Success! Judgement AGAINST Egg...

[caro]

No offence is intended I'm sure Barcote, but other than hearings for set-asides or removal of stays, there have been virtually no cases gone all the way to court regarding the charges themselves, which is why your case is so significant to us. In just about all other cases the banks and credit card companies have settled before the cases were heard, apparently to avoid having to step inside the courtroom to defend their actions. It is a real milestone and you are to be congratulated on your success. Thank you for taking the time to inform us of it.

I'm sure that you will understand that in order to be able to build on your success it would be helpful to have more detail so that others can follow your lead if appropriate. I'm sure, also, that you can understand our desire for some in-site into how you achieved this. One of the over-riding reasons for the success of this website is that our users share their experiences for the benefit of others. You are absolutely right, you have no obligation to provide help for others, but you are unusual in your reluctance to provide detail, although until you receive your settlement that is understandable. As for maintaining your privacy, most of our users feel that way, hence most do not post under their own names. It would be a shame to let your good work go to waste now your own case is complete.

As a legal person yourself you must also have to verify facts before you can take them as gospel truth. There was no intention to cast any doubt on your integrity and I'm glad that you acknowledge that.

[angry cat]

barcote,
you state that you are offering your information in a pro bono capacity.
Do you coordinate through:-
Law Works or,
The Bar Pro Bono Unit?

Angry Cat

[gizmo111]

This could be relevant

Oxford Case - £5 legal charge

[angry cat]

Yes, gismo111
It may well be relevant...!!

Please click on the link within my last post, within the thread. The link will take you to a Telegraph newspaper article dated yesterday 23/11/2006, which makes for very interesting reading.
Or click here
Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out
Love AC

[Yasmin]

Interesting reading.....!!

[goforit]

Hold On.

This seems to be verification:


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...judgement.html

Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out

Consumer Action Group reps are quoted in it.

[angry cat]

Yes, on the face of it!
However Guy's I would advise you still tread cautiously, as the article does indicate that Egg may appeal.

barcote, if the above mentioned claim is yours, then I apologise most profusely for doubting you but as you must be only too well aware, when dealing with legalistic matters one can only abide by 'Crystal Clear', rock solid facts and not hearsay JMHO.

Love
AC

[dad]

Barcote,

Personally I respect your desire to keep out of the limelight. Although I fear you may find it harder than you think and not from anyone on here.

You said you would be around this thread for the next week and would be prepared to help with questions relating to case preparation.

Would you share your skeleton argument with the forum as there isn't one in the templates and many people are reaching that stage of proceedings and the still have to do the papaerwork - even if there is a court steps settlement.

Well done

Dad

[MAGZY]

Personally I would even go as far to say that £5 is excessive for going overdrawn (especially with egg as thier system is paperless and post free)
An automated process is employed that simply adds the (£20 charge) to the customers account and I doubt that this process even costs £5.


The interest on going £10 over your credit limit is actually only 1.3p per day or 39p a month (based on the BOE base rate of 5%) and this cost is even less when you take into account the banks lending rate which is 2%.

Bank charges are a money making venture for the banks.

I would like egg to appeal to show the true cost of going over ones limit on ones credit card and maybe then customers will only pay the true cost of doing so and have a right to claim all of the previously unlawful charges on their accounts (minus the actual cost)

I used to work for egg (and other banks) and I know for a fact that they don't employ monkeys to calculate that someone has gone over their credit limit and add charges onto peoples account - it's an automated computerised process that costs only the electricity to run the computer that the calculation and automated notification is run on.


It's only when you as a customer ring or email to complain, that there is manual intervention and someone will look into it and invariably decide not to waive it - especially if you are a persistent offender. (like me)


Obviously though, it is ultimately up to the courts to decide what the actual cost to the bank is. And I am of firm belief that the court in this case has made a mistake in saying that £5 is a 'reasonable charge'. When you take into account that in Barcotes case, the judge asked to see evidence of actual costs and Egg submitted a document with parts missing (i.e not the whole truth) there is still some milage in pursuing even this £5 punitive charge that make £bn's in profit each year.


It will take an appeal either by barcote or by egg to for this to be escalated into a higher court where egg cannot dither and pick and choose over what evidence they wish submit.


Personally, if I was barcote I would in fact appeal against the £5 'reasonable cost' on the grounds that it was still too high - purely because I know the true cost of going overdrawn and bouncing a direct debit etc from working in an IT back office banking environment over the past 10 years.


I am personally on the verge of claiming my £800 or so from egg (yes, they do charge their employees for going over their credit limit too - and I am a disgruntled ex-egg empoyee too) so I wait with baited breath to have the opportunity to appeal against the £5 'reasonable charge' - unless someone else quite rightly gets there before me.


Magz

[Isiris]

I like th ebit about we aret thinking of appealing.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do. barcote obviously knows his onions and then we can have the precedent we really want

[Battleaxe]

Well done, whoever it is who had the tenacity to go all the way. i would be appealing the £5.00 as being unfair, in for a dime in for a dollar. i have posted the article to everyone I know. I have been told by sommany people that I am tilting at windmills and that the banks always win. Yes they do, they may withdraw their services, they spit the dummy in the dirt, but a no less a moral victory is a victory.

Hip hip horray

[mcuth]

For those of us with ongoing claims against the Egg, I wonder if it's worth writing a quick missive to Mr St Clair Nelson offering them the opportunity to settle before suffering another defeat?

Cheers

Michael

[Kidson]

sorry

[bram stoker]

Originally Posted by Kidson

Credit card penalties for late payment or breaching spending limits should not exceed £5, a County Court judge has ruled. The case was brought by an Egg customer, who was awarded £570, including costs. Egg said it was considering an appeal.

For the doubting thomas's see here:-

Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out

Although some of us believe Barcote to be the person stated in this report, others don't. It is Barcote's decision to post what he wants to on this forum, and should not be pressurised no matter how much we would like more information.

[chrisuk1978]

Barcote,

Very well done sir. I am in the process of gathering together my evidence bundle for Egg, having submitted this afternoon my bundle for Barclays. Reading your guidance as to what was important in your case I can see the persuasiveness of the arguements and shall be adding your detail to my bundle (in my own words, ofcourse).

Thanks again for the efforts to share the salient arguements of your case, you have probably assisted more people than you could know.

My date is 19th December, and ofcourse you can rely on my support if Egg do appeal, as unlikely as we both know that is.

All best,
Chris.

[Jonnie Reclaim]

I would just like to thank Barcote for sharing his experiences with us and providing valuable advice which will prove useful. I would comment that any action taken against institutions is taken on an individual basis with all responsibilty for success or otherwise falling on each individual, not on the Banking Action Group.

I am dissappointed at Bankfodders actions in contacting Egg prior to Barcotes settlement being finalised. This action was understandable, but the timing was poor.

J.

[BankFodder]

I am sorry that some people regret that I have taken steps to find out more about this case.

However, nothing has been done which might impinge on anyone's privacy in anyway.

Here is an update on the progress of my inquiries:-

I now have had read out to me a copy of the order made by the judge in Barcote's case.

What is clear from the order is that the Defendants did not show up and that the judgment was given in their absence.
This means that judgment was effectively a default judgment.

I don't know in what context the judge made his comment that the correct figure was only £5.00. It was certainly not a remark which formed part of his judgment and he did not make the remark in the way of a decision which he reached after hearing evidence from both sides.

The remark may merely have been his own personal view when he was talking informally to Barcote but the comment should not be be treated in any way as a formal conclusion and it does not even carry the slightest persuasive weight.

Egg have agreed that there was a judgment against them. They say that there was an error on their part which resulted in the case going ahead and with them not attending.

Egg say that they are intending to appeal.
However as the case has not been decided on its merits I take it that they mean that they will seek a setaside - which they will almost certainly obtain.
It will then be up to them to decide whether or not to settle or to go on to a hearing.

My money is on a settlement.

I am very sorry that Barcote's posts did not make clear the full circumstances of the judgment.

Maybe he would like to respond and let me know if I am mistaken in anyway.

Maybe those who may have criticised me for looking into it will now reform their views.