M&S money Credit Card CCA Problems

[littleme33]

  

9 minutes ago, EOS-5D said:

Hi All,

 

I CCA'd M&S money last week with a template letter from this site. Of course I didnt sign the letter, I used block capitals as advised.

 

I recieved a reply from them this morning which had 2 pages in it.

 

The 1st page was a letter saying that under the consumer credit act, before they can provide a copy of this info, they need my "signature of authority", and that I had to allow 12 days for them to process this info and the 2nd page was a form which I had to fill out with my personal details.

 

My questions are:-

 

1) Do I need to provide them with a "signature of authority" and further personal details before they release any info to me?

 

2) Is this just a delaying tactic by them, because they dont have or cant find my agreement?

 

3) What is my next move? Is there a template for a reply to them?

 

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Cheers

 

EOS5D

 

OK

 

I received my CCA information back from M&S yesterday. Could someone please have a look to see if there are any "holes" in it. I dont know if this will have a bearing on things but I thought I should mention it. A member of M&S staff filled this form out for me instore, as I didnt really want the card but she was really pushy.

 

Cheers

 

EOS-5D

 

CCA return.pdf 834.14 kB · 0 downloads

#

Subbing

[seriously fed up]

what happened "in store" is really quite important here.

Their first problem is that, as far as I can see, the document you have signed is an application form. This will be what you signed in store? Were you given a copy of the application form at the time? If so, were you given any terms and conditions then? Or did someone just put a clip board with the form containing your details in front of you to sign, and say they would be "in touch"?

You see the issue is that s61 of the Consumer Credit Act requires that the document you signed includes terms prescribed by the Act - the interest rate, the credit limit (or statement as to how this will be determined) and how the money will be repaid. In this respect there are a couple of things - first were there any T&Cs in the documents on the day you were signed up? If there were, which ones were they? You have put up two sets - the second set - pdfs 5-9 being a glossy set which seems to include the prescribed terms. But the first set look to me (though maybe I am just not finding it) to be deficient in that there is no statement as to what the credit limit will be or how it will be determined (yes there is some stuff about staying within your credit limit etc, but that is not what's needed). So if you were given T&Cs at the time, better if it were the first set.

On the other hand, they are going to have to show that the prescribed terms were contained within the document that you signed and on the basis of your first pdf, I would have to say that its not enforceable. Moreover, your sig is not on either of the sets of T&Cs. The issue is going to be whether the T&Cs and the sig document (the application form) can be considered to be a single document. If not they have had it.

This is not to say if you write back to them telling them that they will agree - they most certainly will NOT.

[EOS-5D]

Hi SFU,

 

Many thanks for looking at my thread.

 

I didn't get a copy of anything on the day. In fact I have tried to claim back the PPI last year because the instore rep filled the form out for me and asked me to sign "here and here" without telling me what I was signing. Firstly M&S said they NEVER have employed instore reps to sell their financial products. When I pointed out that there's a store and employee number on the app form, they said why haven't I pointed this out to them before now as I've had the card since 2003.

 

If you look at the second set if terms, there is a date of 2008 on them, so surely these can't be the set that accompanied the application in 2003.

 

From memory, I didn't sign anything else In store, I.e. A seperate set of T&Cs, just the application form.

 

What would be my next step now?

 

Is there a template letter available to give me a rough idea and quoting CCA section numbers of what to say to them?

 

 

Many Many Thanks In Advance

 

EOS-5D

[seriously fed up]

their point about not employing in-store reps just goes to show what a bunch of liars they are. I can remember seeing them around their shops and so must half of the UK. Do you still have the letter where they assert this? Its only a relatively small point in all likelihood, but every little helps, as they say in Tesco ads.

The second set didnt look to me as if they would have relevance. I suspect that what they are saying is the second set are our current T&Cs, while the other set are the ones that you signed up to.

My guess would be that in-store you would be approached by a fairly pushy person who would regale you with the advantages of M&S's new credit card, M&S quality in finance yadda yadda yadda. She fills 90% out and you just sign - end of interaction, until you get your nice &more card.

What should happen. Well this is a contract, and the purpose of your sig is that you are agreeing to a set of T&Cs of a contract between you and M&S. Thus, you should arguably be told what these T&Cs are - or at least have a copy to look at. Two problems here - first of all if you are anything like the rest of us, you would rather have your eyes poked out with hot needles than read this pile of legal junk, so you just sign. Second problem is "caveat emptor" - let the buyer beware - which means basically if you didnt read them, then so much the worse for you. However, the Consumer Credit Act is more precise than this. In S61 that "61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible."

Basically what all of this is saying is that when you signed up, you should have got a copy of the agreement, and moreover that the prescribed terms should be contained in the sig document, while the other T&Cs can be "embodied" in this. What this means is that while the other T&Cs can be in other documents, the prescribed terms should be part of the signature document. The prescribed terms are rate of interest, credit limit (or how this will be worked out) and repayment arrangements (ie the basics of lending/ borrowing - what will it cost, how much and how pay it back).

I dont see any sign of any of these on the bit of paper that you signed, so the issue is going to be that M&S will claim that the first of set of T&Cs were contained within this document (ie were part of the sig document). On the one hand, I could well imagine that the document the pushy person simply filled it out and handed it over to you to sign had these T&Cs somewhere "in there". But, this is in the middle of a busy shop and you probably wouldnt think about looking further into the document - because I would bet that is where they are - and I would further bet that this is what M&S will claim. And if they are successful, if this did get to court, they might well be successful. But if they cant, then the wont be. Have a look around the M&S thread and see if there are others who signed up in the way that you did - you might learn something.

However, all is not lost, as sections 62 and 63 both go on to make clear that whether, when you signed the document did (63) or did not (62) become an executed agreement, "a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him.". So, in store, were you given a copy of the document that you had signed? If so, did that agreement include T&Cs? Again they will say that you would have got this as a matter of company policy ("oh yes, this is how we always did this"). But remember if they bring a court case, the onus to show this is on them. I mean who would go to court and say, "yes we made a total mess of this"? They would need to produce evidence to support their assertion. If they cant show that the T&Cs were at least brought to your attention, then I would think this is not enforceable. This really is a conflict between practicality - harassed shopper being pressured to sign by M&S employee in a busy store - and the demands of the law - you should have asked, you should have read them etc etc. So, as I said before, what happened in the shop is crucial - but so would the evidence of this be.

Even then, though, a court may take the view that the T&Cs may have been embodied in the agreement, but not contained. I know you are thinking well what is the difference? but it is important as if the prescribed terms are only embodied then only a court could order enforcement (s65 of the CCA 1974), but because they would be in breach of s61 (1) (a) as the prescribed terms were not contained in the sig document (though they may be in another document), a court is specifically forbidden (s 127 (3)) from issuing such an order, and M&S are royally screwed!

I hope that rather lengthy explanation helps you. You did ask, what should you do next. If it were me - and you need to make your own decisions - I would be inclined to write back to them stating why you consider the account not to be enforceable

 

1. prescribed terms not contained in the sig document (breacing s61 1a as above, with the consequences described there)
   
2. no copy of the T&Cs, or indeed the agreement handed to me in store, thus a further breach of s62 or 63 (it would only be executed when someone from M&S signed it, accepting your application - because that is what it is at this stage - an application - so I would guess 62 - doesnt really matter all that much just now - point is you should have your own copy)
   

one other thing that I noticed was that the t&cs they sent you (the first ones - not the 2008 copy) didnt seem to me to inlcude a statement on either what the credit limit was (eg your credit limit is £5000), or, failing this, how the credit limit would be set (we will determine your credit limit and advise of this accordingly). I couldnt see anything like this. Perhaps I missed it? But if not, this would certainly do for them, as even if we accept that this first set of T&Cs are indeed contained in the sig document (ie all part of a single document, albeit in a number of parts) they are missing a prescribed term, and as set out above, they have had it. Have a look yourself and see if you can come up with something.

Just one caveat to all this, if you do write to them in these kinds of terms, they will NEVER EVER agree with you, even if (or particularly if) they know you are perfectly right. They will ALWAYS try it on.

Hope all that helps

SFU:)

Edited February 25, 2010 by seriously fed up

[EOS-5D]

Thank you so much. Your post has given me a lot of helpful info and an idea of how to approach my next letter.

 

Ive tipped your scales in apprieciation.

 

Thank you

 

EOS-5D

[seriously fed up]

no bother. Just remember that they will never agree with anything other than "how big a cheque do you want me to write?" - that way you wont be disappointed

the other thing is - let us know how it goes - just come back to this thread and do a post.

sfu

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EOS-5D!

 

Send them a S-A-R, because M&S are known to make a right Pig's Ear of them, and may send you all sorts of things back, not necessarily your own Data! They are a bunch of muppets.

 

OK, the in-store issue is common. They were busy little bankers doing this for a long time, it was not an isolated promotion in just one M&S Supermarket over one weekend...they were banging away at this for years.

 

So, what a complete bunch of liars they are saying they never used or employed in-store staff to con people into taking out these nasty Debt Cards.

 

Whilst it has M&S on the Logo, the real force behind it was HSBC.

 

There are a few M&S Threads on CAG, so get searching, and I think you will see what I mean.

 

Their standard tactic was to have pushy staff, usually female, hovering around near the food check-out tills watching for people staggering out with several bags of M&S Shopping (hint, they can afford a Card)...

 

Acquiring Target...

 

Acquiring Target...

 

Acquiring Target...

 

Target Acquired!

 

Then they would swoop in for the hard sell, catching people off-guard and wondering how to get several bags of shopping to the car on the one hand, and how to get the pushy M&S harridan out of their face on the other.

 

Many found that the simplest option was to listen to the sales pitch for as short a time as possible, and sign the papers to apply for an M&S Card.

 

The Forms were in-store Application Forms for their own Staff to use, hence the Store Number and Employee Number Fields at the top left. Most, if not all, were photo copies...so nothing on the back, not that you were ever given a chance to see what was on the back.

 

The Application Forms stayed firmly clipped to the M&S Clipboards, and most people staggered off to their cars, not realising an M&S Debt Card with PPI would appear, as if by magic, a couple of weeks later.

 

I think they were more keen on selling the PPI, which could well be explained if the Staff were paid on a commission basic, i.e. paid for how many people they signed up for PPI...the Card being just a secondary issue.

 

OK, start gathering all the information you can, and do send them a SAR if only to see what they come up with this time.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[seriously fed up]

Banker, the bit about M&S harridans did actually occur to me, but I decided against establishing their sex for the reader on the basis of political correctness (not to say cowardice! ). However, from memory, your description of these people is basically correct (and in fairness it wasnt only M&S!)

The bit that concerns me about this one - and I am hoping you will have more of an insight into this - is the consequence of the process that they used to sign people up. We both know perfectly well what it was like - and while its a bit of a satire, what you have said is basically accurate. But we both also know. though, that M&S will deny it was anything like this to their dying day - they will insist that the applicant was given a copy of the agreement in the shop, when the agreement became executed etc etc, and that the "target" was given a copy of the t&cs at that time, and when they got the card etc etc etc. Lastly we both know this is a complete tissue of lies, but equally well we know that this is what they will plead in court, if it comes to that (because for one thing, how many people did they sign up in this way and how much is at risk if everyone who did sign up in this way finds their account unenforceable in law?)

Has a case like this come to court do we know? And, if so, what was (were)the outcome(s)?

But you are right about M&S being a bunch of muppets. I had my own experience with them about a year ago, and in the course of putting my defence together (which they liked so much they withdrew without it even getting to court) I did some asking around the credit card industry and one (now ex) industry insider (at quite a high level) told me that when M&S started handing out &More cards to Chargecard holders without a signature never mind a request (just "here's your new Mastercard, get on with it") the rest of the credit card industry was (in his words) "****ing gobsmacked"

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SFD!

 

In one case I am very aware of, we have two Witnesses and a phone call made during the hard sell.

 

M&S also like to send out crabby Terms & Conditions with the clear implication that they were on the reverse!

 

However, many have been Mail Order Terms, when we all know the Application Forms were in-store specials.

 

You could not make this up!

 

The bottom line is the usual basics, Application Form, no Prescribed Terms, so M&S/HSBC can Foxtrot Oscar.

 

They usually do, but will always try it on in the hope of finding people who have not found CAG.

 

They did the old Store Card swap to Debt Credit Card with my family too, but I was most amused to see the Store Card Applications come back when we CCA'd them.

 

But it is HSBC at the end of the M&S Logos, so bone up on how they operate, and you will see many similarities.

 

Likewise John Lewis Cards, I think they have HSBC at the end of the chain too, and the same may well apply to other Supermarket Cards, although I gather Sainsbury's has HBOS behind their Card.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[seriously fed up]

Hello SFD!

 

In one case I am very aware of, we have two Witnesses and a phone call made during the hard sell.

 

M&S also like to send out crabby Terms & Conditions with the clear implication that they were on the reverse!

 

However, many have been Mail Order Terms, when we all know the Application Forms were in-store specials.

 

You could not make this up!

 

The bottom line is the usual basics, Application Form, no Prescribed Terms, so M&S/HSBC can Foxtrot Oscar.

 

They usually do, but will always try it on in the hope of finding people who have not found CAG.

 

They did the old Store Card swap to Debt Credit Card with my family too, but I was most amused to see the Store Card Applications come back when we CCA'd them.

 

But it is HSBC at the end of the M&S Logos, so bone up on how they operate, and you will see many similarities.

 

Likewise John Lewis Cards, I think they have HSBC at the end of the chain too, and the same may well apply to other Supermarket Cards, although I gather Sainsbury's has HBOS behind their Card.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I think the main point to take from this EOS-5D is the bit in Banker's post that I have highlighted in bold underline. They are never wrong - even when they ran away from little me it was on the basis of a "purely commercial judgement " (nice way of saying "you've got us banged to rights, I would have thought) "and without admission of liability". Its not an easy path but with the kind of help, advice and support you can get on here, you will make it through. I did

 

Re Sainsbury, yes deffo HBOS - I am doing the best of three falls etc with them just now.

[EOS-5D]

Hi BRW

 

Hope youre fit and well. Thank you for dropping by and your advice.

 

SFU, also a big thanks to you for help too.

 

I'll keep the thread updated

 

MANY MANY THANKS

 

EOS-5D

[EOS-5D]

I have just 1 more question for you.

 

am i right in thinking that if the agteement is unenforceable, i'll be within my rights to ask for all the money that ive paid them over the years, or is that a load of cobblers?

 

Cheers

[seriously fed up]

Not for unenforceable. In fact unenforceable means just that - they cant enforce it in law. The debt still exists - they just cant get an order from a court to make you pay up.

You might be confusing this with void (or voidness?). This is an issue under s59 which says that "An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement." Basically the argument here is that what you signed was an application form - a prospective regulated agreement - so the agreement they think they have is therefore void.

The problems with this are

 

1. to the best of my knowledge no one has used this one
   
2. the courts would be likely to "rewind" things to where they were before "the agreement" - ie that the debtor would repay all the money they had borrowed, but the lender would repay all the money the debtor had repaid. I suspect with a card that had been in use for some time with minimum repayments that it might well be that the latter would exceed the former in which case the lender would have to pay out more. But with a card that had been in use for a short time, maxed out quickly then it would be the other way. But the main problem is that to the best of my knowledege no one has used this we dont know for sure how a court would react (we dont always know how courts will react with the reasonably well trodden paths of the Act)
   

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EOS-5D!

 

...am i right in thinking that if the agteement is unenforceable, i'll be within my rights to ask for all the money that ive paid them over the years, or is that a load of cobblers?

It's one of those untried theories, but the consensus of opinion suggests that it would be so fiercely defended by a dozen QCs, that you would have a hard time getting away with it.

 

The Debt Industrywould throw millions at the case, to stop it from happening!

 

But it's open season on Card Charges and mis-sold PPI.

 

In those cases, go for their throats, and consider:

 

• Refund of PPI
  

 

• Refund of any interest they charged on that PPI.
  

 

• Refund of Charges
  

 

• Refund of any interest they charged on those Charges.
  

 

• s69 County Courts Act 1984 8% Simple Interest on all of the above.
  

 

• Compound Contractual Interest at their highest rate, on all of the above (less the s69 element), on the basis of Restitution. IOW, the handing to you of the ill-gotten gains/unjust enrichment they earned lending out your money while they had it.
  

 

Plus, while you are at it, consider an Application under s142 to ask the Judge to decide on the rights of the parties to the Agreement!

 

IOW, make M&S squirm, and entice them to pay up by way of a cheque, without actually going to Court. Make sure you get a binding declaration from them that they won't come back at you afterwards either, directly, or via a Debt Sale to a DCA.

 

I hope that helps!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited February 26, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo, URL added for s69

[seriously fed up]

do you mean that because their agreement is unenforceable you would face an army of QCs, Banker? Or are you referring to the S59 argument? If the former, what is your view about using s59. I mean, how many of us, when we get something back from the banks, its headed "Application", and includes phrases like "we will consider your application and if we like you give you a card" (I am parapahrasing here obviously)? Its one that I have thought about, though in one discussion on here was fairly strongly advised not to go down that road. But if we work on the basis that we want to create as many doubts in the minds of the banks as we can (ie not just s61. but other aspects of the CCA in relation to the paper they possess), it might be another one to throw at them?

I would value your opinion.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SFU!

 

Sorry for any confusion, I meant in relation to a Claim asking them to repay to EOS-5D all the payments he made towards the Debt, as that was what I took him to mean.

 

They would fight such a Claim with all that they had, and they would afford an Army of QCs if anyone challenged them on that issue. Not that I don't think someone should try, just saying they would defend that one with everything, including the kitchen sink!

 

I agree on s59, if the Application Form is devoid of all Prescribed Terms, then it is indeed a pre-contractual document and void from ever becoming a Regulated Agreement due to s59.

 

The usual argument would be they will say the Prescribed Terms were on the back, although that is almost certainly nonsense in this case. The in-store M&S Application Forms were usually just photocopies or were just simple single-sided Forms. They churned out thousands of them over at least a few years, so it was bulk selling. Nobody I am aware of was ever offered to see what was on the back, let alone show them any terms at all. The Forms were invariably completed by the M&S Staff, in their own hand-writing, before being turned around for signatures (1x PPI, 1x Card, and quite often they were so keen to mis-sell PPI that the Card Application signature was omitted)!

 

Anyway, back to the point. Whilst s59 should apply, given their likely squeal that the Prescribed Terms were on the back, then a better argument is to say no, this Agreement is improperly executed because it does not satisfy s61(1)(a), see s65, see s127(3) sit on this and swivel M&S!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

When I say M&S Staff in the above context, I would like to add that they were probably employed by, or temporary staff contracted by, Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc, who are actually part of HSBC.

 

So, whilst the M&S name is being used in this M&S Forum on CAG, people need to realise that the Cards had little to do with M&S themselves, i.e. the people who sell underpants and expensive bananas.

 

Think of it like a toilet that just happens to have an M&S Logo on the seat. Lift the lid and, when you've composed yourself and caught your breath, you will soon see from what is peering around the U-Bend that it's really owned by a bank all along.

 

Just thought I'd mention it!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[seriously fed up]

Sorry, its Friday afternoon, and its been a hard week and the brain is in meltdown Banker.

Is what you are saying that its best not to use s59 because they will say that "the T&Cs are on the back"? So its better to use s61 as "improperly executed" (so 65 and 127(3)). But wont they say -again - T&Cs (including prescribed terms) werent on the front but were on the back or were referenced there (eg "i agree to be bound by the T&Cs on the back of this form") - "single document in more than one piece" I think is another "description" used in such circumstances

Sorry to be thick

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SFU!

 

Use both!

 

But don't rely on just s59! Make sure you say void under s59 and, in any event, fails s61(1)(a), see s65...see s127(3)!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[seriously fed up]

Thanks Banker

[banker_rhymes_with]

Thanks Banker

 

How Rude!

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

[EOS-5D]

I SAR'd M&S on 6th April and got my reply back this morning, hand delivered by courier.

 

I used a template letter from this site, and I dont think the info that I received back from them conforms.

 

I received a copy of what they deem to be an agreement (which ive already posted at the beginning of this thread), copies of statements from 2008 and about 100 pages of coded text which includes details of every transaction from day 1 in 2003.

 

They havent included any transcripts of conversations I had with them and they havent included details of information theyve shared with 3rd parties. What would be my reply to the SAR?

 

Ive also received a Default Notice which states I have to pay them what I owe within 14 days from the date of the letter. It was dated 8th April and I received it on 11th. It was sent by UK Mail, so from what I gather, this default notcice is defective because they have to give me 14 days but allow for the postage. Would I be correct in thinking this?

 

As always, any help or advice is greatly appriciated.

 

Many Thanks.

 

Oh, and another thing.

 

I have written to M&S to advise them that I have withdrawn my permission for them to contact me by telephone under the Communications Act 2003.

 

They have said that as my account is in arrears, they are not prepared to take my number out of their auto dialer as they need a way of contacting me. In my letter, I did advise them that its an offence to attempt to contact me by phone once ive withdrawn the permission. They say its not an offence and will keep calling.

 

Any thoughts guys??

 

Hello, Me Again,

 

Ive just gone through my post and found this letter from M&S.

 

I previously wrote to them, informing them that I believe that the agreement is un-enforcable under the clauses mentioned in the above posts.

 

In todays letter, they say that they refute my alagations and that theyre going to continue with their collection activities.

 

Ive attached said letter, does anyone have any thoughts?

 

Cheers

 

EOS-5D

 

http://i40.tinypic.com/2jakjg1.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/nedawx.jpg

[seriously fed up]

long soulful sigh - the problem with their letter is paragraph 6 - the one that mentions s61 (1b). This is true - s61 1b does allow for other terms and conditions to be "embodied" and not to be part of the signature agreement. But if you look at s61 1a, you will find that the requirement for the prescribed terms is rather different - this says

"61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

 

I have inlcuded (b)for completeness so that you can see the sleight of hand. Its one of those where its not what they tell you that matters, but what they dont bother telling you.

So basically they are "at it". I would write back advising them of the full copy of s61 (and possibly threatening them with reporting to OFT for breaching their debt collection rules which include misleading statements (and that paragraph is one) as an unfair business practice, but in particular that 61 1a requires the prescribed terms to be on the sig document. Basically its like I said in post 7 of your thread, that "Basically what all of this is saying is that when you signed up, you should have got a copy of the agreement, and moreover that the prescribed terms should be contained in the sig document, while the other T&Cs can be "embodied" in this." The issue isnt s61 (1b) or s189 - these are distractions. The real issue is that the sig document they sent you doesnt include prescribed terms so is in breach of s61 1a, as you can see. So its only enforceable by court order (s65) but even a court cant make an order s127 (3) as no prescribed terms mean they have breached s61 (1a).

One other thing - think its in an earlier post as well - they will NEVER agree with you. The best you can hope for is that they shut up.

[EOS-5D]

Thank you SFU

 

I whip up another letter for them to ignore.

 

Do you know anything about the Communications Act issue.

 

I really do have a sick baby daughter who needs lots of sleep, so it would be good to limit the amount of incoming phone calls.

 

As Columbo might say "just one more thing". What about the SAR issue i raised above. Should they have sent more information.

 

Cheers

 

E5D

[seriously fed up]

Thats a really difficult one. Yes there are legal routes that you can follow but they probably take ages and they usually just ignore it and/or justify it by saying they need to "keep in touch with you".

Two things that might help

1. could you change your phone number? I know from a personal point of view it poses its own problems, but it does solve your problem (as long as you dont make the mistake of telling them the new one )

2. I had one mob who kept phoning me. We had been playing letter ping pong, but they never engaged with what I was saying (basically this isnt enforceable) and they kept saying "you wont contact us". They used to phone about every three days (which is probably less difficult than what you are having to put up with), and I would refuse to play the "can i take you through security" routine, but complain they werent replying to my letters. One time they phoned me about 8.30 in the morning (this was after a late night) and I really hit the roof at the poor guy (he might work for pond life but it wasnt his fault as an individual) and I havent heard from them (on the phone at least) since. This shouldnt be taken as meaning shout and abuse them - that suits them - but to be clear about what your rights are and (most important) to get over to them that you KNOW what your rights are and you arent going to listen to the half truths and distortions that they will try to convince you of. He was made very clear and as i say they havent bothered me since.