barclays are notorious for discrepancies my son-in law is taking them to court, and their solicitors have phoned making him offering an out of court settlement. he refused and would rather fight the good fight.

[Basil Fawlty]

Hi

 

Ive just received a similar response to those above from Credit Solutions Limited acting for BC about a Morgan Stanley card from 2000.

 

It is obviously an application form along with some terms and conditions that arent referenced from the app form.

 

Most interesting is that like the others above, section 4 is blanked out by them. Does anyone have any idea what this section is about and why they would have blanked it out?

 

Cheers

 

BF

[Desperate Daniella]

We're not certain, but they are getting a bit more creative with the cut and paste jobs and now cutting out all sorts of questions so they can put the prescribed terms on the signature page. Rockwell has just had one with three questions missing. Clearly they think people won't notice if three questions are missing in 1-12. But they work for a bank, so why should being able to count be a necessary qualification?

 

I haven't heard from anyone for ages. Last time I got a copy from one DCA or other I just scrawled all over it, "Where's this bit?" and sent it back.

 

Good luck to your son-in-law, equinox.

 

DD

[Basil Fawlty]

Thanks DD and I've just had another look and realised question 5 is also missing! I'm going to write back to CSL and ask them why question 4 is blanked out, and why question 5 is missing.... I'll post their reply if I get one.

 

BF

[Desperate Daniella]

How many questions would you have had in total, counting the signature as the final one? I only had nine including the ones they'd blanked out, but if people took out PPI they got an extra two questions totalling 11. Some even have 12.

[Basil Fawlty]

Even that is strange. Question 11 is for my signature, but then under that is question 12, which is your right to cancel, but this is cut off ''mid-word'' at the end of the 2nd sentence. This is then immediately followed by ''Transfer Request'' with a couple of empty boxes allowing details of any transfer requests.

It really does look like a very bad cut and paste job.

 

BF

[slick132]

Does this thread shed any light about the missing section 4 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/246259-re-tony3x-morgan-stanley.html#post2754066

 

[the_shadow]

Does this thread shed any light about the missing section 4 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/246259-re-tony3x-morgan-stanley.html#post2754066

 

 

Its late and I'm old (well I'm not but I feel it) but I couldnt see anything on that thread in relation to section 4, however I remember discussing it with DD and she said its for a password/keyword to be written in.

 

I know she's done extensive investigation into MSDW agreements and the Barclays tendency to cut & paste to barge in the t&c where they can.

 

S.

[Desperate Daniella]

Only on some agreements, obviously.

 

There is no logic to what they are putting in and leaving out, so I'm beginning to think that there are a number of different people working on the cut and paste jobs and being told to fit in what they can to balance the look of the agreement - but clearly they can't be getting precise instructions.

 

Obviously the agreements have changed a bit over time, say from 2000 (mine) to the later one on Tony's thread, but what we get to see in terms of questions appears to be totally random, which is why I think they've got a number of people working on these and all trying to be clever, and now they are removing as much as they need in order to get the prescribed terms on the front.

 

DD

[slick132]

Hmmm,

 

There was another thread where the OP said the blanked out section 4 was a section which included a security password, I think.

 

If I come across it again, I'll link it.