Thread: Egg - again - vs wjms

Just when I thought it had gone quite quiet on the Oef front, I got a response to my complaint. Since my scanner is currently up the spout, here's the text:

Dear wjms,

Re Your Egg Account CCA/L xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of complaint dated (sometime in June) and we apologise for the delay in responding.

We note that you have alleged that we have failed to comply with section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by failing to include all of the terms prescribed by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (the "Agreement Regulations") on the basis that the credit limit is described as the "Approved Limit". This allegation is incorrect. The form of agreement used by Egg contains all of the relevant information prescribed both by Schedule 1 and by Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations. Approved Limit is specifically defined as the amount you can borrow from time to time on the account and is therefore clearly understandable. There is no requirement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to use a particular term or phrase when describing the amount of credit. The description of the credit limit complies with paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 1 of the Agreement Regulations.

Given the respose to the complaint outlined above, your credit agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable as you appear to allege. Accordingly, we shall continue to apply our normal procedures to your account.

Your letter refers to paragrap 13.6 of the Banking Code and asserts that the amount owed by you is 'in dispute' and alleges that this 'dispute' prevents us from taking any action to enforce debts owed to us by you under your credit agreement and prevents us from passing on information relating to you to credit reference agencies. We trust that, in light of the above responses to your complaint, you will appreciate that there is no dispute as to the amount owed to us by you. We shall therefore continue with our normal processes in relation to your account.

In circumstances where you have borrowed money under a valid and enforceable credit agreement, you will appreciate that our taking reasonable steps to seek repayment in accordance with that credit agreement cannot be improper or constitute a form of harassment.

We hope that this letter fully clarifies our position and draws this matter to a close. This letter constitutes our final response. If you remain dissatisfied with our response, you should refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months of the date of this letter. A copy of the fos's explanatory leaflet is enclosed for your information.

Yours sincerely,

signature

Michelle Hood etc

Phew. That took a couple of minutes to type in.

I have put in a complaint to the FOS as they suggest, and also now sent them a letter asking for a copy of their version of the CCA since it obviously differs from my copy of the original one from 1999! I enclosed a pound and sent the request in line with 78(1) CCA 74 - I realise that this is somewhat deprecated by certain forum gurus, but since I have the customer's copy in original here (although not signed) don't see what I have to lose by it.

I would really welcome any thoughts about both the contents of their letter and the way forward.

Thanks in advance!

wjms

OK, a couple of weeks later and still no response from Egg to my send me the original CCA letter I sent them.

Wait and see I guess.

OK, well a couple of weeks later and the first reply came in, from AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd:

Dear (wjms)

We are writing in response to your recent correspondence.

Please note AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd is a debt collecting "agent", acting in good faith on the instructions received from a "disclosed" principal, namely Egg Banking Plc. We are therefore authorised to write to you in connection with the above matter and to instruct Solicitors in contemplation of Court Proceedings where we consider it appropriate to do so. Please note there has been no "assignment" of the debt from Egg Banking Plc to AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd.

We have contacted our client and they have confirmed that their Customer Relation's Office rejected your complaint. We are instructed that the above balance remains outstanding and must be paid. Your payment should be sent directly to this office. Please ensure your payment is made apyable to AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd and clearly wirte your reference number 123456 on the reverse, or htis may delay it being allocated to your account. Alternatively you can telephone us to make a payment by debit or credit card.

If we do not receive your payment within the next 14 days, this account will be passed back to our solicitors for further action.

Yours sincerely,

J Turner

Sent them back an e-mail stating that the matter was still in dispute (waiting for CCA 78 (1) copy), and with the fos. Please don't write any more!

Next morning there's post from Egg:

To summarise, acknowledges receipt of my CCA Request, but asks for proof of address as the one I gave is different to the one on their records - Doh, I corrected their spelling mistake on my town's name, the rest is the same...

Sent e-mail back telling them this, and also refusing to send them something when they have been happily sending mail to this address for the past few months.

Copies of their correspondence and my answers scanned and e-mailed to the FOS for their file...

So, still ongoing.

Hiya there,

I got almost the very same letter from there, Apart from a few bits. But I am sending them back a nice little letter as they are saying that it is a well bit knowledsge of law that they can use " approved limit" when thye quite obviously can't. As many say that aren't just going to say "ok your right, don't worry about we will leave you alone now". But I am in the same boat. They haven't sent it to a DCA yet, but no doubt will. Let's just see what they say to my letter.

Good luck and hope you get things sorted.