Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Santander v Mayhew 2012 ( store card to credit card)

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #1
    Amethyst's Avatar

    Site Owner



    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    61,117
    Mentions
    1843 Post(s)

    Default Santander v Mayhew 2012 ( store card to credit card)

    SANTANDER CARDS (UK) LTD v DIANA MAYHEW [2012] EW Misc 14 (CC)

    Category: Latest News

    Santander v Mayhew

    IN THE CLERKENWELL AND SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT


    20th March 2012
    B e f o r e : DISTRICT JUDGE MANNERS
    ____________________
    Between:
    SANTANDER CARDS (UK) LTD
    Claimant
    - and -
    DIANA MAYHEW
    Defendant
    ____________________
    Karin Tampion (instructed by Howard Cohen) for the Claimant
    Paul Brant (instructed by Watsons) for the Defendant
    Hearing date: 8th March 2012

    ____________________
    HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
    ____________________
    Crown Copyright ©

      1. This is a claim for the recovery of a debt accrued on a credit card.



      1. The starting point here must be a reminder that this is a case where a major commercial enterprise is seeking judgment against a consumer. It is true that the underlying “merits” undoubtedly favour the Claimant but it is also true that it is and was incumbent on Santander to get its tackle in order.



      1. In April 2000 the Defendant went into Harrods and picked up an application form for a Harrods store card. She filled in the form at home and sent it to GE Capital Bank on 5th April 2000. Her application was successful and a card was sent to her. The Defendant began to use the card.



      1. The card was “upgraded” to a credit card in September 2003. The Defendant was “selected” for the upgrade and an unsolicited card was sent to her in the post. The Defendant voluntarily activated the card and thereafter used it to make some small purchases and to transfer the outstanding balances from several other cards.



      1. In May 2009 GE Capital Bank became Santander Cards (UK) Limited, the Claimant.



      1. The Defendant ran into financial difficulties and in July 2009 she failed to make the minimum payment due on the card. She informed the Claimant of her problems in February 2010 and it was agreed that she would make payments of Ł5.44 a month from March 2010.



      1. On 12th October 2010 the Claimant served a default notice with a final demand being sent on 11th November 2010. These proceedings were issued on 20th December 2010.



      1. The Claimant brought this claim and it is for it to prove, on a balance of probabilities that it is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.



      1. Evidence for the Claimant was given in the form of the statement of John-Paul Murphy the solicitor with conduct of the case. A hearsay notice was served and although Mr. Murphy was present in court no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Claimant. The Defendant herself gave evidence.



      1. Four issues fall for determination (i) whether the agreement entered into in April 2000 was valid (ii) whether the upgrade in 2003 was valid (iii) whether the default notice complied with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act and (iv) whether the Defendant’s request under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act was complied with and, if it did not, whether that rendered the whole agreement unenforceable.



      1. Was the April 2000 agreement valid? Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act requires that a valid agreement must contain all the prescribed terms (credit limit, interest rate and repayment terms) and be signed by the debtor and the creditor. The Defendant’s case was that she went into Harrods banking hall and picked up a pre-paid foldable application form which she took home, filled in and sent off. She said there were no terms and conditions other than those printed on one side of the form. She had kept a copy of the form for her records. She also said that when she received the store card there were no terms and conditions with it. It was the Claimant’s case that terms and conditions were supplied, that procedures for providing terms and conditions were automated and that it would be unrealistic to expect that the Claimant could call anyone to give evidence as to the application of those procedures in this case. The Claimant was not able to provide a copy of the documents which it said would have accompanied the application form. The Defendant struck me as a methodical person who had kept a copy of the application form for her records and I have no doubt she would have kept, though possibly not read, any terms and conditions sent to her. I believed her evidence that she had not received any terms and conditions, either when she took the application form or when she received the card. I therefore find that the April 2000 agreement is unenforceable.



      1. Was the 2003 upgrade valid? In September 2003 the Defendant’s card was “upgraded” to a dual card meaning that it was now a storecard and a Mastercard. The new card was sent unsolicited to the Defendant who needed to sign and activate it before she used it. It was open to the Defendant to decline the new card but she chose to activate it and use it. The new card had an introductory rate of interest for transferred balances and using it would gather loyalty points. The Defendant took advantage of both these features. The Defendant says that the agreement changed from a restricted use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement to being an unrestricted use debtor-creditor agreement and a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement which amounts to a modification of the agreement such that compliance with the requirements set out in regulation 7 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. Compliance with the regulation requires a copy of the fresh agreement containing the relevant prescribed information to be served on the debtor. The Claimant did not allege that any such document was sent to the debtor. It was the Claimant’s case that the new card was supplied under a credit token agreement which remained in force and that there was no modification attracting regulation 7. In my judgment the Claimant’s analysis is wrong and there was a modification of the agreement requiring compliance with regulation7. The Claimant did not argue that it had complied with the regulation.



      1. Was the default notice valid? Under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act a default notice must be served before any termination or demand for earlier payment. Section 88 of the Act provides that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The Claimant served a default notice by post of 12th October 2012. The Defendant says that the notice was defective because it gave the wrong figure for the amount due and no OFT fact sheet was included. The Claimant explains that the difference is the amount by which the Defendant’s credit limit had been exceeded and that error was detrimental to the Claimant rather than to the Defendant. It was the Claimant’s case that the OFT fact sheet would have been included with the default notice and in the event that it was not there was a clear statement at the end of the notice that the Defendant should contact the Claimant so that the sheet could be sent. The Defendant denied that the OFT fact sheet was sent with the default notice, stated that she did not request the sheet and candidly admitted that she might not have read the whole letter. No evidence was adduced before me actively saying the fact sheet had been enclosed. The Claimant invited me to conclude that that the defects in the default notice were de minimis but I do not agree. The whole point of a default notice is that the debtor should know exactly what is owed and it is irrelevant that any defect would be to the detriment of the creditor. I accept the evidence of the Defendant that no OFT fact sheet was enclosed and words inviting her to send for the missing sheet are not sufficient to remedy the defect of its absence. It is unfortunately the case that many debtors in the position of the Defendant in this case do not read to the end of letters thus the importance of documents being enclosed.



      1. The Defendant’s section 78 request In order to comply with section 78 the creditor must provide a copy, reconstituted if necessary, of the terms and conditions originally agreed between the parties and, if different, those in force at the time of the request within 12 working days, the agreement is unenforceable until the request has been complied with. On 17th November 2010 the Defendant made a section 78 request to Lewis Debt Recovery, a chasing letter was sent on 6th January 2011 and a section 78 request was made to the Claimant on 15th January. The request was replied to on 2nd February. The Defendant sent an entirely disingenuous reply on 4th February alleging that she had received information for the wrong account. She claimed that she needed information for account 5###### not the information she had been sent which related to account 6######. Her evidence was that she had kept the original agreement and a moment’s checking would have revealed to her that the 6#### number related to her original account. In my judgment the Claimant complied with the section 78 request within the stipulated time and is not prevented from enforcing this debt for non-compliance with a section 78 request.



      1. It follows from what I have said above that the claim is dismissed. The claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed


    Henrietta Manners
    20th March 2012


    http://legalbeagles.info/santander-c...ew-misc-14-cc/
    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

  2. #2
    Mr $quandaŁot's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    463
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    As you may be aware, I have an M&S store to credit card with a huge balance (over Ł10k), which I defaulted over two years ago and haven't paid a penny ever since.

    Subsequently, I'm curious how waterproof the Mayhew case is? What's likelihood of M&S Bank or a debt purchaser issuing court papers? How easy/difficult would it be to defend?

    Any opinions will be greatly appreciated.

  3. #3
    Amethyst's Avatar

    Site Owner



    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    61,117
    Mentions
    1843 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Best person to ask would probably be @pt2537 on this Mr $ , particularly if the amount owing is over Ł10k xxx
    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

  4. #4
    mystery1's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,924
    Mentions
    820 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr $quandaŁot View Post
    As you may be aware, I have an M&S store to credit card with a huge balance (over Ł10k), which I defaulted over two years ago and haven't paid a penny ever since.

    Subsequently, I'm curious how waterproof the Mayhew case is? What's likelihood of M&S Bank or a debt purchaser issuing court papers? How easy/difficult would it be to defend?

    Any opinions will be greatly appreciated.

    The judge didn't really want to rule for the defendant.

    " It is true that the underlying “merits” undoubtedly favour the Claimant"

    The claimant chose not to appeal.

    The legal issues make sense.

    The case would appear very solid but is not binding.

    Banks and debt purchasers can be very vindictive and/or stupid. There doesn't seem to be many of these type of claims going through the courts.

    It should be quite straight forward to defend. Easier if you get Paul to help as he has good knowledge of Mayhew.

    M1

  5. #5
    Mr $quandaŁot's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    463
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst View Post
    Best person to ask would probably be @pt2537 on this Mr $ , particularly if the amount owing is over Ł10k xxx
    Thanks Sharon.

    I think Paul has said he would take the case so I should be safe.

    So far so good, apart from the beginning surprisingly little action. M&S so far seems to be reluctant to serve court papers. They have tried two DCAs (Rockwell and Credit Security Limited). Rockwell gave up after a few letters and Credit Security seems to be getting lost when they received my Mayhew template letter!

  6. #6
    FlamingParrot's Avatar

    Inactive



    Joined
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Mentions
    141 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by mystery1 View Post
    Banks and debt purchasers can be very vindictive and/or stupid. There doesn't seem to be many of these type of claims going through the courts.

    It should be quite straight forward to defend. Easier if you get Paul to help as he has good knowledge of Mayhew.
    There was an M&S court case on here a few months ago, wasn't there? Can't remember what happened in the end! :confused2: I read so many court threads! :mmph:

  7. #7
    PAWS's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentions
    63 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Sorry! Done a double post again

    An optimist is someone who falls off the Empire State Building, and after 50 floors says, 'So far so good'!
    ~ Anonymous

  8. #8
    PAWS's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentions
    63 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    We have two of these from Santander. Originally store cards from early 1990’s then converted to Credit cards around 2005/06. Defaulted in 2009. Had agreed reduced repayment plans on both for 3 years then Santander sold them to Arrow early 2013. One went straight to Drydenfairfax.:lever:
    When we did the usual request for original agreement Drydenfairfax said the account was on hold until they could send a copy then started sending the ‘please call us' letters again to which they received a reply telling them to(politely) sod off until they produce agreement. The other, Arrow replied saying
    ‘We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However we will process your request for documentation fromthe originating creditor’:blah:
    Heard nothing on either for 3 months but waiting for the battle lines to be drawn up!
    Last edited by PAWS; 4th August 2014 at 13:43:PM.

    An optimist is someone who falls off the Empire State Building, and after 50 floors says, 'So far so good'!
    ~ Anonymous

  9. #9
    mystery1's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,924
    Mentions
    820 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingParrot View Post
    There was an M&S court case on here a few months ago, wasn't there? Can't remember what happened in the end! :confused2: I read so many court threads! :mmph:

    http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ighlight=marks ??

    M1

  10. #10
    Mr $quandaŁot's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    463
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by mystery1 View Post
    The judge didn't really want to rule for the defendant.

    " It is true that the underlying “merits” undoubtedly favour the Claimant"

    The claimant chose not to appeal.

    The legal issues make sense.

    The case would appear very solid but is not binding.

    Banks and debt purchasers can be very vindictive and/or stupid. There doesn't seem to be many of these type of claims going through the courts.

    It should be quite straight forward to defend. Easier if you get Paul to help as he has good knowledge of Mayhew.

    M1
    Yes, I heard that the Judge wasn't very Mayhew friendly at all!

  11. #11
    PAWS's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentions
    63 Post(s)

    Default Re: Santander v Mayhew 2012 ( store card to credit card)

    I’d swap a friendly Judge for a fair one anytime but I am getting a bit tired of these Judges who have to be backed into a legal corner before they will find for the defendant. Look at that whole Fiasco with Mr.Moore! :scared:
    If an alleged debtor has to defend themselves they are likely to lose. The laws, rules and regulations should be black and white and a fair out come not the result of clever verbal fencing and extensive legal knowledge. :tsk:
    All the points that can be used as a valid defence are clearly laid out by the CCA as lending regulations. Satisfying these should be the minimum criteria met by the claimant before they can haul the defendant through the courts. This would save time, money and a lot of anxiety.

    An optimist is someone who falls off the Empire State Building, and after 50 floors says, 'So far so good'!
    ~ Anonymous

Similar Threads

  1. Mothercare store card with Santander previous provider was GE money ppi refused
    By Ameliaj1 in forum PPI - Payment Protection Insurance Reclaiming
    Replies: 4
    : 30th May 2014, 15:40:PM
  2. M & s store/credit card
    By DAISYC3CJS in forum PPI - Payment Protection Insurance Reclaiming
    Replies: 3
    : 20th November 2013, 15:09:PM
  3. M&S store card turned credit card - what next?
    By Mr $quandaŁot in forum Consumer Credit Act
    Replies: 111
    : 15th July 2013, 16:01:PM
  4. County Court Claim for Santander store/credit card initiated by debt collector
    By financialfactz in forum Credit Cards / Store Cards
    Replies: 7
    : 22nd May 2012, 12:02:PM
  5. Replies: 6
    : 27th November 2008, 22:06:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2017
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To find out more about managing your money and getting free advice, visit the Money Advice Service,an independent service set up to help people manage their money.

TOP