Thread: Egg Credit Card CCA Agreement - help

unenforceable missing prescribed term.

cds

No it wouldn't be as simple as that. You would have to explain to the judge why it is unenforceable using statute and case law.

But in very simple terms yes, no credit limit = unenforceable.

There are actually quite a number of us doing just that. They have my account in dispute letter and I`m ready to go all the way with it.

I have had to send them my Subject access request as I am unhappy with having received screendumps for my t&cs and have in that letter informed them that "the original may be required in court".

But be prepared to deal with a most arrogant company who will ignore your instructions and mess you around.

I am starting a harrassment log about their calls which haven`t stopped-some of which when I answer don`t even speak to me-just put the phone down.

Noticed you have deleted the date aswell, this could also be a factor.
After 31st October 2004 the distance marketing regs came into force.
This gave all agreements made with no face to face contact, cancellation rights. Previously, financial contracts were excluded from distance selling regulaions. The consequence is 14 days cancellation rights, information in the agreement to state this, and also the bit on the back regarding " we are not bound by this agreement until....."
in effect this, and the fact Egg never send out a copy of the dated executed agreement, gives you no clue that you have cancellation rights nor when they would cease to be effective.

Anybody have any views on this,

cds

hi lollipop OH says hello

Was your credit card cancelled in early 2008

if yes there is a thread that would be relevant to you

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...edit-card.html

its long but well worth the read

cds

Thats a new approach from Egg, when did they do that?

anyway regardless

the prescribed terms issue should suffice.

The agreement you have there does not comply with Schedule 6 para 3 of SI 1983/1553

Quote:
A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit

Now the CCA 1974 sets out what "Credit" is at section 9

Quote:
Meaning of credit.9. — (1)

In this Act “credit ” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.
Now the act defines credit, the prescribed term required refers to Credit so it stands to reason that in this case the word Limit does not suffice

this is the opinion given by a barrister who was senior counsel in Wilson and Hurstanger
___________

cds

amended to suit should put the cat amongst the pidgeons

Further to your letter dated........ , the documents enclosed provided in response to my CCA request was a two page document – the signature document and the document containing the rate of interest and a repayment schedule. However, I do not believe they meet the necessary legal requirement of a true credit card agreement for a number of reasons which I have clearly outlined below

I would like to draw your attention to the prescribed terms contained within the document sent to me. The page (unsigned page) states “we will tell you from time to time the approved limit we have set and if different the individual limit you have chosen for the account.” This does not conform to the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act, as although the limit may be advised from “time to time,” the wording must be: “Credit Limit” and not merely approved Limit or such like. To clarify, the use of the term “Credit Limit” is essential in order for the agreement to be in the prescribed form and to contain all of the prescribed terms. On these grounds the agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act and is therefore unenforceable under section 127(3) of the same act.


I would also like to draw your attention to the following statement on the signed page, “This agreement will only be binding on us when we have completed and are satisfied with our final checks and other searches, and you have signed and returned the credit agreement to us”.

This clearly shows that the alleged agreement lacks equal consideration. After you completed your final checks and other searches you failed to provide me with a copy of a valid contract binding both parties as required to do so under regulated agreements and contract law.


In view of the above, as well as your omission on the agreement regarding a valid explanation of default, I do not acknowledge this agreement as having been properly executed and as such do not accept it as a valid contract binding both parties under section 59 of the CCA 1974An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement'


Finally, in my request for a true signed copy of a CCA you responded by sending me a 2 page document. However, in your obligation to service my CCA request you failed to enclose the relevant terms and conditions which are linked to the CCA you sent.

In light of the above flaws I am very confident that you (Lowell) and your client (Egg) will agree with me when I say that the ‘so called’ True Signed Copy of a CCA requested by me (..........) has not met the legal requirements and thus would be unenforceable if you wished to be peruse this matter further in a Court of Law. I look forward to hearing your response on this matter, and hope to hear from you within 14 days unless you consider this matter closed

Sorry to jump in cds but can you explain the 'equal consideration' bit and where in the acts and regs it is mentioned. Any ammunition is handy !!

Egg have fullfilled their obligations regards the cca request, you are putting your relationship with them into dispute because you believe the cca they have is unenforceable in the courts.

The long term objectives are to get them to concede to your point of view and stop pursuing you for the debt, worst case scenerio you will go to court and defend their claim for enforcement.

There response will probably totally disregard what you have stated, and the cat and mouse begins. But who is the cat and who is the mouse is up to you.
Thats what this site is all about the "worm that turned" as the old saying goes.

Your ending to the letter above should do fine.

cds

Lifes a gamble bud, at least you've got friends here all in the same boat.

To calm your nerves you could always go for a SAR, but I think that would be a waste of money unless you have substantial fees you could claim back.

If they do threaten court action you can get the same info with a cpr for free.

cds

Originally Posted by cds

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999


schedule 2(1)b

An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement'

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs)

A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract after it has been
agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under strong
suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced only if both
parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.

"lacks equal consideration"

Sorry I've searched that document and can find no reference to 'equal consideration'.