Credit card taken over by another company, no new agreement signed.

p96897

In 2001 I took out a credit card with Morgan Stanley Dean and Witter. I signed a credit agreement with them but since then the card was taken over by Goldfish (Around 2006ish) and then Barclaycard (around 2008ish). The card is still with Barclycard however I have never ever signed a credit agreement with either Barclays or Goldfish. Is the credit account I have with Barclaycard legally binding? I never asked for Barclays to take over the card, never applied for credit with them never asked for a balance transfer etc.

I don't really understand all the rules etc and for too long have believed that what the bank has told me is correct without question. I have now started to wake up and realise that the bank can be wrong but they wont tell me!

[Deleted User]

Yes, it is still legally binding, yes you still have to repay what you borrowed.

Ben8282

Assuming for a moment that the agreement was not legally binding, what would you hope to gain? A default on your credit records? ....

p96897

I'm not hoping to gain anything. I borrowed the money I'll pay it back that's a given. I was just wondering how things can change without permission. After all nothing else can change so easily. If I wanted to transfer my credit card debt, I would have to apply, get credit checked sign forms etc. Now I am with a bank that I never asked to be with without lifting a finger. Surely that's one rule for one and one for another. How far does it go, could I end up being "transferred" to yet another company without my permission/applying. Could this company then say that they were going to charge more in interest etc and as I have a contract with them then its tough etc. Just being wary that's all.

dazza.mk

p96897 wrote: »

Could this company then say that they were going to charge more in interest etc

?? Pretty much all credit card agreements allow the company to change the rate, you only have the option to reject the rise and close the account and continue to repay the balance under the existing terms.

[Deleted User]

p96897 wrote: »

How far does it go, could I end up being "transferred" to yet another company without my permission/applying.

Yes you could.

p96897 wrote: »

Could this company then say that they were going to charge more in interest etc

Yes they could.

opinions4u

p96897 wrote: »

I'm not hoping to gain anything. I borrowed the money I'll pay it back that's a given.

Seems a bit pointless asking the question then. But moving on ...

I was just wondering how things can change without permission.

Your T&Cs give the card issuer the right to sell your account to another provider. While the new provider still has to abide with the T&Cs that sit with your account. But a standard set of credit card T&Cs includes various rights of variation that you agree to when you open the account.

After all nothing else can change so easily. If I wanted to transfer my credit card debt, I would have to apply, get credit checked sign forms etc. Now I am with a bank that I never asked to be with without lifting a finger.

I have 3 Barclaycards currently. Oddly I've never applied for a card with them. Life goes on.

Surely that's one rule for one and one for another. How far does it go, could I end up being "transferred" to yet another company without my permission/applying.

You agreed to the possibility when you first applied for the card.

Could this company then say that they were going to charge more in interest etc and as I have a contract with them then its tough etc. Just being wary that's all.

As your credit card agreement has always had a variable rate of interest I don't see why who owns it makes the slightest bit of difference.

By the way, you will have had T&C changes from Barclaycard since 2008. Possibly by email. Probably by post.

In the case of a detrimental change to T&Cs that you don't wish to accept you have a period of two months to walk away from the agreement by repaying your debt and closing your account.

Degenerate

opinions4u wrote: »

Your T&Cs give the card issuer the right to sell your account to another provider.

I'm sure this is true, but actually in a lot of cases this isn't even necessary, as customers aren't "transferred" at all.

For instance, in the OP's case, Morgan Stanley bought Goldfish and merged it's UK card operations with them, but chose the better established Goldfish brand as the name for the merged entity. A few years later, Barclays bought the company and merged it into it's own operation under the Barclaycard brand. This makes Barclays successor in title to all of the former company's contractual arrangements, regardless of any transfer clause in the individual contracts. From a legal perspective, all contracts remain continuous with the same parties, it's just that one of the parties has changed it's name and become part of a bigger whole.

tomsco

Did you read the T&C's?

thenudeone

Degenerate wrote: »

From a legal perspective, all contracts remain continuous with the same parties, it's just that one of the parties has changed it's name and become part of a bigger whole.

I don't know what "become part of a bigger whole" means legally.

If your card agreement is with AnyBank plc, and AnyBank sells its card business to BercleyBank plc, then the agreement will be transferred (or novated in legal terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novation) to BercleyBank plc.
All the cardholders will already have given their authority for this transfer as part of the Ts&Cs.

If, however, your card agreement is with AnyBank Cards Ltd (a subsiduary of AnyBank plc), and AnyBank sells its card business to BercleyBank plc, it may happen as above, but alternatively Anybank plc could sell 100% of the shares in AnyBank Cards Ltd to BercleyBank plc. BercleyBank plc will then change directors and probably change the name to something like BercleyCard Ltd. In this case, the party to the agreement has not changed.

Even more confusingly, if the card's brand is valuable in its own right, the company name could be moved to a new legal entity.
1) the agreement from Goldfish Cards Ltd could be novated to a new company owned by the new owners (New Card Co Ltd)
2) Goldfish Cards Ltd changes its name to Old Cards Banking Ltd
3) New Card Co Ltd changes it name to Goldfish Cards Ltd
As far as the card holder is concerned, the card issuer is still Goldfish Cards Ltd, but legally it is a completely different entity to the former party to the agreement.
I am employed by a company (not in financial services) where exactly these procedures were followed when the business was sold a few years ago.

I have no idea what happened with Goldfish or Morgan Stanley but the continuation of name DOES NOT mean that the legal parties are the same.

Degenerate

thenudeone wrote: »

but alternatively Anybank plc could sell 100% of the shares in AnyBank Cards Ltd to BercleyBank plc. BercleyBank plc will then change directors and probably change the name to something like BercleyCard Ltd. In this case, the party to the agreement has not changed.

This is what I'm talking about.

I have no idea what happened with Goldfish or Morgan Stanley but the continuation of name DOES NOT mean that the legal parties are the same.

It has nothing to do with the name, which can be changed at any time with no effect. It has to do with the sale of an entire company vs the transfer of customers