Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Arrows/Restons stayed Claim M+S credit card debt - Application to lift Stay


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1025 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ah! you filed an embarrassed defence:mad2:

no wonder,

 

so this time follow our tried and trusted method eh?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim was defended on the basis no defence could be entered as there was a lack of documentation to back up the claimants claim and none were included in the claim.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Seasons greetings all.

I have some work to do this week in assembling a defence for this matter.

Starting with the original Application for credit, im looking for people's views on this.

The document can be found in post 9 and is page ten of the attached PDF.

 

Im particularly looking for views on whether or not this is enforceable as my thrust of arguement will be that it does not include the prescribed terms and conditions within the four corners of the document.

 

Is there anything else which could constitute a defect?

and how do i go about setting this out in document form.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 22 for a start

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks.

They have provided two sets of what they say are T&C's my point will remain they are not contained within the four corners of the application form.

 

No notice of assignment,

from memory i think thier WS points to theres suficient information contained within other documents,

 

im going to be making a big point that their agent went to court and stated that the docs were available,

just not on the day

then back tracked a little and was in the process of saying it takes time to produce, at which point the Judge stopped her.

 

I'm looking for a nice choice of words to suggest that 13 months from request is reasonable amount of time in which to have supplied these and they havent or have witheld them for whatever reason. Some help with suitable words would be great.

 

The point about authorised payments.... this would of been payplan or similar i wasnt involved in that aspect and the other half has no recollection of what the arrangements would of been. Again soem suitable words may be hellpful if its thought this avenue is worth following.

 

I saw a thread regarding costs, im unable to find it again but there did appear to be some good argeuments against their costs, if someone canb recall the thread and point me in the right direction that would be helpful.

 

Theres also contained within their WS references to Default notice, we are sure there was no default notice sent to us or indeed a termination notice, again pointers on how to cover this aspect may be helpful.

Many thanks once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are not 2 sets of T&C's in their WS?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Other half opened a M&S account in September 1989.”

 

 

The agreement is subject to the CCA 1974 before it was amended in 2006, if the agreement does not comply with the statutory requirements of containing all the prescribed terms within the ‘4 corners’ of it, then you can rely upon s.127(3) of the 1974 Act before it was amended and the authority Wilson v First County Trust, House of Lords decision on this point, where it was held that such an agreement was irredeemably unenforceable against the debtor.

s.127(3) of the 1974 Act was repealed by the amendments in 2006!

Check your own records of the account statements and compare them with the amount stated as arrears in the default notice, if they are not the same, then the default notice is not accurate and therefore invalid.

Bear in mind that before the 1974 Act was amended the time limit to remedy the breach stated in the default notice was 7 days (it’s 14 days now since 2006).

As they haven’t complied with your s.77/78 request under the CCA, they are not entitled to enforce the agreement, although they will probably comply with it now after the recent hearing.

The PPI on the agreement is a relevant and material issue, because PPI is a fraud on the consumer (it was never “mis-sold”), this means that the agreement is a prohibited article under ss.1.7(b)(i) & 1.8(d) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as it has been used in connection with fraud contrary to s.1 Fraud Act 2006, in your case as the agreement is dated 1989, the PPI is deception under the Theft Act 1968.

As the agreement has been assigned, the Claimant is recognised as a creditor under the 1974 Act and therefore he is legally responsible for the PPI on the agreement and liable to pay it all back to you.

Work out how much PPI is due back to you and counterclaim for it.

The illegality principle applies to the agreement and the court (no court in the jurisdiction) can assist the Claimant on his claim:

The illegality principle – the law

The rule stated by Lord Mansfield CJ in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343, is a rule of public policy that;

“The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio ["no action arises from deceit"]. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa ["from an immoral cause"], or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted.”

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, Lord Toulson (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Hodge agreed) said:

[1] “No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.” So spoke Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343, ushering in two centuries and more of case law about the extent and effect of this maxim. He stated that the reason was one of public policy:

“If, from the plaintiff’s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both are equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.”

[120] The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.

Happy New Year

Haunter

Link to post
Share on other sites

and neither of those are the full set of either T&C's

they are each pages long.

and if you look at the little numbers around the end

[cant clearly see in the scan]

neither date code related from the correct time period

so their CCa return is BOGROLL

made up from a couple of old sheets from their filing cabinet.

and an application form devoid of all the require prescribed terms.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the defence in this thread

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483337-MMF-Moriarty-claimform-old-Mr-lender-PDL&p=5087051#post5087051

gives you the bones of what you need to state

bar the PAPDC bit

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be drafting the defence throughout the day.

Two quick questions.

 

1. A 1989 M&S Storecard/ Charge Card: what type of credit agreement would of been inferred would it be a rolling credit account or credit card at the point of inception.

 

2. PPI: would this forma part of the same application or be treated as a wholly sperate matter. Im assured nothing re PPI was ever sent only verbal information by the individual filling o

Link to post
Share on other sites

store charge card changed to a credit card later on

 

PPI is nothing to do with your claim whatsoever

 

that was levied by M+S not a DCA.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting,

however this may not be of much use to me as i cannot be sure that the card was changed

and even if it were i have no evidence it was changed or indeed when that would of been.

 

My gut feeling is that it was changed hence the rather vague details provided regarding transactions etc,

which only show debits and credits to the account and are watermarked M&S bank, not M&S Fincial services.

 

Another issue

ive noted is that the application form appears to have been over stamped with a serial number,

however thsi number does not reflect any part of the account number,

in effect there is no account number on the application form/ agreement either before or after inception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you entered into the agreement 14th Oct 1989 it was a store card...they only converted to CC around 2003 I think.

 

https://bank.marksandspencer.com/explore/about-us/history/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

which all proves its bogroll

those document other than a sig are nothing to do with me.

 

shame [or not] about the statements

as until it was a credit card

you would only of been able to make purchases in house to M+S

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the application form with regards to T&C's. Post No9 page ten.

 

In the top right hand box it makes reference to "see over" relating to lost or stolen cards.

 

The purported T+C's supplied (there were two)

are obviously not a photocopy of the original as the print is far too clear

but does corresppond to the section mentioned on the application form.

 

My question is then,

does this confirm that the T&C's were not within the four conrers of the form,

or could it be successfuly argued that they were supplied at the the point of inception.

 

In any case

my point would be they are not a copy of the actual form or part of at the point signing the application form.

 

I note also that the supplied copy is not complete

as there is clearly parts missing from both the top and bottom of the form,

but is this enough to state it is incomplete.

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they have disclosed will be questionable.....not going to have a copy of an agreement/T&Cs from 1989.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Theyve sent two copies one has the date 1989 the other 2004.

 

Agreement with your signature ?

 

And further agreement for a store card or a credit card ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for any confusion.

We have a photocopy of the application form which is signed by both parties from 1989, they have provided two copies of T&C's one of which they say is from 1989 The other they say is from 2004, though interestingly they are saying that these T&C's were in place when the account was terminated in 2011

Link to post
Share on other sites

And is this application from 1989 for a store card or credit card...a world of difference....the T&Cs are irrelevant if not for the correct type of agreement.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The application was for Marks and Spencer Account Shopping.

The form then goes on to say its a Marks and Spencer Account Card.

 

I have just noted a few more points,

The 1989 document only mentions Budget Card and Charge Card

no mention of M+S Account card as per the application form.

 

Thinking more widely,

if these supposed T&C's were on the back of an application form,

then the account holder did not receive them as they formed aprt of the application which was sent away to be signed off.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that they were sent out an any point thereafter.

 

As for the 2004 T&C's

there does appear to be a discrepancy,

the document correctly identifies the account type as being ACCOUNTCARD (note the typo)

then goes on to say

"the clauses below are taken from the M&S Account card terms and conditions.

The definitions and other terms and conditions are set out in full in your copy of the terms and condition.

 

Theres then a clause relating to interest and variations of interest which says

"Interest is chargeable as explained in clause 7" only problem is clause 7 in the supposed 1989 document does not relate to interest.

 

i suspect very strongly the 2004 document has been made up,

particularly regarding the Typo's and some of the strange spacing used in setting out a number of paragrapghs.

 

Neither document has an M&S logo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...