Parry v Mint

[Parry]

I have a Mint card from around 2006 and when it came to sending out a new card Mint decided not to. They say that they have chosen not to supply another card, ‘as is their right’ due to the account having some late payments. The payments were late for a short while but I managed to catch up. The account is not in arrears but is just now a debt; no card can be used and yet they are charging credit card rates to an account that does not have the benefits associated with a credit card account.

 

I have cca’d them as a starting point and will make a subject access request in due course to reclaim any late charges. My question at the moment is can they withhold replacement cards and turn it into collection only account without any formal notice?

 

Not sure about unlawful rescission as account can’t be closed? They claim that I was informed via one of my statements. I did phone to ask why I hadn’t received a new card which was when they informed me.

 

The other point is the cca. It was applied for online so does this have any bearing on the cca? Date would be close to changes which I believe happened in 2007, anything to watch for? I’m not bothered about not being able to use the account anymore but paying credit card rates for no credit card is a bit much :-|

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

I think MINT can restrict your account, MBNA for example call it withdrawing credit facility.

[Parry]

Well I have received an agreement from my cca request from Mint. I think it is enforceable; it is on three separate pages but I guess this could have originally been one document folded over.

 

My signature is there but no other signature. There doesn’t seem to be a place for the Banks signature either, not sure if that is relevant? Have enclosed pics of agreement for any advice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spark911]

The bank's signature is relevant, but it's in the stamp on the first page dated 2006, so they've signed it - I don't think they need to have a line for them to sign on

[Parry]

Thanks spark911, was just being a bit hopeful really :-|

 

Seems as if they can choose not to send a new card, charge high interest rates and apply charges with impunity. Will do a claim for charges but no doubt that will be met with the same response, even though credit card charges were not included in the Supreme Court hearing.

 

They all seem to be using that judgement as carte blanche to do as they please. The fact that these activities hit the poorest people already struggling makes it all the more abhorrent.

[spark911]

Thanks spark911, was just being a bit hopeful really :-|

 

Seems as if they can choose not to send a new card, charge high interest rates and apply charges with impunity. Will do a claim for charges but no doubt that will be met with the same response, even though credit card charges were not included in the Supreme Court hearing.

 

They all seem to be using that judgement as carte blanche to do as they please. The fact that these activities hit the poorest people already struggling makes it all the more abhorrent.

Most of these organisations will accept a full and final offer of like 60-70% of the debt outstanding, so if you have funds or can refinance you could try that and then the %age you save will probably come to the total of the charges anyway rather than just try and get charges refunded which I'm not too sure they actually do that often

[Parry]

Been reading up on credit agreements and giving this some more thought. This agreement is on three separate pages, the one page containing the signature does not contain any of the required prescribed terms.

 

Being on separate pages, albeit numbered, means the pages without the signature could be altered at any time and just substituted for any originals. Surely this can’t be right? That would mean the terms of the agreement could be altered at will and always appear that you had signed in agreement.

 

At the moment they are charging very high interest charges and are totally unapproachable about reducing it or freezing the interest even though the account is closed. I had no notification that it had been closed but they have said they are within their rights to do so. Their only reply to anything is “under RBS banking code we can…ect ect” which appears to be anything they like. Anyone got any suggestions/opinions?

[spark911]

Been reading up on credit agreements and giving this some more thought. This agreement is on three separate pages, the one page containing the signature does not contain any of the required prescribed terms.

 

Being on separate pages, albeit numbered, means the pages without the signature could be altered at any time and just substituted for any originals. Surely this can’t be right? That would mean the terms of the agreement could be altered at will and always appear that you had signed in agreement.

 

At the moment they are charging very high interest charges and are totally unapproachable about reducing it or freezing the interest even though the account is closed. I had no notification that it had been closed but they have said they are within their rights to do so. Their only reply to anything is “under RBS banking code we can…ect ect” which appears to be anything they like. Anyone got any suggestions/opinions?

I don't think you'll get too far on the seperate pages point, that was an issue which was talked about with the OFT test case at the end of 2009 which swung the issue somewhat in their favour!

 

You are correct, they could alter it but then they could also alter anything including the page with the signature. If we can make a film like avatar then then someone could probably make it look like you owe them a billion pounds! The issue is you need to look at it and how it would look in court, the fact that the text on the 2nd page has something like the APR until august 2007 and then from 2007 suggests it was a document from around that date and not one more recently.

 

An argument based soley on "they could forge this" wouldn't get you too far. Unfortunately, the consequences of lying in court should be enough of a deterrent to Mint's solicitors not to lie that the Court will assume where they present the facts and promise it is the truth that it is the truth.

[Parry]

On that basis then it makes a mockery of the ‘within the four corners of the agreement’ argument does it not?

 

Any pages added can easily read similar, just with the added prescribed terms to make the agreement enforceable. Substituting/altering pages with no signature is a lot easier than ones with a signature as when the original is supplied, as is required in court, then the unsigned parts could not be told apart.

 

There is also the opportunity to alter maximum rates and such like in the banks favour with no signature to show that, that what was agreed to at the time.

 

If the number of pages don’t matter then why is the ‘within the four corners of the agreement’ phrase used?

[spark911]

On that basis then it makes a mockery of the ‘within the four corners of the agreement’ argument does it not?

 

Any pages added can easily read similar, just with the added prescribed terms to make the agreement enforceable. Substituting/altering pages with no signature is a lot easier than ones with a signature as when the original is supplied, as is required in court, then the unsigned parts could not be told apart.

 

There is also the opportunity to alter maximum rates and such like in the banks favour with no signature to show that, that what was agreed to at the time.

 

If the number of pages don’t matter then why is the ‘within the four corners of the agreement’ phrase used?

 

I'm not saying the argument is bullet proof, but the whole point in the recent OFT test case was to decide once and for all (among other issues) whether the ‘within the four corners of the agreement’ argument which everyone was claiming upon had any merit. Clearly a lot of time was being spent by consumers as well as banks on the issue and I think both sides wanted a clear answer on it - unfortunately it appears to have sided more towards the banks/lenders.

 

Have a look at the Judgment text http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment-carey-v-hsbc.pdf

 

paragraph 171 to 181

 

Now this is more "guidance" that a specific "this is the law" which is why I say it's not bullet prooft and in certain instances it would be possible to win on the fact the terms and conditions are in different places, but it's a very fact sensitive issue!

 

This is the problem with the internet however, there is no way to remove irrelevant information, or let's at least say less useful information, the "four corners" argument is published everywhere as it was popular and supported the arguments of the borrowers in a lot of claims, however it's fairly worthless now as a stand alone argument yet when searching the issue there are many outdated websites, forum posts etc that were correct at the time of writing but no longer updated.

 

Have a read of the sections in the paragraph and let me know what you think. As I said, the argument can still apply in certain factual situations, but it's too soon after the test case to know of any factual situations where you could perhaps say with certainty the four corners argument is valid.

[Parry]

Decided to revisit this as RBS are charging high interest and as I can only just manage to pay the minimum each month I will be dead before it’s paid off at this rate!

 

The account has been closed by RBS due to late payments/payment history. (according to them) This was done without any communication to me, no default notice, no chance to remedy, just closed. I didn’t even realise it had been terminated; I only found out when I called to say I had not received my new card since the old one’s date had expired.

 

On top of this, they seem to be charging interest at cash advance levels. Ie the highest possible according to terms and conditions. I have never had a cash advance on this account at all. It was a balance transfer originally but then went up after the introductory offer and has been high ever since. When asked about it, RBS say “the rates just say typical Apr, my rate may be different”. Which seems to mean they can charge individual customers what they want despite advertising rates and including them in T&C’s.

 

It would seem from the SAR that the only mention in their notes is “account closed due to Bank policy”. It has the date by it but that is it. The notes about the account only go back one year as well despite the account being older than that and there is no mention of interest rates or any alterations to them.

 

Anyone have anymore thoughts on this?