Termination of Egg credit card agreement

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by Decanus

Despite several attempts, Egg never respond to any direct questions about the vailidity of the agreement termination,

Decanus,
Have you had a response yet from Egg to the email you sent yesterday?
Egg states on it's website that it will respond within 24 hours to email enquiries.

Regards

[RubyRose]

Well i think we should gather together as many of us as possible who have been affected in this manner and carry out a single lawsuit aginst them and get some form of compensation.
Ruby

[dbairduk]

Just getting the interest frozen would be enough for me!

[Mistermind]

Originally Posted by dbairduk

Just getting the interest frozen would be enough for me!

Getting interest frozen would seem hard to justify, after all there is a debit balance outstanding.

However Egg are continuing to charge 2%+ per month interest -- a level of interest which is par for credit cards, but far higher than for bank loans. As 161,000 cardholders are now effectively holding in their hands a loan without the privileges and convenience of plastic, it is arguable tit for tat, that the exhorbitant credit card interest rate should be revised to match market loan interest rates.

Nobody creditworthy enough to merit a cc would take on a one-off bank loan without top-up facilities, charging 2%+ debit interest per month.

[dbairduk]

i know what you mean about owing the debt, but where else is this thread going? There must be some goal at the end of it?

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by dbairduk

i know what you mean about owing the debt, but where else is this thread going? There must be some goal at the end of it?

It does seem to have got a bit lost. Perhaps, Toymaker, you could review where you think you have got to and what you hope to achieve.

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by steven4064

It does seem to have got a bit lost. Perhaps, Toymaker, you could review where you think you have got to and what you hope to achieve.

Hello steven
You may recall that on 19th June (taking into consideration that Decanus was not in default when Egg terminated his/her account) I suggested a draft of an email Decanus might wish to send to Egg via Egg's secure email facility available to account holders, asking Egg to indicate to Decanus which part of the CCA 1974 provided Egg with the legal entitlement to terminate Decanus's credit card agreement. On 20th June I asked Decanus if he/she had sent the email yet, and what was Egg's response. Maybe Decanus then went on holiday, as their has not yet been a response on this from Decanus. The interesting bit comes when Egg provides it's response to such an email - If Decanus sent it.

I was in a similar situtation to Decanus (i.e. termination without deafault) and I sent just such an email. What it revealed was that Egg have not got a clue about the law which governs the activities of credit card companies.
Following a careful reading of CCA 1974 I cancelled my £300 a month direct debit to Egg and,in so many words, said to Egg, I'll see you in court. Fortunately, Eggs unlawful termination of accounts coincided with the introduction of CCA 2006, which greatly strengthens the card holder's rights under S140 of CCA 1974 (unfair business practices etc.).

Egg very quickly passed my account to Capquest debt recovery, but this will not help Egg, because despite Egg's bluster and fear tactics Egg cannot make an unlawful act lawful just by shuffling papers about and sending formal looking demands for payment.
I look forward to Decanus's news about Egg's response to his/her email. We can have a look from thereon. I will be quite happy to set out my own experiences on this. Or answer any questions from others in this similar situtation.
Regards.

[dbairduk]

Sounds risky toymaker, but of course I wish you the best of luck.
I suppose at the worst you could get a ccj from them. Have they issued a default notice to you regarding the account?

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by dbairduk

Sounds risky toymaker, but of course I wish you the best of luck.
I suppose at the worst you could get a ccj from them.

Hello dbairduk
You are quite right to point out that the very worst that can happen to anyone acting as I have in this situation is a CCJ. That is to say, in my own case I would have had at least several months, possibly more than a year, of repayments "holiday", then an arrangement to repay (with no interest) a lower monthly amount than I had been paying before I cancelled a £300 direct debit. (i.e. the court would take my detailed financial circumstances into account in a way which companies like Egg do not, and will accept a reasonable offer - for example £150 per month). In addition, the court would, as a part of the court action, take into consideration the conduct of Egg, particularly in terms of CCA 1974 as amended in debtor's favour by CCA 2006. That would certainly affect the outcome of any court action, including the possibility of an order against Egg made by the court under S140 of CCA 1974. Which is why I do not think Egg would take the matter to court, after getting proper legal advice - which so far Egg does not appear to have had.

Originally Posted by dbairduk

Have they issued a default notice to you regarding the account?

This is one of the central points in this situation. I did not receive a default notice, because I was not in default. Egg just decided to terminate my agreement! That is not permitted under CCA 1974. If Egg wish to terminate a credit card agreement, Egg must comply with the provisions of CCA 1974 (S86/87). It is that simple.
Egg made matters legally worse for itself by giving me a default notice AFTER Egg had terminated my account!
Ask yourself how Egg could explain such an incompetent and illogical and unfair action to a court. Egg would surely have egg all over it's face!

Regards

[dbairduk]

Hi toymaker I ment have you received a default since you refused to pay egg after your agreement was terminated? Have you checked your credit file? And also are they still adding interest to your account?

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by dbairduk

Hi toymaker I ment have you received a default since you refused to pay egg after your agreement was terminated? Have you checked your credit file? And also are they still adding interest to your account?

Hello dbairduk

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I have received a default notice since I refused to make any more direct debit repayments to Egg. As I said previously, this was after Egg had terminated my agreement.
I have not checked my credit rating. My own expericence is that it is not as important as one might think. What I mean is, my experience has been that if companies want to lend you money they will, regardless of your credit rating - I believe it's called irresponsible lending. On the other hand, if your credit rating is excellent, it is no guarantee that you can get a loan. It seems to depend on the current trading and market conditions so far as the lender is concerned.

Yes, In theory Egg have been adding daily interest. But, as I have said earlier, Egg has acted completely outside the provisions of CCA 1974, and would have to answer for that to the court if Egg took it to court.

As a result of my experiences with Egg, I had a look at the Terms and conditions of other credit card companies. I discovered that virtually all of them have T and C's which are not consistent with the regulations provided in CCA 1974. For example, they nearly all state in their C and C's that the company can terminate the agreement at any time. That is completely outside anything permitted by CCA 1974. I am amazed such things have never been challenged by Office of fair Trading, financial Ombudsman Service, bank of England, British banking Association, Citizens advice Bureau, and the other bodies which are supposed to stand up for consumer legal rights.
I am standing up for myself, because I know for sure that Egg has acted unlawfully by terminating my agreement when I was not in default.

Of course, there is another take on this which is equally valid. One can say that it is within Egg's rights for Egg to terminate the agreement between Egg and a card holder even though the cardholder is not in default of the agreement . - the difficulty for Egg is that in terminating the agreement when there is no default Egg is also abandoning it's right to any outstanding money which may still be owed to Egg by the card holder. By voluntarily terminating an agreement with no default, Egg are ending all liabilities to Egg which existed under the agreement. - There is nho longer an agreement which is governed by CCA 1974. I hope that is clear.
Regards

[jannercobbler]

Well I have requested charges back from Egg and they have responded with termination of my account

Although they have not issued me with a default notice either. so will follow this thread with interest.

I have asked them to clarify the CCA 1974 section that allows them to terminate my account ask toymaker asked and will let people know if they respond.

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by jannercobbler

Well I have requested charges back from Egg and they have responded with termination of my account

Although they have not issued me with a default notice either. so will follow this thread with interest.

I have asked them to clarify the CCA 1974 section that allows them to terminate my account ask toymaker asked and will let people know if they respond.

Hi jannercobbler

From what you have said, it appears that Egg have terminated your agreement unlawfully.(i.e. outside the provisions of CCA 1974)

In my opinion, you have done absolutely the correct thing by asking Egg to clarify to you the CCA 1974 section that allows Egg to terminate your account. Egg's response should be very interesting to read. When I sent the same sort of enquiry to Egg, their response clearly indicated that Egg have no clear knowledge of the laws which govern creditor/debtor relationships, and more specifically, Egg was shown to have no clear knowledge of CCA 1974 with regard to credit card agreements.

Egg states that it responds to email enquiries within 24 hours, so I look forward by Monday or Tuesday to seeing what Egg says to you in response to your legitimate enquiry.

regards

[jannercobbler]

Will let you know when I have an answer

[jannercobbler]

Deleted

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,
Have you had any further developments regarding your egg card. If so can you please share.

Ruby

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by RubyRose

Toymaker,
Have you had any further developments regarding your egg card. If so can you please share.

Ruby

Hi Ruby

The position with my Egg credit card account is that Egg terminated it when I was not in default with my monthly repayments.
This caused me to read the relevant law (CCA 1974) very carefully.
The conclusion I came to was that Egg had no right to terminate my Egg agreement. It seems to me that there are two possible positions one can take, namely,

1. Egg has committed a flagrant breach of CCA 1974 by not complying with the requirements set out in sections 87/88 of that Act, and, if Egg took the matter to court, Egg would have to explain to the court it's reasons for comitting that flagrant breach. Furthermore, I have informed Egg that should Egg take the matter to court, I will ask the court to consider making an order against Egg under S140 of CCA 1974 (unfair business relationships etc.).

or

2. Egg was totally within it's rights to terminate the contract which existed between Egg and myself. The problem for Egg is that, having chosen of it's own free will to terminate the unbreached contract, Egg cannnot subsequently say to me, "oh, by the way can we have the money you owed to us under that contract which we (Egg) have just terminated" So far as I am concerned any liability I had to Egg was ended by Egg when Egg, of it's own free will, terminated the contractual relationship between us, which included terminating my liabilities under that contract.

I have written a letter to the chief executive, Vikram Pandit in Newyork, explaining all this, and informing him that the purpose of the letter is to keep him fully informed of how his company (Egg) has dealt with the matter, so that if the matter goes to court, he will be able to explain his company's actions to the court.

Egg passed the account to capQuest, who have not been able to provide a copy of the original agreement, therefore cant proceed further in the matter.
I do not think Egg will want it's conduct in this matter to be put before a court.

Hope you can understand all that. let me know if you want any more info.

Regards

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,

S140 of CCA 1974 (unfair business relationships etc.).

How would you use the above piece of legislation to argue against Egg.

I was in a similar situation with Egg and they have told me if I am dissatisfied I should complain to the FOS.

HBOS have used a similar strategy with a friend who I am trying to help - so I will tell him to use the same or similar arguments. I want to be sure that they cannot throw anything else into the mix.

Did you explore the possibility of using arguments based on 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' as I have noticed that in my friend's t&c's there are lots of terms and conditions that give HBOS an unfair advantage.

Both Egg and HBOS need to be brought down to size.

I appreciate your prompt reply and thanks for your support.

regards
Ruby.

[toymaker1]

Originally Posted by RubyRose

Toymaker,
How would you use the above piece of legislation to argue against Egg.

I was in a similar situation with Egg and they have told me if I am dissatisfied I should complain to the FOS.

Did you explore the possibility of using arguments based on 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' as I have noticed that in my friend's t&c's there are lots of terms and conditions that give HBOS an unfair advantage.

Ruby.

Ruby
My understanding is that Unfair terms Regs. 1999 do not directly apply, in the sense that S4(2) of the Regs states that the regs are not intended to apply to contractual terms which reflect regulatory provisions having effect in the United Kingdom.
I understand that to mean that any unfairness in credit card agreement terms is covered by the regulatory provisions set out in CCA 1974. - i.e. Egg's credit card agreement terms are meant to reflect the relevant regulatory provisions, which are contained in CCA 1974.

For example, Egg credit card term 20.2 states that Egg "can end this Agreement at any time"
That is an unfair term, insofar as it does not reflect anything whatsoever in CCA1974!
Egg can only end a credit card agreement by complying with the provisions of S87/88 of CCA 1974. - Egg cannot end an agreement just because it wants to, and with no default by the cardholder.

When Egg tells you to take it up with FOS, that is the same as brer fox asking not to be thrown into the briar bush. Egg would like you to go to FOS because it will confuse the issue, drag matters out, and at the end of the process Egg thinks it may have a 50 percent chance of winning, and even if Egg loses, it will all be kept private. What Egg doesn't want is for their bad conduct and poor professional and ethical standards to be aired in a public court.

I have no intention of taking Egg to court, I have told them that they are welcome to take me to court, where they will have to justify their conduct.
Section 140 states that the court may make an order under S140B in connection with a credit agreement if it is determined that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor because of the terms of the agreement, the way in which the agreement is operated by the creditor or any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the creditor before or after the agreement was made.
The court may take into account all matters it thinks relevant in determining whether a relationship is unfair. (Consumer Credit act 2006, Explanatory Notes). I believe a court would certainly consider it unfair, within the terms of S140, for Egg to terminate an account without complying with S87/88 of CCA1974.

Also, S173 of CCA1974 states that a term contained in a regulated agreement is void if it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor contained in any regulation made under CCA 1974.

e.g. Egg's term 20.2 is clearly inconsistent with the provision for the protection of the debtor contained in regulations 87 and 88 of CCA 1974.

therefore Egg's term 20.2 is void.
My position is that if Egg do not agree with that assesment of the situation, then Egg is welcome to put the matter before a court of law.

Regards

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,
Thanks for your prompt reply. How have you dealt with Capquest -I have had a further letter from Collect Direct(UK) in the guise of a solicitors letter demanding full payment. Do you think i should report them to trading standards and if so should it be my local trading standards office or the one where they are registered at.

Also, can i ask for some help from you regarding these HBOS t&C's that i talked about in my previous post. I would be grateful if you could scrutinise it and show me where there are flaws in it as HBOS sent him a letter telling him that they were not going to provide him with a new card even though he had not defaulted on his payments, their arguments were similar to those used by Egg.

Your help and advice is much appreciated.Here's the link to the T&C's
Halifax - Credit Card Conditions

regards
Ruby