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.
Great forum - been lurking for ages, but would be grateful if someone could cast their eyes over these Egg cca's I've received - any comments appreciated
Do not mention 'Credit Limit' (they use the term 'Approved Limit - whatever that is) which is not a prescribed term.
There is no mention of 'charges' or the APR being 'variable'.
Most here consider Eggs agreements to be unenforceable.
I'd be careful about this one, as some Solicitors are not necessarily as clued-up about CCA law as you'd expect. I'd be happy to accept the advise and go forward with my own 'unenforceable' action against Egg, if I could be certain this wouldn't be countered by another solicitor. So I'll do just that, unless someone else already has done. A consensus of three would be best!
The advise came from a friend who is a solicitor, not from someone who was giving me advice on a professional basis. (they have legal insurance when they do that)
However, she informed me that a good solicitor will give a first interview for around £30
The letter of the law is pertinent. People are required to abide by it.
But I do know EXACTLY what you are talking about. Oh to be absolutely sure.
My personal advice is to read the Consumer credit act with someone at our side-you explain it to them as you go, then the regs then case law, but none of this is worth a damn if on the day the judge is in a bad mood.
But no bull ****, I am not paying them another penny.
Maybe this will make you improve your 'sureness' (does such a word exist ... oh well):
Extract from OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)
ON THURSDAY 10 JULY 2003
Para 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases.
The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with.
In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3).
Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.
I would say an agreement not containing the term Credit Limit (and instead says Approved Limit - e.g. Egg's 'agreement') does not contain the prescribed terms and is not enforceable even by an appeal court !!!
EGG CCA x 2 - comments please
cca's I've received - any comments appreciated
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by basa48
