Angry Cat V Morgan Stanley **WON AT LONG BL**DY LAST!!!**

[pj41]

HI Angry Cat,

 

I have sent my DPA off to MS Last week so you are slightly ahead of me.

 

I'm astonished at clause 4 in their reply to you. Go for the jugular and dont give in. Do these banks think we are stupid??

 

 

regards

 

 

Paul

[angry cat]

Hi Pj41-

 

Thank you for your response-

 

I guess that you will have to wait a while for the MS 'DPA' disclosure but hopefully they will send the information that you have requested within the 40 day requirement! -

 

Obviously, I am in total agreement with your thoughts about clause 4-

 

Good Luck and keep us all posted on your progress-

 

Kind thoughts

 

angry cat

[angry cat]

Hi Guy's-

 

Could it be considered that Morgan Stanley's action in 'Closing my Account' to be a RETALITATORY ACTION?

 

I issued a County Court claim against them 31 May 2006, amount claimed = £446.4956p.

 

Please note, that I only recently ceased my payments to MS because I am in in 'Dispute' over the Punitive Charges that were levied on my account and the 'Dispute' is well documented with them-

 

My last statement shows arrears of £445.00 and my claim against MS is for £446.4956p

 

I am of the opinion that MS used the arrears issue, to enable them to Default me, even though I had sent them a NOTICE pursuant to Sect.10 DPA and.....then I received a notification that my account had been closed!

 

My account with MS has always been kept in good standing, that is until I challenged them about the Unlawful Charges and refused to pay any more monies until my Dispute has been resolved

 

As previously stated, I have issued my County Court Claim against Morgan Stanley and they have until 19 June 2006 to reply.

 

Can I add to my County Court claim regarding Morgan Stanley's Retaliatory Action, or is it too late.

 

After reading the threads about Alliance & Leicester's closing accounts and the possibility of taking out an injuction against banks due to retilatory action, I decided to post this question.

 

I would greatly appreciate your advice.

 

Thank You

 

angry cat

[Seminole]

Have you read this?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=10283

[angry cat]

Hi Seminole !

 

Thanks for the link and yes, I had seen it.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Morgan Stanleys actions were precipitated by my challenge about their Unlawful Penalty Charges, because prior to making my claim for a refund of charges my account had been generally well conducted. Most of my Fines were applied when I had a disability PPI claim in place and the insurer was in charge of the remit, but their payments were often late - result fines. After my insurance claim had come to an end, I conitinued to make the payments personally. That is until April 2006 when I challenged MS

 

I have issued my County Court claim 31 May 2006 and just wondered as to whether I could add the possibity of the banks retaliatory action to the claim, or is it too late?

 

Thanks

 

angry cat

[Seminole]

Not sure. Let me check and get back to you later this evening.

[angry cat]

Hi Guy's

 

This morning I have received a Notice that Acknowlegement of Service Has Been Filed 13 June 2006.

 

Morgan Stanley intend to defend all of my claim and have until 1 July to File their defence-

 

Scary Stuff !

 

angry cat

[pj41]

Hi Angry Cat,

 

This sounds interesting keep us posted.

 

best regards

 

 

Paul

[pj41]

Hi Angry Cat,

 

My statements arrived today.

 

A total of £620 in charges. 1st letter off tomorrow.

 

Getting near to 1st July now. Fingers crossed for you.

 

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[blackrain]

Sending off my DPA again this week with the proof of ID they have requested. Amazing how they are happy to send me my statements each month but not any old statements without extra proof.

 

I notice there is little on the MS front on the boards. Anyone know of any other threads running? Any successes?

 

GL Angry Cat. 1st is just a few days away.....

[surreyscouse]

Angrycat, am i missing something on your dates here. If notice was deemed to have been served on 13th June then you can go to mcol tomorrow morning and obtain judgement. You only need to wait until after the 14th day.

[davefirewalker]

Hi

 

I'm Just starting to have a go at MS myself...

dpa on its way shortly

 

Looking forward to hear how you are getting on

 

Dave

[angry cat]

Hi pj41, blackrain & davefirewalker-

Good Luck to you all.

 

Surreyscouse, the date that I was due to Request Judgement was 1 July 2006

However, this morning 1 July 2006 I have received the Morgan Stanley Defence dated 30 June 2006.

 

Scary Stuff

 

angry cat

[angry cat]

Morgan Stanley's

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies (insofar it is alleged) that it acted improperly or unlawfully.

Specifically The Defendant denies that it has debited the Claimant's account number XXXXXXXXX ("The Account") unlawfully or in breach of the Claimant's rights in respect of the Account.

 

The Agreement

2. The Claimant applied for a Morgan Stanley credit card on or about the end of February 2000. The Claimant's application was accepted by the Defendant and the Claimant signed a Credit Agreement confirming her agreement to be bound by the Terms & Conditions of the Morgan Stanley Credit Agreement ("The Agreement")

As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant.

 

3. The Agreement entitles the Defendant to charge default fees to the Account if the Claimant committed breaches of the Agreement as described in the Agreement.

 

4. Reasonable steps were taken to bring the fees to the Claimant's attention during the course of the Claimant's application for a Morgan Stanley credit card.

 

The Fees

5. The Claimant breached the Agreement twenty two times between June 2001 and May 2006 as described in the attached schedule to the Defence (the "Breaches").

 

6. The Defendant admits that fifteen £20 default fees ("the Fees") were debited to the Claimants Account by the Defendant between 4 May 2002 and 2 May 2006 in respect of the Breaches. The Defendant did not debit any Fees in respect of the other seven Breaches of the Agreement.

 

7. In each case, the Defendant was authorised by the Claimant to debit the Fees to the Account in respect of the Breaches pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

 

8. It is denied that the Fees are penalties or otherwise unenforceable, as alleged or at all.

 

9. The Fees represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the Defendant. The Defendant has at all times complied with its obligations under the Agreement by continuing to provide credit facilities and associated services to the Claimant, including an online account centre, access to customer service representatives, convenience cheques and other services. The Defendant will rely on authorities such as White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962) AC 413, Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and Procon Inc and Procon (Great Britain) Ltd (1983) 1 WLR 399, Indian Airlines v GIA International Ltd (2001) EWHC 2361 and Jeancharm Ltd (t/a Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd (2003) 92 Con. LR 26 in this regard.

 

10. Further or alteratively, the Fees were not unreasonable, extravagent or unconscionable when compared with the losses, costs and other expenses that were incurred by the Defendant as a result of the Breaches. The Defendant will produce evidence of its losses, costs and other expenses in support of this position. Accordingly, the Fees are properly recoverable as liquidated damages.

 

 

Okay thats it apart from the statement of Truth.

 

Help please-

 

Thanks

angry cat

[blackrain]

Will be interesting to see if they can find your signed credit agreement. Other threads are running about this at the moment 'no agreement - no forceable debt' although no one seems to have used it yet.

 

Maybe PM a mod for advice on their defence? Keep us posted Angry Cat.

[maverik1979]

despite all the fancy wording , all they are saying is that it does actually cost them that much to put "fees" onto your account, however the oft think otherwise

 

that is still the basis of their defence, irrespective of whether you signed an agreement, it is still against common law, this is probably their last stalling tactic to get you to quit, dont give up

[patrickq1]

Morgan Stanley's

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies (insofar it is alleged) that it acted improperly or unlawfully.

Specifically The Defendant denies that it has debited the Claimant's account number XXXXXXXXX ("The Account") unlawfully or in breach of the Claimant's rights in respect of the Account.

 

The Agreement

2. The Claimant applied for a Morgan Stanley credit card on or about the end of February 2000. The Claimant's application was accepted by the Defendant and the Claimant signed a Credit Agreement confirming her agreement to be bound by the Terms & Conditions of the Morgan Stanley Credit Agreement ("The Agreement")

As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant.

 

3. The Agreement entitles the Defendant to charge default fees to the Account if the Claimant committed breaches of the Agreement as described in the Agreement.

 

4. Reasonable steps were taken to bring the fees to the Claimant's attention during the course of the Claimant's application for a Morgan Stanley credit card.

 

The Fees

5. The Claimant breached the Agreement twenty two times between June 2001 and May 2006 as described in the attached schedule to the Defence (the "Breaches").

 

6. The Defendant admits that fifteen £20 default fees ("the Fees") were debited to the Claimants Account by the Defendant between 4 May 2002 and 2 May 2006 in respect of the Breaches. The Defendant did not debit any Fees in respect of the other seven Breaches of the Agreement.

 

7. In each case, the Defendant was authorised by the Claimant to debit the Fees to the Account in respect of the Breaches pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

 

8. It is denied that the Fees are penalties or otherwise unenforceable, as alleged or at all.

 

9. The Fees represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the Defendant. The Defendant has at all times complied with its obligations under the Agreement by continuing to provide credit facilities and associated services to the Claimant, including an online account centre, access to customer service representatives, convenience cheques and other services. The Defendant will rely on authorities such as White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962) AC 413, Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and Procon Inc and Procon (Great Britain) Ltd (1983) 1 WLR 399, Indian Airlines v GIA International Ltd (2001) EWHC 2361 and Jeancharm Ltd (t/a Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd (2003) 92 Con. LR 26 in this regard.

 

10. Further or alteratively, the Fees were not unreasonable, extravagent or unconscionable when compared with the losses, costs and other expenses that were incurred by the Defendant as a result of the Breaches. The Defendant will produce evidence of its losses, costs and other expenses in support of this position. Accordingly, the Fees are properly recoverable as liquidated damages.

 

 

Okay thats it apart from the statement of Truth.

 

Help please-

 

Thanks

angry cat

4.You agree not to make a claim against Morgan Stanley in any Court of competent juisdiction, or make a complaint against Morgan Stanley to any relevant regulatory authority or Ombudsman Service. In the event that a claim or complaint has already been made on your behalf, you agree to withdraw any claim/complaint and provide us with written confirmation of the same

 

This is perfect for you it is also very usefull you can now contact the OMBUDSMAN SERVICES and ask for them to be a material witness to MS with regards to your complaint and explain the same to them as you have here what better witness can you ask for i dont think MS will be pleased and myself i would force this action into the courtroom, good luck

i am prosecuting them for PPI INSURANCE will explain in a new thread

[alftupper]

Morgan Stanley's

 

DEFENCE

 

 

9. The Fees represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the Defendant. The Defendant has at all times complied with its obligations under the Agreement by continuing to provide credit facilities and associated services to the Claimant, including an online account centre, access to customer service representatives, convenience cheques and other services. The Defendant will rely on authorities such as White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962) AC 413, Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and Procon Inc and Procon (Great Britain) Ltd (1983) 1 WLR 399, Indian Airlines v GIA International Ltd (2001) EWHC 2361 and Jeancharm Ltd (t/a Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd (2003) 92 Con. LR 26 in this regard.

 

 

Any info on the relevence of these cases?

[angry cat]

Hi -

Thanks for your response as I am wondering the same?

 

Could one of the moderators please take a look at the Morgan Stanley Defence and if possible post their opinion about the cases that MS have quoted in their defence.

 

I have today received a NOTICE from the Court that MS have Filed their Defence and I have to complete and File the...

Allocation Questionnaire by 20 July 2006.

 

Obviously, I would be grateful for some assistance.

 

Thanks

angry cat

[angry cat]

Please!!!!

 

Could a moderator look at the above Morgan Stanley Defence and advise on the relevance of the cases that they have included in their Defence.

 

Thanks

angry cat

[pj41]

Hi Angry Cat,

 

I've read through their defence and would suggest firstly that the cases they will rely on are buisiness to buisiness contracts ie negotiated. Have you individually negotiated a credit card contract with Morgan Stanley NO.

 

They also state that they will produce evidence of its costs, losses and other costs. I would say fine. If that all adds up to £25 or £30 per letter then Ok they win, if not it's a penalty and thats not.

 

I just googled Jeancharm for a quick look (it's a bit if and but and might be see this other case etc) Although it might put your mind at rest if you do the same.

 

The above comments are my first impression of where you are up to and are just that comments. Hopefully a Mod will comment soon for you.

 

Best of luck

 

Paul

[caro]

I don't think you have got anything to worry about Angry Cat. I can't comment on the cases quoted as I am not an expert, but at the end of the day, if it goes to court you simply ask them for a breakdown of how they calculate their charges. They will not let it get that far. If it costs them £30 or whatever to send an automated letter then that is fair. We both know it barely costs 30p. They are just trying to frighten you off. Just sit tight, do what you need to, go back to the forum libraries for help, and don't let them bully you any more.

[pj41]

Hi Angry cat

 

Just checking your OK there????

 

 

No response not like you!!

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[angry cat]

Hi Angry cat

 

Just checking your OK there????

 

 

No response not like you!!

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

Thanks Caro & Pj41

 

Yes, I am still here and soldiering away!

 

I had hoped that I would have been able to resolve this matter with MS but it now appears that I have to 'Bite the Bullet' and complete the Allocation Questionnaire.

 

My original claim was for £388.20 which included the penalty fines and the interest that was charged on each fine, from each fine date plus £58.2956 County Court Act 8% interest and my £50 County Court issue fee. However, please note that on the particulars of claim I wrote that I was claiming interest at the contractual rate, or in the alternative the CCA rate of 8%.

 

On 23 June 2006 I received the following letter-

"Dear.......

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

 

I am writing with reference to your claim issuedXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Morgan Stanley has acknowledged service of your Claim and confirmed its intention to defend the Claim. In your Claim Form you have outlined legal authorities which you say support your view that the charges applied to the above account are unfair and represent a penalty. We are aware of all the information you have drawn to our attention, however disagree with your legal analasis. Accordingly, we intend to contest proceedings if settlement between parties cannot be reached.

 

When an account is opened with Morgan Stanley, the customer is provided with Morgan Stanley's Terms & Conditions relating to the use of their account including details of any charges (further copy attached). The Terms & Conditions clearly explain Morgan Stanley's obligations to customers as well as customers' obligations to Morgan Stanley.

 

I attach a brief chronology of your complaint up to and including bringing the Claim against Morgan Stanley. I also attach an extract from the court rules detailing the Court's guidance of the behaviour expected of parties" (n.b. MS did not include this document) "Please note the Court's view at paragraph 4.7 that litigation should be a last resort whilst alternative means of resolution and settlement are actively being explored. The Court must consider the extent to which parties follow this guidance when determining whether to award costs against a party that has behaved unreasonably in small claims matters (rule 27.14(2)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules).

 

In this regard, Morgan Stanley does operate a regulated internal complaint procedure and notice of this procedure was given to you 21 April 2006. We note that you have begun your Claim without first resorting to that procedure. Nonetheless, even at this stage we hope that you can resolve your Claim with Morgan Stanley more amicably and quickly by following this procedure than by Court proceedings, especially given your continued custom with Morgan Stanley, the value of the Claim and the simplicity of the issue in dispute.

 

Morgan Stanley is prepared to credit your account with the sum of £388.20 in respect of your Claim without any admission of liability on their part provided that you agree to the following Settlement Terms.

 

1. This offer is accepted in full and final settlement of your Claim and the subject matter (including any future claim against Morgan Stanley in relation to default charges applied in accordance with the Terms and Conditions) costs and expenses (Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited, its trading names and any of its affiliates)

 

2. You will sign and date a copy of this letter confirming your agreement and return iit to Stephanie Oliver, Law Devision, 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4QA.

 

3. You will write to the xxxxxCounty Court within two days of accepting this offer informing the Court that you have reached settlement with Morgan Stanley and that you wish to withdraw, the Claim you have brought.

 

4. At the same time you will send a copy of the aforementioned letter to XXXXXCounty Court to Morgan Stanley (attention Senior Counsel CBGI) Law Division 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4QA).

 

5. The details and terms of this offer together with any prior discussions or correspondence related to your Claim will remain confidential between yoursefl and Morgan Stanley (acting for an on behalf of itself and as agents for any affiliates). Any breach of this confidentially by you will result in:

 

a. the settlement amount being returnable to Morgan Stanley on demand without reduction or set-off; and/or

 

b. will entitle Morgan Stanley to claim damages from you for any loss or damage suffered by it as a direct consequence of you breach of confidentiality.

 

Please note this offer is available for acceptance up to and including 4pm 7 July 2006. On confirming your agreement and complying with the above conditions in full, Morgan Stanley will credit your account with the sum of £388.20.

 

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible"

 

Ok Guys-

Obviously I have rejected derogatory offer and was really annoyed about the veiled wording used in relation to Court Protocol Rules!!!

Because, after sending my LBA, I gave MS an additional 7 days to pay the monies and reminded them that I was doing this because the Court expects one to act reasonably and my reply is as follows:-

 

"I am in receipt of your letter dated 23 June 2006.

 

May I refer you to my letter dated 23 May 2006, in which I stated" "Because I am mindful of Court 'pre action protocols' 'HMCS doc. EX301 "issuing a Claim should always be your last resort". "The Court will expect you to have acted reasonably, such as by exchanging information and relevant documents about the dispute and to generally try to avoid the need for making a Claim, for example, if you are owed money, you could write a letter to the person who owes it. Therefore, because you are being provided with the enclosed additional information, I am giving you the extra 7 days form today's date to pay ALL the money that you owe me by May 30 2006. If you do not pay me, then I will issue a County Court Claim against you without further notice".

 

"I was forced to issue Court action because Morgan Stanley failed to pay ALL the monies that are owed to me. I will not withdraw the action until Morgan Stanley has paid the total amount of the Claim including section 69 County Courts Act 1984 interest and the County Court issue fee of £50.

 

I would point out at this juncture, that you failed to include the extract from the court rules detailing the Court's guidance of the behaviour expected of parties?

 

I note that you make mention of your internal complaints procedure "especially given your continued custom with Morgan Stanley". "Firstly, I have written several letters to Morgan Stanley and secondly I do not know what you are talking about "especially given your continued custom with Morgan Stanley? Because on 19 May 2006 I received a communication from Morgan Stanley informing me that my account had been closed. Furthermore, even though I have kept Morgan Stanley fully informed about my dispute, I received a recovery lettter from Shoosmiths 6 June 2006 to which I replied stating that I am in dispute about the value of the debt, I also provided Shoosmiths with a copy "Notice Pursuant to Section 10 of the Data Proection Act that I had sent to Morgan Stanley. I am currently being chased by another recovery company that Morgan Stanley has instructed namely Buchanan Clark + Wells (BCW Group)".

 

Okay Guys, I will continue this SAGA tomorrow but one last thing.....

 

the other day I received a communication from:-

THE TELEGRAME BUREAU.....Start of message - Please phone us.....01789 203 727 ext 1888 STOP- End of Message.....but

this is factually Buchanan Clark + Wells in Stratford upon Avon (BCW Group plc) who are pretending to be a Telegram company!!!???

This is a sting and an offence as they are pretending to be something they are not!

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd are using the same ruse.

 

angry cat

[angry cat]

Okay Guys I will now continue with my Saga.....

 

If you go back and look at the MS Defence that I have posted above then you will see that MS state in their Defence dated 30 June 2006 under Agreement "As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant".

 

I sent by Recorded Delivery a 'Request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974' to MS 2 July 2006, asking for a copy of the signed credit agreement and enclosed the statutory £1.00 postal order. My Request was received by MS on 4 July 2006, today is 16 July 2006, therefore 12 days have now passed and I have not been sent the requested signed agreement.

 

In the meantime, I am being harassed by the DCA namely Buchanan Clark + Wells who are threatening to Default me? Even though MS wrote to me 19 May 2006 "You have not complied with the terms of the Default Notice and as a result your account has been closed".

Yes, it is very clear that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing...!

 

I then received a communication from MS Law Division dated 5 July:-

 

"Dear angry cat

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE EXCEPT AS TO COSTS

 

Offer of Settlement

 

Further to your letter of 2 July 2006, we are prepared to offer you £446.50 in full and final settlement of the Claim. This offer is made without prejudice except as to costs.

 

Morgan Stanley is prepared to make an offer of settlement of £446.50 in respect of the Claim on the following terms:

 

1. The offer is made without admission of liability on the part of Morgan Stanley.

 

2. Morgan Stanley will make a payment (by cheque) of £446.50 for the Claim being withdrawn.

 

3. You will write to the XXXXCounty Court within two days of accepting this offer, informing them that you would like to withdraw the Claim. A copy of the letter sent to the XXXXXCounty Court will be provided to Morgan Stanley Law Division 20 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QW.

 

4. The terms of this offer shall remain confidential between yourself and Morgan Stanley.

 

5. This offer is open for acceptance until 19 July 2006.

 

Please indicate your consent to the above by signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter by 19 July 2006".

 

Obviously, I am not accepting this offer because it does not include the £50 County Court issue fee and if MS had paid ALL the monies that I had requested prior to issuing my Claim, then I would not have had to part with the £50.

 

Apart from that, I am being hounded by the DCA Buchanan Clark + Wells whilst the issue is in dispute:-

 

"FORMAL NOTICE OF DEFAULTING ACCOUNT

 

Take notice that relevant documents are being prepared for the issue of a county court claim against you.

Judgement against you may result in-

1. Additonal legal costs and interest thereon.

2. Entry of your name in the County Court Judgement register which may make it difficult for you to obtain further credit.

 

Failure to make payment after judgement may result in -

1. Attendance at court for an oral examination

2. The removal and sale of the judgement debtor's household goods by the court bailiffs.

3. If the judgement debtor is a homeowner, and the amount of the debt warrants, an order securing payment of the judgement on the judgement debtor's house. Such an order may be enforced by a court order for the sale of the property.

 

This matter therefore requires your immediate attention, please call this office upon receipt of this notice".

 

So Guys that's it to date-

 

Please could someone out there advise me.

 

Thanks

angry cat