M&S CCA request? need signature, Confused with SAR?

[Elgrand]

Hi WelshMam2009,

 

Can I ask you if M&S sent you your CCA ?

 

I have had two stalling letters from them and will be starting a thread soon and will post them up.

 

Thanks Elg.

[WelshMam2009]

Nope, not a silly sausage Elg...not even a stalling letter!!

 

It's on my list to chase up...but have several letters to write and am dealing with them in priority order...Citi, MBNA then M&S.

 

When did you apply for your CCA?? Did it start life as a store card by any chance??

[Elgrand]

I can't remember if it was a store card or not.

It's been nearly a month since I applied for the CCA and like you, I have other pressing things to do, marbles, mbna amex.

 

They really are getting confused as to what I've requested, or more than likely stalling,

The first response wanted a signature. I wrote back telling them it was not a requirement for a CCA request.

They have now wrote back saying they want a signature and the 40 days will start once they receive it.

I'll start a thread on it and post the letters. When I do ask for a SAR, they'll probably say, I have to request it in person!!

 

Thanks Elg.

[WelshMam2009]

I thought the 40 days for a SAR started from date of receipt??

 

I applied for my M&S CCA about that time and honestly haven't heard anything.

 

I'm constantly reading on here and trying to learn. I think I now understand why they keep sending out copies of application forms...because s127(3) says that if they have a signed document containing all of the prescribed terms (even if not in prescribed form) then they can get an enforcement.

 

The more I learn the more confident I become. I think it all boils down to whether or not you have the stamina to endure all of their bullying and, of course, the mood the Judge is in on the day!!

 

Nonetheless I feel contented by the fact that the law is on our side and it makes me less afraid to go to court.

[Elgrand]

Hi, I sent a standard CCA request to M&S 09march.

 

Reply came back 20march asking for a signature and claiming they had 40 days to comply once received?

 

 

I replied with this letter that I managed to find on the site and edited for my purpose

 

Dear xxxxxxx

RE Account NO xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 20/03/2009 the contents of which are noted

In your letter you make reference to requiring my signed authorisation /specimen signature** before you comply. I draw your attention to the fact that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not require that I supply you with a copy of my signature before you comply with my S77/78** request.

 

If it is for Data Protection purposes then I can happily supply you with documentation to substantiate my identity to you.

However please note that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address. I have to ask, if you are concerned that you are not corresponding with the correct person, why it has taken so long to raise this.

 

My request for a true copy of my credit agreement under section 77/78** was made on 09/03/2009 and the 12+2 working days for your compliance has expired. I was entitled to provide a payment of £1 of which you note in your letter to me, you have received. I note that there is no provision that removes the requirements of the act to provide this information on time, even if you are unsure of my identity.

 

If you do not understand this letter, you should seek qualified legal advice

 

I look forward to receiving the documentation requested

 

Elg.

I have just realised that i originally dated this letter 2008. but the cca was correctly dated.

[WelshMam2009]

They are barking Elg!! :rolleyes:

 

Your letter sums it up nicely and I would be sending a default /dispute letter as the 12+2 days has expired.

 

EDIT: Don't worry unduly about the date as you refer to their letter of 2009 so it is clearly a typo.

[Elgrand]

Now I've received a response to the above letter and in the opening sentence they refer to a conversation i had with one of their specialists who carried on talking to me without me answering any security questions, claiming I did not know what i was asking of them and "that's not how it works" in reference to my statement of the oustanding initial response to my cca bringing the account into legal dispute until they have complied.

 

 

On page two,

 

they have stated that they are in receipt of my One Pound.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Elgrand
typo

[Elgrand]

Thanks WelshMam,

 

I am going to send them an account in dispute letter and try and spell out that it is a CCA request and not a SAR for the last time and see what i get back.

 

And this time i will put the correct year, not that they noticed anyway!!

 

Elg.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Elgrand
added text

[WelshMam2009]

Ask them to specifically quote which section of the act they are referring to Elg...that should wind them up!!!

[Elgrand]

That's a good idea WelshMam,

 

I've drawn up this letter so far and will post it recorded tomorrow, do you or anyone mind telling me what you think!!

 

March 20th 2009

Marks & Spencer Money

Kings Meadow

Chester

CH99 9PZ

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your response to my original letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The act does not require me to send you a copy of my signature and I will again point out, that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address. I have to ask, if you are concerned that you are not corresponding with the correct person, who is it that you are corresponding with.

 

In your last letter, you made reference to my conversation with xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx dated 15/04/2009, this call was timed at xx.xx and I must point out that I record all calls and indeed this conversation should not have happened because I did not answer the security questions that he asked and should have confirmed before speaking to me about my personal data. A clear breach of the data protection act.

My initial request still remains outstanding. For clarification, you seem to be implying that I am asking for a Subject Access Request in which you would have 40 days to respond upon receipt. I must state for the third time, that I am asking for a copy of a Credit Card Agreement in which I paid £1.00 and you had 12 + 2 days to supply.

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement.

As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this debt is not enforceable in law.

 

My original request was made on the 09/03/2009 to provide me with a true copy. You are now in default of my request. Any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit reference agencies.

 

Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this account, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

Elg.

 

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Elgand!

 

M&S probably need a Signature so that they can send you somebody else's Data!

 

They are fine ones to talk about Data Security when they seem to be wholly incapable of putting the right material into the right envelope. They tend to enjoy mixing things between Envelopes so everyone gets a bit of Data, not necessarily your own Data.

 

They are a bunch of muppets, and the Signature issue is a little game that M&S likes to play.

 

It is just a delaying tactic, and/or their little way of reminding you why bankers are now as universally detested as they are mistrusted.

 

M&S are just HSBC with a different hat on so, in time, you'll probably get snotty letters with a different Logo on it.

 

I'm fairly sure that the M&S you're dealing with is not the M&S who also sells underpants and socks. Instead, it's a Company called Marks and Spencer Financial Services plc, and that appears to be owned by HSBC, or HSBC has a lot to say in terms of what goes on.

 

The Registered Office for that is here:

 

Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc

Kings Meadow

CHESTER

CH99 9FB

However, the thick plottens, Dr Watson, because the above Registered Office is just 0.6 Miles from another infamous Registered Office, this one:

 

MBNA Europe Bank Ltd

Stansfield House

Chester Business Park

CHESTER

CH4 9QQ

Blimey! Who'd have expected that? Two employers within rubber band flicking distance of each other, fighting over the same unique local pool of spotty hoodies?

 

Either way, M&S/MBNA/HSBC are all reading from the same script, and all are just as slippery to deal with as each other.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Elgrand]

Hi BRW,

 

Thanks for popping by,

 

I expect your right on all counts, Mr Holmes, blimey have they been rumbled.

 

It does seem like a game they are playing and i hope that game means they don't have an agreement or at least an enforceable one.

 

I'll send the letter and post the next stage of this ever thickening plot.

 

Elg.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Elgrand
typo

[WelshMam2009]

That's a good idea WelshMam,

 

I've drawn up this letter so far and will post it recorded tomorrow, do you or anyone mind telling me what you think!!

 

That looks brill Elg....perhaps you can start drafting mine as well...I find them so tiresome to do, especially when you know that they are talking a load of bullshine!!

 

They will argue the toss about processing your data though as Schedule 2 section 2 (and I think this is the right one but am in a rush!!) says...

 

The processing is necessary— (a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party,

 

Whilst not having a valid cca, or no cca as in my case, may make the agreement unenforceable, I imagine that they have enough evidence to confirm that a contract exists.

[Elgrand]

Hi WelshMam,

 

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

 

perhaps you can start drafting mine as well...I find them so tiresome to do, especially when you know that they are talking a load of bullshine!!

Anything I can do to help, of course I will. I am really just a beginner, still learning but picking up lots of things and becoming a bit more confident.

 

Whilst not having a valid cca, or no cca as in my case, may make the agreement unenforceable, I imagine that they have enough evidence to confirm that a contract exists.

I will have a chance to have a good read around the forum at the weekend. I'm sure there are some posts on this subject.

 

Elg

[Elgrand]

I have already received a letter of response from M&S for the one only posted on the 20th.

 

This has a different author, has ignored most of what I have written and it appears we are in a stalemate position.

 

So the question is, who's right?

 

Any comments most welcome.

 

[Elgrand]

The reason I believe for their qiuck responses is the amount of money involved. It's over 5k.

 

I have been receiving phonecalls from them on a regular basis, but have them blocked, so i no longer have to speak to them.

[42man]

Why don't you issue a CPR31.16 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html - this cagger won in court a few days ago on the back of making the CPR31.16 request - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/165349-smt37-morgan-stanley-goldfish-3.html#post2119750

[Elgrand]

Thanks 42man,

 

Certainly worth pursuing.

 

I will have a good read of those links.

[Elgrand]

A quick update.

 

I have written to M&S again, by way of a CPR 31.16 and have sent a seperate letter to their complaints department.

 

I have sent an email enquiry/complaint to the ICO asking for clarification on the signature stalemate,(still awaiting a response from the ICO)

 

The response i got today from M&S, is what looks like a dodgy DN that i will post for comments.

 

Elg

[Elgrand]

Another update.

 

Two invalid Defaults issued now, both stating that the account will be terminated on or after the remedy date.

 

They have used PLR to chase the money oustanding and have told me i have ignored their attempts to resolve this.

 

I have written several letters, still arguing that they are in dispute of my initial request and i am waiting for their latest.

 

Watch this space, waiting for some legal action to be started.

 

Elg.

[Reader]

Subbing thread with interest I seem to be in the same situation as you.

[Elgrand]

Hi Reader,

 

Have you had the same problem with the Signature and no CCA ?

 

In their last letter they stated,

 

We acknowledge that there is no requirement within the CCA 1974 for a signed letter to be received, we also confirm that it was not under this statute that our request was made.

 

Part of my response was,

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the Data Protection Good Practice Note: Checklist for handling requests for personal information (subject access requests) issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Section 2 states Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity? Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume they are who they say they are.

 

We seem to be going round in circles whilst they continue to issue defaults etc.

 

Elg

[WelshMam2009]

In their last letter they stated,

 

We acknowledge that there is no requirement within the CCA 1974 for a signed letter to be received, we also confirm that it was not under this statute that our request was made.

 

I'm slightly confused Elg..sorry!!

 

Did they actually state under what statute their request for a signature was made then??

 

This is just becoming totally silly now and I would have to question why they are so intent on frustrating your lawful request for information.

 

Have you thought about complaining to Trading Standards? They appear to be the only body remotely interested in failure to comply with CCA requests as far as I can tell.

[Elgrand]

Hi WelshMam,

 

We acknowledge that there is no requirement within the CCA 1974 for a signed letter to be received, we also confirm that it was not under this statute that our request was made.

That's exactly what they say in their letter and i have asked for them to explain themselves.

 

I can only think, their insistance to carry on with this farce, is because they do not have an agreement.

 

I have not thought to contact the TS, but will certainly consider doing that next.

 

My options at the moment are to let them terminate the account. With two dodgy DN's, i would imagine that to be fatal for them.

 

Also i have downloaded the N244 Notice and now plan to go ahead and ask the Court to order them to produce it to me.

I have already gone through the CPR 31.16 first and second letters with no response and have given them ample time, so i will carefully see which practice direction pre action protocals they have infringed and go ahead with that next

 

Thanks Elg.

[Elgrand]

WelshMam,

 

Here's the letter

 

The only difference to that before mentioned statement was that i changed the I for WE.

 

Elg.

 

Edited September 18, 2009 by Elgrand
added text