M&S, debt collection, going round in circles

[Reader]

Hi all, letter received with the following from a debt collectors with the following paragraphs....

 

"The Ministry of Justice and the OFT have recently issued a consumer alert, warning people of the risks of being mislead over the enforceability of consumer credit agreements. We therefore strongly recommend you now seek legal advice if you intend to rely any further on the alleged breach of any of the acts that govern this account, pertaining to your liability to our client, as your current understanding is inaccurate. We confirm that a copy of this letter and previous correspondence will be made available to the courts and all governing bodies upon their request.

 

In the circumstances, we will not be entering into further protracted correspondence and request the you remit your proposals for settlement of this debt within 5 days from the date of this letter, together with a payment on account. Failure to do so will lead to further action being taken for recover of the above amount, as per our client's instructions."

 

Now I have written to M&S asking for the CCA via CPR 31.16 as I keep being threatened with legal action, even though the FOS have confirmed that they are now looking into this for me. M&S have only sent one side of an application form for a CCA agreement with no prescribed terms.

 

Any ideas of a good retort?

Thanks Reader

[Lula]

Just a load of officious sounding bow larks, just carry on doing what you were doing.

[Mrs E Blackadder]

Don't know if my reply will be of any help, but all I can say is that you should tread carefully with M&S and their debt collectors. Myself and a colleague have both fallen foul of them and they are very nasty. When other creditors were prepared to listen and help, M&S pushed us aside like we were nothing. Their attitude seemed to be 'because we can'. My colleague even had an agreement to pay X amount each month, which had been done through a financial organisation, and yet M&S still hounded her with letters and phone calls demanding she pay more. When they started calling her at work, the boss stepped in and told them that if they rang her at work again she would get the sack!!

 

Forget that nice, friendly outward face of M&S, behind the scenes they would kill their grandmothers rather than come to an agreement.

 

I suppose what I am trying to say here is please be careful with them and make sure that everything you have against them is watertight.

[Reader]

Hi thanks for your replies, it is just one side of an application form they have sent with none of the prescribed terms within the four corners of the agreement, which I think seems to be pretty standard from what I have gathered.

 

Currently the FOS are looking into this and as I told them we are struggling with money at the moment, an adjudicator who specialises with hardship cases will be looking into this for me. M&S have continually hounded me regarding this even though they know the FOS are involved.

 

Even via CPR they have ignored my request.

 

Not sure how to proceed with this one..

 

Thanks Reader

[Mrs E Blackadder]

Definately sounds like M&S haven't changed since my dealings with them and still think they can stamp all over everyone like the school bully.

 

I'm sure there must be a letter on here somewhere that you can send them, even if it means adapting it a little. I suspect the harrassment one might be the best so that you can point out that you will only deal with them in writing via the people who are acting on your behalf (remember to include who they are, reference numbers and addresses so that M&S cannot say they don't know who you are talking about!)

 

It is at least a place to start, but I'm sure other caggers will have further advice and info that will help you.

[tigga_1961]

whichever way they wrap it up in fancy words no cca means just that no agreement=no payments, have you sent them the account in dispute letter along with the harrasment letter.? if not do it now

[mr.ton]

"The Ministry of Justice and the OFT have recently issued a consumer alert, warning people of the risks of being mislead over the enforceability of consumer credit agreements.

 

Did anyone else hear about this "consumer alert" from the MOJ & OFT?

Errrrrr no

[ODC]

Did anyone else hear about this "consumer alert" from the MOJ & OFT?

Errrrrr no

 

This could be what they are referring to High Court decision on debt loophole dashes write-off hopes for thousands - Times Online

[mr.ton]

If the industry think this will change anything then they've got another thing comming.

It only takes someone to appeal the decision, have it overturned & then the cat will be back amongst the pigeons.

As far as im concerned..its business as usual

[mr.ton]

Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the Consumer Credit Act may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

 

Mr Justice Flaux is still saying that the CCA renders it UNENFORCABLE.

This high court decision has simply created yet more problems for both sides & done very little to clarify the whole thing.

[ODC]

Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the Consumer Credit Act may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

 

Mr Justice Flaux is still saying that the CCA renders it UNENFORCABLE.

This high court decision has simply created yet more problems for both sides & done very little to clarify the whole thing.

It gets better

The case was referred to the Commercial Court with a view to define and clarify the meaning of enforcement in the context of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Law firm Eversheds said the case succeeded in doing so and it will be "invaluable" to all lenders now dealing with challenges to the enforceability of agreements.

 

The court decided that bringing legal proceeding is only a step taken with a view to enforcement and not actually enforcement. Consequently, steps taken before proceedings start, including demanding payment and threatening legal action, cannot be enforcement.

 

The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either.

Chris Busby, partner at Eversheds, said: "The decision undermines the practice of panel solicitors at claims management companies selling their services based on identifying unenforceable credit agreements. CMCs should now be warning customers that running these arguments and ceasing repayment of loans will have an adverse impact on credit ratings."

 

Claims management firm Cartel Client Review, which was not involved in the RBS case, called on the Ministry of Justice to review how claims management companies are regulated.

 

Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel, said: "I believe the MoJ should hold a joint consultation with leading financial claims management companies to agree a set of standards that can be implemented across the industry to protect and better inform consumers."

So they can threaten enforcement but cannot actually carry out enforcement:eek:

[mr.ton]

So now what will happen is that the newspapers will report what has happened & make out that the consumer has been defeated & everyone now suddenly has to pay up

Anyway..i believe a new "UK supreme court" has been set up recently - so it will be interesting to find out how they would rule