M&S money Credit Card CCA Problems

[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.

[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

[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

[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"

[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.

[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)
   

[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.

[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

[seriously fed up]

Thanks Banker

[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.

[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.

[seriously fed up]

Two things

 

1. that is the main reason they have a legal dept - to tell them what they want to hear. Its a pretty pointless statement, since the responsibility of their legal dept is to M&S and not to you, its hardly neutral
   
2. its interesting that they have admitted in their second paragraph that they dont have the original - they have copied it on to microfiche in order to save space. I read what they say in their letter, but "common" practice (ie this happens elsewhere - is it what happens at M&S? Dunnoe) is to copy the sig part of the agreement but nothing else. So their problem in asserting that the prescribed terms are on the reverse is "prove it". Problem with a copy is that it can always be mucked about with. Some courts are happy enough, but not always.
   

Then, going back in your thread, is whether their assertion that "the T&Cs are on the back" is adequate. For instance is the front an application form? Does having the T&Cs on the back mean that they are contained (as the should be) or merely embodied. This is covered in BRW's posts on 26/2 - worth another look imo.

Remember the purpose of this letter is to get you to pay up - its not about truth.

[seriously fed up]

the key part of Steven's post is this

" It is hard to see which of these page 1 belongs to" - I would agree and its consistent with Banker's posts at end February about M&S's "sales" strategy in store.

This is something that they (not just M&S) do - send the sig document with a set of T&Cs attached, asserting the latter belongs to the former.

The issue now is that if they want to push this further by taking court action they would have to PROVE that page 1 belongs to 2 and 3. If they cant then prescribed terms are missing and the usual consequences follow. Question for them is whether they want to take the chance of being able to prove that or not.

Couple of supplementaries

 

1. even if they could prove that 2 and 3 belong with 1, there is still the issue of whether the prescribed terms are contained within the sig document, or merely embodied. If they can show the three pages belong together then I would guess contained, but its another obstacle for them to get over
   
2. it nicely illustrates the unwisdom of you taking them to court for an order to declare the account uneforceable, as in that case the onus of proof to show 1 doesnt belong with 2/3 would be on YOU.
   

So, lacking an original (see their letter) they are going to struggle to show that 1 does belong with 2/3. What they might try is to produce a blank of what you signed with 1-3 as a single document and assert this is what you signed. On the other hand the court might not accept this, seeking an original

[seriously fed up]

you are quite right EOS-5D, "a load of waffle", and as the banker points out, the relevant section of the Act aint 61(b) but 61 (a) which requires your sig and the prescribed terms. They have practically admitted in their last letter (not the most recent, but the one before that) that they dont have this so they are just trying it on.

There is though a wider issue here. How likely is that M&S dont know that what they need to satisfy is s61 (a) and that s61(b) as the banker points out in such an interesting way is a side-show. The problem with this is not just that it is wrong and thus misleading, but that it is deliberately and premeditadedly misleading, which brings it up against the OFT guidlines on debt collection which specifically mentions "leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors' lack of knowledge" (2.2.b)" as an unfair practice. Perhaps a complaint to OFT might be in order for such assertions in letters from DCAs. A single complaint will make little difference but if we all complain then perhaps we might exert some influence

[seriously fed up]

Just another threat imo. Of course there is the possibility that they just might do it, but note the use of "I am planning to ..." - not "I am going to ..."

I would suggest having a read at this http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit- and adapt to your own purposes. Just i case have a read at this as well http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/528-dealing-with-doorstep-visits.

I wouldnt worry about it too much. While they do do this, I would reckon that the proportion of cases where they go ahead with the visit as a proportion of the threats made is pretty small.

Have a good weekend.

SFU:)

[seriously fed up]

This is fairly obvsiously "another desk" at M&S. They (most OCs) play these kind of games. Pre Legal Recoveries is an interesting name dont you think? Kind of implies "well we are going to try to get our money without having to go to court", which is nice of them. Its just a game they play with little significance imo. Just more smoke and mirrors.

You get your letter off to Mr Offley on Tuesday (I would send it "proof of delivery" and as quick as possible just to be on the safe side).

Fwiw, I still think the chances are that this is just anothe scare tactic and nothing will happen - but as I said, better safe than sorry.

It is a bit of blow when you get this kind of letter - even if it means nothing, is of no significance and is of no practical consequence (I think we have identified already that if the best they have is what they have sent, they are really in bother with this one) - it does make you feel bad (I know it does when i get them). My advice - get your letter written and ready to send when the PO opens next week, and in between have a nice weekend.

[seriously fed up]

I wouldnt be all that sure.

First of all what do you expect the drone at the other end of the phone to say - "oh yes, you're right"? Sorry, but I dont think you will ever hear that.

Secondly, what do you think their legal qualifications are? Or even their knowledge of the relevant legislation? This could well just be something like "we may recommend ...."

You already have a pretty good handle on the "limitations" of what they have sent you. Just stay with them

[seriously fed up]

The fact that they havent made mention of 61 1a is telling as that is the one that contains (from their point of view) "the poison pill", leading as it does to s65 and thence to s127 (3).

The argument would be that the prescribed terms should be on the same page as the signature. The problem is - and this is covered by Waksman - is what constitutes a "document in more than one part"? Would the prescribed terms being on the other side of the page be ok? It could be argued that being within the sig document (not page) that the prescribed terms are indeed "contained". That could be argued - though precedent would suggest it wouldnt work. It would certainly be taking a chance on their part and I would continue to assert as you have done. The fact that they miss out any reference to 1a suggests that they are aware of the problem they face.

Just out of interest when I was in my local M&S this week, I lifted a copy of their application pack purely for research purposes - not going there again! Interestingly their application remains on two sides of a single page, BUT, while in the old forms one would fill out one's biog details (address, bank, employment etc) and sign THAT page, the sig box is now on the other side. So page 1, if you like is to be filled out by the applicant with name, address etc. But then you have to proceed on to the other side where the sig box is practically at the bottom of the second column, after all the prescribed and other terms. It seems they have learned.

[seriously fed up]

I think that sounds like a decent course of action EOS. Just dont expect too much - ie that they will agree. The only thing they will find agreeable is "here's the money". Silence is a win imo.

[seriously fed up]

Silence is about as much as we can expect tbh.

[seriously fed up]

Hope you enjoyed the silence then - while I would agree with you "we surrender" would be best of all, its better than the alternative (ie this).

Look they cannot admit that you are right.

You might want to quote this at them - its from Wilson v Hurstanger in the HoL:

" "...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 section 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 miss-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them."

and you should be able to find it at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/144167-bb-cabot-2.html. However they will come back with "they were on the back". To see how much confidence they have in this position, get yourself along to your local M&S and lift a credit card application pack - have a look at the application. You will see its still two sides of one page, but with the crucial difference that on one page there is room for the usual personal details, BUT with the crucial difference that the sig box is now on the other side with all the T&Cs (including the prescribed ones).

Its interesting too that in her letter she constantly refers to 1b and never 1a. You might want to push on that point - take her through the consequences of not complying with 1a (ie 65 and 127 3) and ask her if she considers what they have provided is compliant with 1a (not just 1b), and is she aware of the consequences?

 

[seriously fed up]

the problem that they have Citizen B is almost certainly this - they photocopied the front page, but not the back. So all they can do is assert that a blank two page doc is what was signed.

And I completely agree that the prescribed terms should be on the sig side. Interestingly so do M and S - check out their current application form - personal details on one side, but terms and conditions on the other ALONG WITH the sig box.

As for ignoring them, this is always a matter of personal tactics. I tend to the view that I have seen Vint put forward - always have the last word. But, I see your point when you are just going round and round the main beneficiary is the Post Office. At the very least, I would suggest if they introduce a new point - no matter how arcane - there must be a reply.

I was much influenced by the Clinton campaign's use of "instant rebuttal".

[seriously fed up]

you have forgotten lesson 1. Never speak to these people on the phone. Just tell them that you are not playing their ridiculous security games, and will only deal with the matter by correspondence.

If the account is unenforceable in law they wont get a charging order because the account cannot be enforced in law. Check out the OFT guidelines on debt collection (you can google it) to get some ammo to throw against them. You need something more substantial than you dont like this.

The issue isnt that the account is in dispute, its whether the account can be enforced in court - see quote from Wilson v Hurstanger below. Its whether or not it can be enforced - whether the lender has fulfilled the signing requirement of the CCA (s61 1a) and so loses all their rights under the CCA and to reclaim their money by court order - that is what the dispute is about. That isnt the same as saying that the debt disappears.

It almost goes without saying that M&S will agree with this, far less the DCA monkeys that you have been dealing with today, who isnt so much talking rubbish as saying what he thinks he needs to say to get at least the arrears out of you. Remember that the DCA gets paid by results as does the guy you have been talking to. This isnt about truth, its about results.

[seriously fed up]

This is doorstep collection- often threatened, but how often do they actually do it? See letter 3 here The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors and also the more detailed advice if they do actually turn up. This is on the next page

There is a discussion about whether they can register a default or not, even though the account is in dispute, or is clearly legally unenforceable because they have not fulfilled their duties under the CCA in some way (eg the signing requirements s61). You can find this here - most recent stuff first so it might be an idea to start a few pages further back, or just work back - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case-138.html. Some argue they cant, others (I am probably in that group) say they can as I would say while they lose their rights under CCA, it doesnt mean they lose all of them. That view is though disputed (probably a minority one on the discussion). BUT, it is clear that any information that they register does certainly have to be accurate.

As for ignoring them, CitizenB may well be right - you havent phoned them. However there is another DCA - think of the very top of a roof - which seems to run on sort of auto pilot with increasingly horrible threats made every couple of weeks. I suspect it can only be stopped if you utter the words they want to hear - "I surrender".

My view? Another threatogram (though I suspect they will register a DN). You might want to poke them on misrepresentation though. It wont take you far - I dont think there is a law preventing M&S (or actually HSBC) having their own inhouse debt collectors with another name in the hope that this spices things up a bit (even if it is just another name, and probably is another desk in the same office). Barclays do it with Calders for instance (though I think Calders is a properly registered company?).

[seriously fed up]

Knew Mercers were in the family tree somewhere, but couldnt think how. Thanks Citizen