Thread: reggie v Egg/Bryan Carter

Bryan Carter have now issued a court claim I filed a defence but need an expert on here to offer advice on what is wrong with the CCA aatched, please!

Bump

I havent got to the stage of having to do a court defence, but I have written to them about what I think is wrong with my "agreement" with them. So far they seem struck dumb (hope I am not tempting fate!) The relevant parts of the letter from your point of view are

the copy agreement that Egg have supplied does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations for the following reasons:

• ·The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1) require that this agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact the agreement supplied to me by Egg has been headed “Egg Card Agreement for my name“.
• ·Additionally, no “Credit Limit” has been stated – which is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway

24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:
(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and
(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”
[2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states As the agreement has been improperly executed, it is only enforceable by an order of the court, by virtue of section 65. However, since it does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of section 127(3).

• Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed.

These it seem to me are just the obvious things - I think I remember reading somewhere on here that there was often no facility for cancellation. However the big one is their use of "approved limit" rather than "credit limit". You should have a look for http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2024413, and you might also find the debate I had with Vint at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2493954 useful as well.

Remember too that the court action could be another scare tactic - will they take it all the way if you put up a decent defence?????

But I am sure that someone more knowledgeable than I will drop by soon (for one thing my knowledge of English law is sketch to say the least - but I hope this helps)

Thanks for the previous posts.
Had a letter from the court today advising the case has been struck out, does that mean I have won, apologies for being dull!!!

Whoops just had a Notice of Restored Hearing- wasn't expecting that