Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Evening all
My Egg credit card account is now ticking along nicely but I'm starting to hanker after those charges they've applied over the years...if I start proceedings to ask for them back are they likely to close my account and withdraw the card? I know they're not meant to....
Not a problem if they do I suppose but got a wedding to pay for next year and the cushion of my egg crad would be nice for emergencies.
And another thing... I've seen people sending a plain english email via secure email...is this ok to do and do I need to use the templates or can I just ask nice and simply??
Egg was very difficult last year, but they had an ownership change, law firm change, and an obvious change of policy. Reclaiming charges and interest no longer triggers a fierce response. You could try ask for statements via secure Eggmail, authorising them to debit your card £10 for the full version.
Well I was a bit concerned as the slightly confrontational responses I got to my initial emails...along the lines of you need to send us ID and pay be cheque and we don't start our 40 days until after we've had this" etc.
But the letter they sent was very clear and made it very simple...they offer three options (simple transaction list inc charges to a full SAR) to get the info and promise it within 7 days for a simple transaction listing. They don't need any ID and it costs £5.00. They even enclosed an SAE.
So far they win my vote for easiest to deal with!! Shame I don't have a lot to claim back off them :grin:
Alone of all credit cards, Egg does not send out monthly statements, so cardholders could have moved house 5 years ago and Egg would be none the wiser. The ID and residence proof protects the cardholder as much as Egg. Plain English email or letter worked fine for many claimants.
The only time you need a "precise" refutation (e.g. moc1982's template letter), is when Egg writes "We reduced charges to £16 as per OFT. You say charges are unlawful, but do not produce evidence..."
I appreciate what you say but if this was really the case, why agree to send the list of transactions without asking for ID? It's only in the case of the SAR that they ask for ID.
In addition, most secure payments require the card to be registered at the cardholders address. And you certainly need to provide an address to get a new card.
Lastly, they wrote to me often enough to tell me I was over my card limit !!
Overall, as I said, they've been the most helpful. Long may it continue...
Hi...I've got my statements and have calculated the repayment. From what I understand, I send the standard letter from the templates asking for repayment. Then I'll get a standard "charges are fair" letter and I send the letter refuting this.
Can someone point me in the direction of the response to Egg refuting that their charges are fair please? I've searched a few threads and looked in the library but I haven't found it yet?
And another one hits the customer relations inbox! Let you know how I get on...
Had a slight panic when I thought they hadn't actually tried to say their pre-estimate is genuine but I just wasn't reading it properly LOL.
There's been a deafening silence from Egg since 29th August. What do i do now? wait until 14 days have passed then Commence court proceedings? The last secure email I sent was the standard one from here saying that I would see them in court effectively?
I hope not, but the recent uncharacteristic lack of good news in this forum probably signifies a change of management policy by Egg -- for the worse. If so, 30AUG2007 could have seen the 67th and last of the easy Egg refunds.
If, denied other options, you now proceed towards court, Egg will have a pat line on OFT-sanctioned Pre-estimates ready to be trotted out. To counter this you could give Egg advance notice, that you will be posing two extremely embarassing questions in court, see
Irishrose did, and got same-day full refund. The atmosphere for claimants is subdued now, thanks to an impending yet uncertain OFT test case and a tsunami of stayed hearings in anticipation.
Nevertheless unlawful penalty charges were and remain unjustifiable.
And in my view immoral, basically sucking blood from those least able to fight back.
Thanks MM...I'm just in the process of writing my lba to Egg - I will proceed to court, getting on first name terms with the DJ at Edmonton - and will to include those two questions.
Interesting bit of info received from Egg today. Apparently Emma Clayton is on secondment in Manchester, which presumably explains why things have gone very quiet. :o
I sent a secure email in quite blunt terms, including the post event audit request, and got the response that my case would be passed onto a senior person in Customer relations. I replied to say that would be good and I didn't want to have to take Egg to court but I would if I had to.
So watch this space but for those who've marked their emails for the attention of Emma Clayton, might be worth getting in touch with Egg to get them sent to someone else!
Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for your letter dated 1 October 2007 in which you offer £80.00 in Full and final settlement of my complaint, however, I do not consider this a satisfactory response. I refer to the points raised in your letter as follows: (1) Regardless of whether the credit card agreement states that charges will be added to the account if the credit limit is exceeded or fail to make contractual payments, it is the amount of the default charge which is in question. (2) You have been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me, as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I believe your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ. 963. It was held that a contractual party can only receive damages for an actual loss or liquidated loss. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and/or real loss. I have great respect for Egg's pre-estimate. However, if your charges are indeed a genuine pre-estimate of the administrative costs likely to be incurred by you in dealing with defaults then in order to reassure me that your penalties really do reflect your costs, I once again request that you provide me with a Breakdown and proof of all costs involved with regard to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (e). I would expect this to include a comparison of all charges levied against all customers and the actual costs incurred by you when those customers default. In co-operating with OFT, Egg surely must have conducted an audit and I would be happy to see the post event audit documentation to justify costs. (3) I refer to your comment regarding the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) default charge threshold of £12.00. I am aware that the OFT have stated that “where there are exceptional business factors... for example where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg….it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold”. However, this does not mean that your £16.00 is considered fair. The OFT state that only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair. Therefore, I will accept the sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder, with a county court claim, if necessary, although I sincerely hope that it will not be. I do hope that you will respond positively to this letter in order to avoid court proceedings, as if this case does go to court you will be aware that you could also be liable for 8% statutory interest on the total amount of charges claimed (as of today this amounts to £XXX) plus my costs. To clarify, a positive response being no less than an offer of full settlement of all charges incurred on my account. I am aware of many cases that you have settled in full out of court to date and I assume therefore that would also be your intention in this case. If that is so, then to allow this claim to get that far may be considered an abuse of the court process, so I once again, respectfully request that you refund the total amount of charges I am claiming, now totalling £XXX as per the attached schedule. I will give you 14 days to respond to this letter before taking the matter to Edmonton County Court without further notice. Kind Regards
Lc V Egg
credit card account is now ticking along nicely but I'm starting to hanker after those charges they've applied over the years...if I start proceedings to ask for them back are they likely to close my account and withdraw the card? I know they're not meant to....
Reply With Quote
