Thread: Default with unfair charges

Hi this is just my opinion but, they have issued a default for an account that they are unable to prove that they have a regulated agreement then section 87 of the CCA 1974 comes into effect IE.

87

.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "
default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by
reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—
(a) to terminate the agreement, or
(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or
(c) to recover possession of any goods or land, or
(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as
terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e) to enforce any security.

I do not believe they can say that this default was applied to a regulated agreement. Also the amount on the default would not be correct as this would include any charges.

all the best dpick

80 weeks - 21 SEP 2007 - Yasmin - Default Notice removed by court -http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/show-post/post-1142455.html

For the long term

Yasmin above is the greatest living authority on how to force Egg via a court verdict to withraw their Default Notice, in her case for the reason that, had unlawful charges not been applied, her account would not have fallen into arrears then into default. In her case Egg had conceded to refunding unlawful charges previously though without admission of unlawfulness, but the act of refunding certainly weakened the ground on which Egg stood. Your case would also benefit from a charge refund before DN removal (for refund see Andrew_nwide template letter in January 2008, in V-E Day thread in Stickies section.

Yasmin took only 18 months to accomplish her mission, involving god knows how many court attendances, but she now knows to a tee the drill and the special paperwork. And Egg knows Yasmin knows the winning route, and Egg knows they will have to concede if a repeat litigant follows the same route and has the same tenacity. Suggest you politely PM Yasmin for help, then convince Egg you have what it takes to go all the way like Yasmin. Egg fights EVERY request to annul DN, and despite numerous other attempts, no other DN removal has been reported as successful that I know of.

Egg are currently braced for the onslaught from 161,000 cardholders whose accounts have been closed, and may not fancy more adverse PR should you promise to make a cause celebre of it. They might quietly concede to your request if you are ultra convincing. It is not necessary to fire a nuclear missile, enough to show you do have it, and know how to, and do plan to press the red button.

For the short term

Suggest you write a self-documenting letter with all dates and amounts and statement appended to Egg, to request them to reply by letter if they at least agree with your story. If they refuse in writing to do the decent thing, then you could take the entire story to the Nationwide, to show that at best it was non-communicative Egg bureaucracy gone mad over £37, and at worst complete maladministration. Such a story needs to be self-documented complete with evidence, and comprehensible to a third party (which your posting was not). Nationwide could then see the DN in a different light and might allow a manual waiving of their rigid rules -- if you cannot wait.

Originally Posted by BobbyOwl

On closer inspection of my egg account I have discovered that I was actually under my credit limit when charges were imposed on me to take me over my limit which is what the subsequent default was for. They claim to have written to me advising me of the situation prior to the default being imposed, however I did not receive any of these letters. My first knowledge of this was the actual default letter informing me that my debt had been transferred to a debt collection agency. This was all over £34.68 of charges and interest. The full account was settled in a matter of days.

They are stating that I should have looked at the internet to monitor the account, but at the time I was working remotely with no internet access and was not told in the T&C's that this was an obligation. (I doubt there is any mileage in complaining about Egg's practice of not writing letters)

They also claim that the £16 charges are fair to which I argue that they are not, when they take me over my agreed limit.

We have had two promises of mortgage from the Nationwide, on taking this mortgage offer up they have brought this default into question, after having begun to spend on the move, which had seemed a certainty up until this week. Time is of the essence to keep on track with the purchase.

Any help would be hugely appreciated!

Bobby Owl