M & S Bank Case Study On Using DWP Protected Incomes.

M & S Bank Case study on using DWP protected incomes for nearly 15 years and how they are dealing with it now I had another choice not to go with PP.

This is a case study of how after 14.5 years M & S Bank abused my DWP protected incomes while I was severly disabled and being a single father to 3 young children of 3 yearold girl and 9 yearold twnins of a boy and girl.

——————————————————————-

Rcived on the 20th August 2026.

Dear Mr Hunter

Customer number 1842020676

We are in receipt of your emails dated 12 and 13 August. I’m sorry you remain unhappy with our decision to re- open your complaint.

At the outset I would like to reassure you we take your concerns seriously. I trust my response will clarify, in full, our position.

However, if you believe this reply and our previous response doesn’t resolve the outstanding issues you can refer your complaint to the Financial OmbudsmanService.

Request for information

M&S Bank is attempting to comply with your request to provide you with account information, as requested in your email dated 20 July 2026.

To protect your information, we sent you a letter dated 27 July 2026, asking you to complete the request form and provide your usual signature.

I do not wish to cause you further upset but we are unable to send this information until we receive the completed form.

Protected income breach (Social Security Administration Act 1992)

Claim

• Under the Section 187 (ESA and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit), your DWP payments should not have been includedin any Debt Management Plan (DMP). Therefore, you believe the agreement is void.

Response

• Section 187 prevents the assignment or charge on benefits. It does not prohibit a recipient voluntarily allocatingtheir payment to repay debts.
• The DMP which you agreed with Payplan, is a voluntary arrangement which you instructed PayPlan to distribute betweencreditors on your behalf.
• M&S Bank has not directly claimed from these benefits, nor does it hold a court order compelling payment.

Scottish Negative Prescription (Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973)

Claim

• You believe the debt was extinguished five years after the default was registered on 21 August 2012, underScottish Prescription Law.

Response

• The M&S Buying Plan Loan (loan) agreement is governed by English law.
• Under the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period for a simple contract debt is six years. It does not extinguishthe underlying debt.
• We have received your voluntary DMP payment since 2012.
• The most recent DMP payment was received on 8 July 2026.
• Under the Limitation Act 1980 each payment made by the debtor (or their agent), restarts the six-year limitation clock.

Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018

Claim

• You claim Section 83 as further protection of your benefits.

Response

• This provision only applies to devolved Scottish benefits, administered by Social Security Scotland. ESA and IndustrialInjuries Disablement Benefit are reserved UK benefits administered by DWP. Section 83 has no application here.

FCA rules concerning complaint handling (DISP)

Claim

• You believe the Bank cannot re-open the complaint following the final response issued on 23 July 2026.

Response

• There is no DISP rule which prevents M&S Bank from re-considering a complaint.
• The complaint has been reopened, because you raised new issues linked to the original issue.

Conclusion

The Bank maintains that the debt remains valid and enforceable. The DMP you arranged with PayPlan is a voluntary arrangement and payments receivedunder it are not prohibited by the legislation you have cited.

Your claim for unjust enrichment is denied. As the debt remains valid and enforceable, payments made toward it have a proper legal basis

We are unable to provide your account information unless you return the completed authorisation form.

Next steps

If you remain unhappy you can rely on either this response or the response sent on 23 July 2026, to ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigateyour complaint.

 Your complaint has not been upheld, and I’ve again provided your referral rights below.

You have the right to refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge, but you must do so within six months of thedate of this response. The Ombudsman is the independent body that looks into disputes between consumers and financial businesses.It looks at what’s happened and gives an independent view on the situation.

DMP SCAMS/ Mr Hunters full rebuttal and to help the readership understand it fully, and given the risk over what amounts to a paltry £580 refund is in my humble opinion absolutely bat-crazy someone at this bank has to take control and be sensible.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: M&S Buying Plan Loan – Complaint and Legal Position

Thank you for your recent response. I am replying point‑by‑point to correct several misunderstandings and to set out my position clearly.

1. “Voluntary” DMP and Section 187 SSA 1992

You state that the DMP with PayPlan was a voluntary arrangement and that payments made under it are not prohibited.

A voluntary agreement is only voluntary if the customer knew they had a choice. At no point did M&S Bank, PayPlan, or any creditor inform me that:

• my income was ESA and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB), both DWP benefits protected under Section 187 SSA 1992
• protected income cannot be used for non‑priority debts
• I had £0 surplus and therefore could refuse the DMP
• MAP/LILA was the appropriate Scottish solution
• I could refuse creditor distribution and payments entirely

Consent obtained without disclosure is not voluntary. You cannot rely on “voluntary allocation” when the customer was never informed of their rights or lawful alternatives.

2. Protected income and enforceability

Protected income cannot be used for non‑priority debts, cannot restart limitation, and cannot be treated as lawful acknowledgement.

You have confirmed you knew I was receiving ESA and IIDB. Moorcroft, Link Financial, and Cabot Financial have all confirmed in writing that they knew I was receiving these benefits. This means multiple creditors were aware my income was protected, yet continued accepting payments regardless.

Given this, please explain how M&S Bank believes the debt remains enforceable. Continuing to assert enforceability while ignoring protected income, vulnerability, suitability, and multiple creditor admissions is not consistent with CONC 6, CONC 7, DISP, or Consumer Duty.

3. Governing law vs Scottish enforcement and prescription

You state that the loan agreement is governed by English law.

Governing law applies to the contract terms, not to enforcement. I am a Scottish resident, and enforcement is governed by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Scottish courts do not apply the Limitation Act 1980 to Scottish debtors, regardless of any governing‑law clause.

Under negative prescription, a debt is extinguished after five years without a valid acknowledgement. Payments made using protected income under Section 187 SSA 1992 are not valid acknowledgements and cannot restart limitation. Your reliance on English limitation is therefore misplaced.

4. Section 83 (Scotland) and your admission of knowledge

You state that Section 83 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 does not apply to ESA and IIDB, and that these are reserved UK benefits administered by DWP.

While Section 83 may not apply, your response confirms you knew I was receiving ESA and IIDB—both DWP benefits protected under Section 187 SSA 1992. By acknowledging this, you confirm M&S Bank knew my income was protected and continued accepting payments anyway.

This directly undermines your “voluntary” argument and supports my position that payments had no proper legal basis.

5. Unjust enrichment

You deny unjust enrichment on the basis that the debt remains valid and enforceable and that payments had a proper legal basis.

You have not addressed the fact that:

• my income was protected under Section 187 SSA 1992
• multiple creditors knew this
• I was never informed of my rights or alternatives
• protected‑income payments cannot lawfully be used for non‑priority debts

In these circumstances, continuing to accept payments from protected benefits is not consistent with FCA rules or Consumer Duty. Your denial of unjust enrichment does not engage with these points.

6. Consumer Duty, CONC and DISP

Under the FCA’s Consumer Duty, firms must:

• avoid foreseeable harm
• act in good faith
• support customers to make informed decisions
• not continue unsuitable arrangements

Under CONC 6 and CONC 7, firms must treat customers in arrears fairly and ensure arrangements are suitable, particularly where vulnerability and protected income are present.

Under DISP, firms must investigate complaints fairly, consider all relevant evidence, and not ignore material facts.

You knew I was on protected benefits, knew I had no surplus, knew I was vulnerable, and knew the DMP relied entirely on protected income. Yet you continued to accept payments and now assert enforceability. This is not consistent with the general expectations of Consumer Duty, CONC, or DISP.

7. DSAR and “authorisation form”

You state you are unable to provide my account information unless I return a completed authorisation form.

Under GDPR, a data subject access request (DSAR) requires only reasonable identity verification. I have already provided full identifying information. Introducing additional hurdles to delay or prevent access to my data is not consistent with GDPR, Consumer Duty, or DISP, particularly where the information is directly relevant to a live complaint.

Please process the DSAR using the information already supplied.

8. Summary and next steps

In summary:

• You knew I was receiving ESA and IIDB—protected DWP benefits.
• Multiple creditors (Moorcroft, Link, Cabot) have confirmed they knew this.
• Protected income cannot be used for non‑priority debts or relied upon for enforceability.
• I was never informed of Section 187, my rights, or lawful alternatives.
• The DMP was not truly voluntary and was unsuitable given my circumstances.
• Your position on enforceability and unjust enrichment is inconsistent with Section 187 SSA 1992, Scottish prescription, CONC, DISP, Consumer Duty, and the general approach taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service in similar cases.

9. Financial Ombudsman Service position on protected income.

The Financial Ombudsman Service has, in multiple published decisions, stated the general principle that:

• firms must not take payments from protected benefits
• firms must not rely on payments made from protected benefits
• firms must not treat protected‑income payments as voluntary acknowledgement
• firms must not continue unsuitable arrangements involving protected income
• firms must identify protected income and act accordingly

These are established Ombudsman findings and reflect the general regulatory position on Section 187 SSA 1992.

Given this, please confirm whether M&S Bank believes the Financial Ombudsman Service is wrong in its general position on protected income — and if not, please explain why you continue to assert enforceability in circumstances where protected income was knowingly accepted by multiple creditors.

I now ask you to:

1. Confirm that you will cease all reliance on payments made from protected income.
2. Confirm that you will no longer assert enforceability of this debt in light of the above.
3. Process my DSAR without further delay.
4. Issue a final response suitable for referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Yours faithfully, Brian Hunter.

UPDATE NUMBER 1 RECIEVED 5PM FRIDAY 21ST AUG – STRANGE TIMING LOL

Our ref 1318359/DVH

21 August 2026

Dear Mr Hunter

Customer number 1842020676

Thank you for your email response. The contents of which have been noted.

M&S Bank’s (The Bank’s) position remains unchanged, and we will not be re-opening your complaint, because you received or detailed formal and finalresponse.

If you remain unhappy, you can refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, details of which were provided in my previous response.

Privacy Notice
Please note that we will collect, process and retain your personal data for the purposes of responding to your complaint. You can find a copy of our Privacy notice, whichsets out how we use this information and your rights in respect of it, on our website at General Data Protection Regulation.

Yours sincerely

David Hatwell
Complaints Adviser
Customer Relations

M&S Bank

E-mail:                    complaint@mandsbank.com
Website:                www.marksandspencer.com/bank

MY RESPONSE SENT JUST NOW AT 18.23PM SAME DAY

Hello David,

Thank you for your reply. For clarity, I did not ask for my complaint to be re‑opened. I asked for clarification on specific points in your previous response.

Your refusal to clarify those points will be included in my submission to the Financial Ombudsman Service, as non‑engagement and non‑committal handling reflects poorly on the Bank’s Consumer Duty obligations and complaint‑handling standards.

Please confirm:

1. Why you believe Section 187 SSA 1992 does not apply to ESA/IIDB.
2. Why vulnerability, protected income, and £0 surplus were not considered.
3. Why PayPlan’s 14.5‑year suitability assessment was relied upon.

I look forward to your clarification.

Kind regards, Brian Hunter.

————————————————————————————

Has any of our readers had the same unprofessional responses or brush offs from

David Hatwell or others at;
Complaints Adviser
Customer Relations

M&S Bank.

I have no idea how the regulators are going to view this blantant breaches of the FOS/FCA Handbook on proper complaint handling processes?