Thread: Is this Egg default notice valid?

Originally Posted by Adam69

Hi all

Had a text from Egg to log on to read an important message.

I am over my limit by about £85- caused by the monthly interest being added. There is a default notice:

My understanding is that the default notice, to be valid, has to contain the precise requirement to correct the problem, ie pay the £85 plus the standard monthly payment. Also the charge of £16.00 is in excess of the £12.00 suggested by the OFT.

I am going to contact Egg, does the following sound a reasonable course of enquiry:

1. £16 to be credited as unlawful/excess charge

£16 is alleged unlawful penalty charge. Egg can be made to refund it if they are taken to court and the judge so rules, or Egg WILL refund as they have done over the past 2.5 years after a ritualised exchange of 2, 3 letters which they do not really read -- just to test your resolution. Egg have never found an answer to the 30APR2007 moc1982 template letter even though they know it by heart now. See V-E Day: Victory over Egg(5) - go to page 5.

2. Remove default as it does not comply with the prescribed terms, and if I had not logged on, I would not have seen it.

In other reported cases Egg claim to have sent the DN by post which the cardholder never received. With no legal requirement for using registered post, how do you prove Egg did not send it?

3. No default or overlimit to be logged with CRA due to above not being lawful.

In 2006 OFT made it clear they would legally challenge credit card penalty charges above £12, but made a special dispensation of £16 for Egg as a special dispensation for the trading practices of a cyberspace card. There is no mileage in complaining about £16 being higher than £12. The OFT at no stage said £12 or £16 is lawful, just that for operational reasons they were not ready to go to court against £12 or £16 charge. The OFT regularly reiterated that a lawful penalty charge is to be be adjudicated in court, not by the OFT. Egg posted blackmarks with CRA recording as a consequence of penalty charges which cardholders accepted in signed agreement. Said charges have yet to be ruled as unlawful in court, because Egg and other card issuers will not go there.

Overturning DN triggered by alleged but unproven unlawful charges has in 2 cases involved 18-month and 30-month struggles, with both sides exhausted at the end: " Egg DNs successfully rolled back "

I will also complain that they were partially guilty in this case as they allowed me to spend up to my limit before interest was added, and they have a duty of care to keep me informed. They recently raised my interest rate from 16.9% to 21.9% too. I will negotiate to repay the overspend over the next 2/3 months.

Card issuers are likely to point out that a responsible cardholder over age 18 has a duty of care to make allowance for forthcoming monthly debit interest charges, having been informed of the rate. Without doubt there is T&C wording strssing the importance of keeping the balance below the limit. If the hiked interest rate does add to your financial difficulties, try this government initiative: January 1st - government deal on credit cards

Best of luck.

Any advice or thoughts very welcome indeed.

Thanks

Answers above in brown.