Mr P V Egg Ccrp

[phatram]

IN THE DERBY COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:

ME

Claimant

and

EGG BANKING PLC

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. It is admitted that the Claimant entered into an a Credit Card Agreement with
the Defendant on 16 July 2002 ("Agreement"). The Agreement is regulated by
the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
2. Upon the Claimant's Application for the Agreement he requested Credit
Repayment Protection ("CRP"). The Insurance was optional and was not a
condition or requirement of the Agreement.
3. The Claimant cancelled the CRP on 10 June 2004. The Claimant is put to strict
proof that a refund should have been paid at the time of cancellation.
4. By signing the Agreement, the Claimant confirmed that he had read and
understood the terms of the Agreement and the Egg CRP Documents supplied to
him.
5. The Claimant was able to access and manage his account online via a secure
website.
6. On 23 September 2004, the Claimant requested balance transfers of other credit
card balances onto his Egg credit card. These transfers were completed online,
by the Claimant and he selected CRP cover in respect of the balances
transferred. At the time of making applications online for balance transfers the
option for CRP was already pre-selected, but could have been de-selected as
part of the application process. The Claimant had the option to de-select the
option for CRP at the time of making the balance transfers but he did not do so.
7. The Defendant denies that:
7.1 The CRP was negligently mis-represented to the Claimant under S2 of the
Misrepresentation Act 1967. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the CRP was
mis-represented.
7.2 It was under a duty to the Claimant to explain the terms of the CRP and to make
the Claimant aware that alternative suppliers of CRP existed. The CRP was
optional and it was for the Claimant to review the policy being offered by the
Defendant against other similar products being offered by alternative suppliers
and to confirm he wished to purchase the policy.
7.3 The CRP was applied incorrectly, and that the Agreement was not executed in
accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA"). The amount of credit is
stated on the Agreement and the CRP was optional.
7.4 They did not inform the Claimant that the Insurance was optional.

8. In the premises, the Claimant is put to strict proof of his losses as a result of his
allegation.
9. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the interest claimed or at all.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement on its behalf

[phatram]

Can any one explain in ordinary English please?
I find 7.2 interesting, I thought they had to inform me I could get this elsewhere?
What does strict proof mean and how can I effectively counter that argument?

[phatram]

bump

[phatram]

bump

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Phatram,

I unfortuneately am not an expert on defences, but I thought under the misrepresentation act that the onus was on them to prove that they did not mis-sell it.

An extract from one of your previous posts Their response

You completed two balance transfers online on the 3 September 2004.
Once you had entered this information you were again presented with the
two boxes asking if you would like to have the protection applied. This time
the 'Yes' box was pre-selected. We have taken a business decision to
refund the premium charged to you because of this pre-selected box.

They did not mention that one on their defence So evidence for your court bundle The ppi was not optional

I don't think there is anything to get worried about regarding their defence, and the proof of your hardship, is the statements and the amount of money they took. It was not just a few pence

Maybe pm one of the mods for a quick look

best wishes

[phatram]

Thanks h.

[phatram]

Today I have received an allocation questionaire which I have to return by 27th June and pay £35 for the priviledge. S'pose its another of their spoiling tactics?
Still don't get the "strict proof" bit !

[phatram]

Help please
Got a lot happening and my brain hurts!
I haven't a clue how to fill this AQ in.

[phatram]

Bump

[phatram]

Its form N150.
Should it be form N149 as the amount is only for £1500?

[bathgatebuyer]

Is the burden of proof not with Egg to prove that they did not mis-sell the PPI cover under the Sale of Good Act? I'm not 100% confident on PPI legislation or issues so feel free to correct me, but I thought that the SoGA effectively placed the onus on the provider to show that the product sold is / was 'fit for purpose'.

Were you ever asked to fill out a needs and benefits questionnaire? I know that a number of firms use these to assess whether or not someone would benefit from the cover or not. I intend checking the Good Practice Guidelines of the Association of British Insurers to assess whether this is part of their deemed 'good practice'. A typical questionnaire is simply just a checklist of "1 Have you ever suffered from back pain..................... ...........2 Have you ever suffered from Asthma................... .......3 Have you ever suffered from cancer................... .." and goes on to list any number of illnesses to assess suitability. This will be part of my own claim in that the Bank never sought to assess suitability instead saying that terms and conditions would be supplied after the point of sale. There was no active assessment of suitability.

[phatram]

Thanks

[phatram]

On the AQ,
Section F - Proposed directions

What on earth, if anything goes here?
Thanks

[phatram]

bump

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by phatram

bump

Have a look at this sticky

Allocation Questionnaires - A guide to completion

[phatram]

Thanks H.

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by phatram

Thanks H.

You are more than welcome Mr P