Egg Court Claim - help please

[Fossell]

Page1.pdf
Page2.pdf

[steven4064]

Standard Egg agreement with "Approved limit" instead of the prescribed "credit limit" - reckoned to be unenforceable as a result becasue it has a prescribed term missing

[Fossell]

Hi Steven,

What deoes that mean for me and the claim theyve done then?
Presume theyre still happy with it being enforceable otherwise they wouldnt of bothered with claim?

I'll post my defence copy late on based on your previous post and others I can find. I still dont have the statements to allow me work out charges.

[seriously fed up]

Not as I understand it. Yours is just the same as the guff they sent me

1. its not headed Credit Card Agreement, but Egg Credit Card Agreement for (your name) - which understandably for putting up here you have blanked out - edit to say, that I have just noticed that mine actually says "Egg Card Agreement for (me)", so your's might not be quite so good (just the addition of Egg that makes it wrong - mine doesnt even mention Credit) - but still worth trying imo
2. no credit limit has been set - its the usual "approved limit" guff
3. it doesnt specify default charges payable

Thus for these three reasons the agreement can only be enforced by order of a court, BUT as no credit limit was set the court is specifically prevented from doing so by section 127 (3) of CCA 1974.
Would they bother with the claim even if its doomed to failure? Well yes. Why not? There are at least two possibilities for them here

• you panic and pay them so that you dont get taken to court
• you dont know/understand the relevant law (perhaps they dont either) and you dont want to employ a solicitor and just throw good money after bad, so you do it yourself and dont make a very good job of it, and they win.

Alternatively, you have been here and understand your rights, so they go to Court and lose (or back out beforehand) - but, if out of every 100 times they try this on, how often do they have to win to make the strategy worthwhile?
What they have sent you looks to be just the same as they have sent me - only the names have been changed .....I have told them at least twice now that their paperwork wont stand up, but they are still pressing on - pointless phone calls (one first thing on Saturday morning to tell me I would be getting the Trevor Munn letter on Monday) and a text this morning complaining that I "still havent phoned them".
If/when they do raise the action, I will defend it on the above points, plus that Northampton CC doesnt have jurisdiction as I reside in Scotland - and have done since before signing any agreement with Egg and since then. I wouldnt be any more sure of their knowledge of geography than their knowledge of the law, as their job is to get money out of people not to have a knowledge of the geography of the UK (or that Scotland has its own legal system). Oh and btw - I am assuming you are in England - I have read of others who have had the case transferred out of Northampton to the court nearer to them. Egg/ ARC/ Trevor Munn use Northampton because they can file on line - ie its convenient. I would look to get the case transferred to your local court as its more convenient for you (and as a wee bonus, much less convenient for them )
Dont imagine that because there is no purpose in law that they wont do it. This isnt about enforcing legal rights, but about getting you to cough up when they dont have the legal right to make you do so.

[the_shadow]

Where was this document/agreement signed Fossell, it doesnt appear to have a right to cancel section.

Have you received everything you have asked for? The Default notice could be key here.

Oh and they cant claim s69 interest on a regulated agreement claim, its against the regulations, this can be raised in the defence.

S.


Edit: Did you send a CPR 31.14 request as suggested?

[Fossell]

Hi there guys. Sorry its been a busy week for me!
Ive been patient and given egg more time to get my statements back but had nothing.
Today or tomorrow I will file my defence online. As my deadline is close.

Seiously fed up: Hi serious. Actually my agreement is only headed Egg Card Agreement like yours.

the_shadow: hi shadow. thanks for dropping in. I guess im ust of signed it at home and posted back to them. Cant remember it but they have it there.

I havent received my statements from them yet. And they are late.
I havent received a copy of the default notice. But i didnt ask for that.
What is a CPR 31.14 request?? I know steven mentioned it but im not sure what its for?

[seriously fed up]

CPR 31.14 is a civil procedure in English law that requires by court order one side to release documents required by the other side in relation to the case they are developing. So, it would be one way for you to get the goods that Egg arent coming up with. I live in Scotland and I dont know how CPR 31.14 works,but I am sure someone who does know will be along real soon and can advise on how to set about doing this.
Coincidentally, I got another Trevor Munn threatogram this morning, telling me that papers were being prepared to bring a case against me at Northampton. Now I have already written to them advising them that

1. the CCA they sent me is defective as it isnt headed Credit Card but Egg Card; it has the usual "approved limit" reference (and quoted the Central Trust case at them); and that the 1983 regs require default fees to be stated. Just so as I have got this right, I have attached what they sent to me. Could someone please have a look and advise me if I am right that it isnt enforceable, as I would hate to be wrong! I havent bothered doing this so far as I have seen so many like mine that have been interpreted as unenforceable - just like to check
2. I live in Scotland and that the Civil Jurisdiction Act requires that any action is brought against me where I reside, and that aint England. Incredible!

If someone could have a look at the attached documents and let me know. I have also attached a copy of my last reply (before today's threatogram) to Trevor Munn (thanks to Chris for inspiration ) For instance, is there something that I am missing out and not hitting them with? Now that would be good.

[Fossell]

Cheers Seriously.
Im sat here trying to read as mmuch as poss again to get my head back into it. damn its confusing!
I too would be interested to know more about the 'unenforcable' CCA's.
Lots of people are saying they are uneforcable but theres seems to be a distinct lack of threads where its actually proved and tested in court.

Apart from this one by j-dub. But he got legal guys working on it half way through.

[Fossell]

So in my defence I'll be stating as advised previously though im not sure point 2 applies to me and that point 3 is full true as ive received a CCA from them. Can someone advise?
Also looking at some other defences mine seems tiny. Will i get the chance to add things like incorrect CCA and Default notice?
Just spoke to the court. Think i'll need to file this tonight in case it takes them 24 hrs to process. My last day is tomorrow.

1. I, ********** of ************** make this statement as my defence to the claim brought by **************

2. The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR Part 16.

3. No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered either to show the Claimant has the right to bring the claim nor that the amount claimed is correct. As a result I cannot plead in defence to the claim

4. Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears without merit, the defendant asks to be allowed to submit a fully particularised defence should the claimant provide copies of the original documents he will rely upon.

5. If the Claimaint produces documents in support of his claim, the Defendant respectfully requests permission from the court to amend this defence.

6. Further to the above 5 paragraphs, the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all. The defendant is embarrassed.

I believe that the contents of this defence are true

[seriously fed up]

As I said, English law isnt my background, but basically it reads to me as if you are saying "this lot are bringing a case against me on the basis of documents that I have asked for but they havent released. When they let me see them I will file a proper defence". Doesnt seem unreasonable to me.
Read the i-dub thread - yes very interesting - but sadly its a like a film where you dont get to the last reel and never find out whether they did live happily ever after.
Can someone advise if

1. Egg have ever taken anyone to court on the basis of a CCA like the ones posted on this thread (ie with Egg Card Agreement and not Credit Card Agreement; Approved limit with no statement of credit limit; no statement of default charges)?
2. if yes, what happened?

[Fossell]

Originally Posted by the_shadow

Where was this document/agreement signed Fossell, it doesnt appear to have a right to cancel section.

Have you received everything you have asked for? The Default notice could be key here.

Oh and they cant claim s69 interest on a regulated agreement claim, its against the regulations, this can be raised in the defence.

S.


Edit: Did you send a CPR 31.14 request as suggested?

I do have a default notice but they didnt send me a copy with my CCA as requested.

What the heck is S69 interest? How would I include that in my defence. Ive got no idea how to write in legal speak? There claim for this interest on the claim form was at '0.00' ??

I may just have to file my defence as previous post otherwise im gonna be late.

[Fossell]

Ok my defence is filed as above on the basis they didnt send me my statements in time. Though something tells me i'll get them in the next few days.

So based on that I need to figure my next step. Do I:

a) tot up what they owe me in terms of late payment charges. deduct from the amount owing and admit the rest. Thus ending up with a ccj still, but based on what i can afford to pay back.

b) prepare a better defence based on defending against the unfair charges PLUS all this incorrect CCA and default stuff.

i'll post my original default letter soon.

[seriously fed up]

I would go for the duff CCA were I you (but them I am serious! ) as then they lose out big time, unless what you owe is less than the charges you are looking to reclaim - that would be different. In that case, obviously go for reclaiming, pay off the debt and take what's left.
Re a Court case, I PMd Steven4064 on this
Hi Steven, sorry to be a nuisance, but I wonder if you could have a look at an Egg thread for me. In particular its the two questions on post 30, namely
"Can someone advise if

1. Egg have ever taken anyone to court on the basis of a CCA like the ones posted on this thread (ie with Egg Card Agreement and not Credit Card Agreement; Approved limit with no statement of credit limit; no statement of default charges)?
2. if yes, what happened?"

There are many posts saying that these agreements are pants, but I cant find anything where this has been tested out in court. Could you help? EVen

1. yes
2. Egg lost

would do
Steven replied as follows:
Hi

I don't know of a case. Most credit card companies (especially American owned ones, like Egg) never take people to court - it is far too expensive, THey just sell the debt to a debt purchaser (DCA)

Steven

On the other hand, there is this from PT2537 right at the end of this thread Egg Credit Agreements-what do i think is wrong with them at post 963 (yes 963) on page 49 (that thread could perhaps go a good way round the world? )
"Hi,

there is not much to update really,

as you are all no doubt aware, there are a number of cases which are being refered to the commercial court (High Court) for a binding decision to be made so that there is guidance for the lower courts to follow. we have had a case referred to the Cardiff High Court to go before HHJ Chambers QC as the judge who we had a case management conference with decided that, it was in the interests of the overriding objective that the case be heard as we have some 15 cases with Egg ourselves. all our cases are stayed pending the outcome of this case"

So, it looks as if there are cases on the go - though its not clear how many, but at least 15 - and the courts are holding things back for a definitive answer. So we wait on the High Court, and then the Court of Appeal (if Egg dont wint) and the House of Lords (if Egg dont win). I dont think anyone would like to estimate how long that might take, other than "a good while"
I dont know where that leaves those of us still at the "threatogram" stage (even the laughable ones like those I get from Trevor Munn threatening me with a court that doesnt have jurisdiction). Maybe someone could offer an opinion, please?

[Fossell]

i'll have a read of that. looks interesting.

my problem now is where to find the help to word my new defence! given that the court will let me do so when i get my statements.

steven and shadow and yourself are great help but can you assist in the word for word building of the defence?
do i need to copy someone elses and try my best to understand the legal gobbledy speak and make it fit me?
just ive seen some threads here seem to die with no response and then others have the best help in the world. its odd?

do i need to buy one of these books for advice? or just keep reading more threads?

ive seen a good defence here, but ive no idea which bits apply to me or indeed how to find others that might fit my case. the search facility is sooo hard to trawl.

[seriously fed up]

First thing is that this deals with English law and I have just done my apprenticeship in Scots Law courtesy of M&S. That said

1. re the defence at Urgent - need to file defence for CL/Howard Cohen Claim - yes some of that could be relevant to you as a faulty DN is part of your case.But then it goes off into whether or not the debt was properly reassigned from the original lender to the DCA, which i dont think is an issue for you. But it is good start
2. What I think you need to focus on is that the CCA that Egg have sent you is defective. I had this with M&S,whose paperwork was defective (just in a different way), but esssentially the argument goes like this

• section 60(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes certain requirements of any agreeement that we might sign with a bank for a credit card. This was posted by 42man a couple of years ago, but it summarises very well - see Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful
• specifically, the problem with your paperwork is the same as mine

1. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1) require that an agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact the agreement supplied to me by Egg has been headed “Egg Card Agreement for your name ((or mine)
2. no “Credit Limit” has been stated – which is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states 24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that: (a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and (b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”
3. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed
4. edited to add that the interest charge for cash purchases is incorrect. The APRis stated as 16.4%,but they say they charge 1.25% handling charge - these are not consistent
   

ecause of these defects, section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act requires that an agreement with these problems can only be enforced by order of a Court. BUT since your agreement - like mine and many others - does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (and supported by HHJ Overend), and the charge for credit is wrong, the court is explicitly prevented from granting such an order by section 127(3).
Now it goes without saying that Egg would rather be disembowelled without an anaesthetic rather than accept this is true, so they WILL disagree. But, at this point, can I quote to you my favourite bit of the judgement in case of Wilson and others v Secy of State for Trade & Industry. In his judgement Lord Hope said
" 123. In my opinion the same result must follow in this case. I would be reluctant to say that the enrichment of Mrs Wilson was an unjustified enrichment. There is no doubt that she has received a benefit which cannot be justified on legal grounds at the expense of the creditor. But section 127(3) of the 1974 Act too, like sections 6 and 13(1) of the 1927 Act, was designed to protect unsophisticated borrowers. There is no doubt that they would be exposed to the risk of harassment by unscrupulous creditors if creditors could override the statute by appealing to the common law. I would prefer to say that it would be inconsistent with the statute to provide FCT with a common law remedy to redress the enrichment which Mrs Wilson has received at its expense.
The author of the 1974 Act, Francis Bennion, is perhaps a little more blunt - he said
" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable. "
So I would suggest - putting it briefly - that the terms required in 60(1)(a) arent all there or are wrong, so a court order is required as a result of section 65. BUT because of section 127(3) the court cant do this
I hope that helps to get you started. I will have a dig around and see if there are any defences like this that have actually been used, but as I understand that Egg dont always follow through on threats of court action, they may be difficult to find. If I find anything I will let you know (especially as in due course, I might need one - though it will be for a Scottish Court)

[mort22shop]

Originally Posted by seriously fed up

First thing is that this deals with English law and I have just done my apprenticeship in Scots Law courtesy of M&S. That said

1. re the defence at Urgent - need to file defence for CL/Howard Cohen Claim - yes some of that could be relevant to you as a faulty DN is part of your case.But then it goes off into whether or not the debt was properly reassigned from the original lender to the DCA, which i dont think is an issue for you. But it is good start
2. What I think you need to focus on is that the CCA that Egg have sent you is defective. I had this with M&S,whose paperwork was defective (just in a different way), but esssentially the argument goes like this

• section 60(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes certain requirements of any agreeement that we might sign with a bank for a credit card. This was posted by 42man a couple of years ago, but it summarises very well - see Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful
• specifically, the problem with your paperwork is the same as mine

1. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1) require that an agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact the agreement supplied to me by Egg has been headed “Egg Card Agreement for your name ((or mine)
2. no “Credit Limit” has been stated – which is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states 24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that: (a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and (b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”
3. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed
4. edited to add that the interest charge for cash purchases is incorrect. The APRis stated as 16.4%,but they say they charge 1.25% handling charge - these are not consistent
   

ecause of these defects, section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act requires that an agreement with these problems can only be enforced by order of a Court. BUT since your agreement - like mine and many others - does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (and supported by HHJ Overend), and the charge for credit is wrong, the court is explicitly prevented from granting such an order by section 127(3).
Now it goes without saying that Egg would rather be disembowelled without an anaesthetic rather than accept this is true, so they WILL disagree. But, at this point, can I quote to you my favourite bit of the judgement in case of Wilson and others v Secy of State for Trade & Industry. In his judgement Lord Hope said
" 123. In my opinion the same result must follow in this case. I would be reluctant to say that the enrichment of Mrs Wilson was an unjustified enrichment. There is no doubt that she has received a benefit which cannot be justified on legal grounds at the expense of the creditor. But section 127(3) of the 1974 Act too, like sections 6 and 13(1) of the 1927 Act, was designed to protect unsophisticated borrowers. There is no doubt that they would be exposed to the risk of harassment by unscrupulous creditors if creditors could override the statute by appealing to the common law. I would prefer to say that it would be inconsistent with the statute to provide FCT with a common law remedy to redress the enrichment which Mrs Wilson has received at its expense.
The author of the 1974 Act, Francis Bennion, is perhaps a little more blunt - he said
" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable. "
So I would suggest - putting it briefly - that the terms required in 60(1)(a) arent all there or are wrong, so a court order is required as a result of section 65. BUT because of section 127(3) the court cant do this
I hope that helps to get you started. I will have a dig around and see if there are any defences like this that have actually been used, but as I understand that Egg dont always follow through on threats of court action, they may be difficult to find. If I find anything I will let you know (especially as in due course, I might need one - though it will be for a Scottish Court)

Hi this was really useful as i submitted my egg card to a claims company and paid an up front fee of £150 after several letters over 8 months they then recieved "a true copy of the agreement" and said there was no more that they could do so i have now recieved a copy of everyhing that egg sent them which i requested and will give egg 14 days to either write the out standing ballance off or i will issue in the county court based on this 3 points.

one further thing if any one could comment, on the basis that the court rule that the agreement is unenforcable would you be able to reclaim the interest that you have paid on the card and if so over what period.

[Fossell]

Originally Posted by seriously fed up

First thing is that this deals with English law and I have just done my apprenticeship in Scots Law courtesy of M&S. That said

1. re the defence at Urgent - need to file defence for CL/Howard Cohen Claim - yes some of that could be relevant to you as a faulty DN is part of your case.But then it goes off into whether or not the debt was properly reassigned from the original lender to the DCA, which i dont think is an issue for you. But it is good start
2. What I think you need to focus on is that the CCA that Egg have sent you is defective. I had this with M&S,whose paperwork was defective (just in a different way), but esssentially the argument goes like this

• section 60(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes certain requirements of any agreeement that we might sign with a bank for a credit card. This was posted by 42man a couple of years ago, but it summarises very well - see Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful
• specifically, the problem with your paperwork is the same as mine

1. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1) require that an agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact the agreement supplied to me by Egg has been headed “Egg Card Agreement for your name ((or mine)
2. no “Credit Limit” has been stated – which is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states 24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that: (a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and (b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”
3. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed
4. edited to add that the interest charge for cash purchases is incorrect. The APRis stated as 16.4%,but they say they charge 1.25% handling charge - these are not consistent
   

ecause of these defects, section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act requires that an agreement with these problems can only be enforced by order of a Court. BUT since your agreement - like mine and many others - does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (and supported by HHJ Overend), and the charge for credit is wrong, the court is explicitly prevented from granting such an order by section 127(3).
Now it goes without saying that Egg would rather be disembowelled without an anaesthetic rather than accept this is true, so they WILL disagree. But, at this point, can I quote to you my favourite bit of the judgement in case of Wilson and others v Secy of State for Trade & Industry. In his judgement Lord Hope said
" 123. In my opinion the same result must follow in this case. I would be reluctant to say that the enrichment of Mrs Wilson was an unjustified enrichment. There is no doubt that she has received a benefit which cannot be justified on legal grounds at the expense of the creditor. But section 127(3) of the 1974 Act too, like sections 6 and 13(1) of the 1927 Act, was designed to protect unsophisticated borrowers. There is no doubt that they would be exposed to the risk of harassment by unscrupulous creditors if creditors could override the statute by appealing to the common law. I would prefer to say that it would be inconsistent with the statute to provide FCT with a common law remedy to redress the enrichment which Mrs Wilson has received at its expense.
The author of the 1974 Act, Francis Bennion, is perhaps a little more blunt - he said
" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable. "
So I would suggest - putting it briefly - that the terms required in 60(1)(a) arent all there or are wrong, so a court order is required as a result of section 65. BUT because of section 127(3) the court cant do this
I hope that helps to get you started. I will have a dig around and see if there are any defences like this that have actually been used, but as I understand that Egg dont always follow through on threats of court action, they may be difficult to find. If I find anything I will let you know (especially as in due course, I might need one - though it will be for a Scottish Court)

Cheers Seriously. i need to digest and understand that little lot. But will wait to hear Eggs response now.
I have now receveived my statements so they will probably press on so I do now need to amend my defence. I do have some charges on there to claim back but not many.

[seriously fed up]

OK Fossell/ mort22shop, post when you are ready. Mort22shop, I dont know that I would rush to court with this. My strategy has been to quote this at them to keep them at bay. This can work because they dont want to set the wrong (from their pov) precedent if they get some grumpy old judge, but this swings both ways. What I have put up is an interpretation of relevant parts of the CCA, but i dont know if it has been accepted in a County Court and certainly not in a higher court (as far as I know a decision is immanent at Cardiff High Court).
My advice would be to use this to fend them off, but if they do proceed to Court (and I have just had a letter this morning from ARC to say that they are "seeking further instruction from their client" - ie Egg, rather than going straight to court) use it as a defence then.
I would have a look at Egg Credit Agreements-what do i think is wrong with them. This thread gives a long (and winding) consideration of the issues re Egg. Right now, its important to look at the last page (post 984 - told you it was long ), which makes clear that the High Court case is still to be heard and then there will be appeals (think the OFT case against the banks re their charges - something like that).
Look forward to hearing from you both - and good luck - we are all in the same boat!

[Fossell]

Hi everyone who has posted here.
Sorry ive not posted in a while. Ive been waiting on the courts etc.

The case has been moved to my local court and im at the stage of filing my allocation questionnaire for the court.

My problem is this. I had all my statements but I didnt have many 'unfair charges' on them that was the basis of my defence etc.

I didnt have anything on my defence regarding unproper CCA's etc.
I now need to update my defence along these lines. I have no idea HOW to update my defence and even if its wise to go to court with these CCA issues as a defence.

Should I now admit their claim??? This will obviously incurr a CCJ which is probably what they are after.
But the court will at least only judge what I can afford which is diddly squat!

What the heck do I do now without getting a solicitor to help me???!!

Cheers, Fossell

In fact unless anyone can suggest a valid case for a defence im just gonna admit the claim.
All of this CCA stuff is wishy washy talk seemingly. And i havent read anything on here that shows successful outcomes in court on the basis of unproper CCA stuff.

[Mistermind]

Unlawful penalty charges are easy to reclaim from Egg, who put up only a halfhearted resistance, giving in to the claimant and refunding after only 2 or 3 template letters. However the sum total of your charges refund is small so it is fairly irrelevant. You could say in your submission you will not admit liability for the penalty charges, and that in court you will demand Egg produce evidence that they are lawful. Egg barristers will not like that. But are you dealing with DCA lawyers who do not care about complications for Egg?

If you have sufficient grounds to challenge on the CCA enforceability issue, and if you make clear in your submission you plan to challenge same before the judge, chances are before you set out for court your case will be stayed by your judge, waiting instead for a "dddly squat" verdict from several Test Cases due in court within a few weeks, i.e. no ruling on a CCJ for now.

It is your case to run as you choose. If you are not comfortable with the legal language, well an unmistakeable statement of your intention and resolution will go some way towards deterring your debt collector, who then might not even go to court (for nothing).

Good luck.