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.
Quick summary. Egg card taken out in 1999 with a balance of approx £5K, no payment since June 2009 and the standard "apporved limit" CCA and complaint on this basis made to Egg.
Had a couple of letters from Egg and also CCA (Egg's DCA) and now had this reply:
I feel the way forward is to refute their claims as follows:
The Heading being a statutory correct heading at the time? No it wasn't. Not a prescripted term re CCA 1974.
Well establish point of law that "Approved Limit" satisfies regulations. Again, not a prescribed term. Request examples where point of law proved?
Central Trust -v- Spurway Not sure - advice appreciated.
All thoughts appreciated and some kind of direction to of reply would be good. I'll leave it a few days but will post up my intended reply before sending.
Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?
Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?
mmm. Sums it up really. These are standard answers cut and pasted into a response to whatever letter they may receive. We probably all get the same paragraphs sent back to us, just based on whatever order our letter goes to them.
On a brighter note it would mean we could come up with standard responses to their reponses (if you catch my drift). Hopefully someone'll be along soon that's already gone that next step and can help you further.
Whether the agreement is fixed or running both are governed by the CCA 1974 are they not? I would like to know the answer to this FTTE as I am in the exact situation as your self and have a thread asking similar questions.
I am sure PT would not have used that in a court of law if it was not applicable or was it fixed sum credits he was reffering to.
[Quote]: ...there is clear authority, arising from recent case law, that the lodging of adverse information with credit reference agencies in relation to an agreement which is in default does not amount to enforcement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA")."
Keep up Egg, the McGuffick judgement is being appealed!
Hi,
No need to reply as PT clarified the situation in another thread in which he was adamant that he had not lost a case at the time of writing.
Sorry to the OP for cluttering this tread up
Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?
Spot on - I got practically the same letter just this morning. It related to a letter that I sent to them in July, so it has taken them the best part of 4 months to reply. Waving or drowning
I see the point about strength DD and AC, but I have replied restating my opinion. I have always been of the view that if you seem to know your position they are going to be that wee bit wary of you.
Agree fully with all the other points - just noising us up (or trying to!)
quickly chipping in here, have been reading for a while with interest.
Regarding DD's point of "allegations of fraud can be over emotive" or words to that effect, can i just say something very humbly here. I agree that we have to keep the moral highground and be careful to act professionally and avoid anything which makes us look silly especially in court.
However, THERE IS NO EMOTION ATTACHED TO AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD. The LAW is the LAW.
If someone deliberately deceives someone with a deliberate intent in mind to extract money by way of transfer from that person based on that deception, (just as an example) then emotion ASIDE, they are committing offences under the Theft Act, namely Obtaining Money by Deception.
Emotion is definitely something to steer clear of, but don't on the other let that statement steer you away from the TRUTH (As defined in law) just because you THINK it SOUNDS emotional. Its all about how you present it, but present it you must IF the evidence or arguments stack up under the legislation.
I am NOT in any way referring to whether there is any case of fraud involved HERE, just trying to point out that the nature of Englishness is so much geared towards being mr nice guy, stiff upper lip and all that that many people shy away from clear offences sometimes due to feeling they sound a bit dramatic!
Just read the STATUTE LAW BOOKS, see what fits, and if it fits, TELL EM!
ONLY if it fits though, else you could look like a pratt as well as get sued!
The financial system is collapsing, time to raise a glass to the end of the biggest pyramid scheme in history - The Debt Industry
quickly chipping in here, have been reading for a while with interest.
Regarding DD's point of "allegations of fraud can be over emotive" or words to that effect, can i just say something very humbly here. I agree that we have to keep the moral highground and be careful to act professionally and avoid anything which makes us look silly especially in court.
However, THERE IS NO EMOTION ATTACHED TO AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD. The LAW is the LAW.
If someone deliberately deceives someone with a deliberate intent in mind to extract money by way of transfer from that person based on that deception, (just as an example) then emotion ASIDE, they are committing offences under the Theft Act, namely Obtaining Money by Deception.
Emotion is definitely something to steer clear of, but don't on the other let that statement steer you away from the TRUTH (As defined in law) just because you THINK it SOUNDS emotional. Its all about how you present it, but present it you must IF the evidence or arguments stack up under the legislation.
I am NOT in any way referring to whether there is any case of fraud involved HERE, just trying to point out that the nature of Englishness is so much geared towards being mr nice guy, stiff upper lip and all that that many people shy away from clear offences sometimes due to feeling they sound a bit dramatic!
Just read the STATUTE LAW BOOKS, see what fits, and if it fits, TELL EM!
ONLY if it fits though, else you could look like a pratt as well as get sued!
a written allegation of fraud is a VERY serious matter and if you cannot PROVE it, is extremely defamatory
why give a creditor another stick to beat you with?
if you allege fraud or wrongdoing in a civil court you will immediately be put you to proof of your allegations
please do not confuse being able to prove your allegations in court or in a libel action with what you THINK is proof- because in 99 cases out of 100 you will struggle to prove the necessary INTENT , without which you would fail
i can only repeat the advice NEVER when dealing with your creditors accuse them of fraud or dishonesty
your letters, will be read by the judge - it is hard enough for LIP's to start with, if you want the judge offside from the off then by all means make such accusations
Could someone clarify whether the points raised by PT in his thread are relevant to running or fixed credit or both
Thanks
Originally Posted by exasperated
Hi,
No need to reply as PT clarified the situation in another thread in which he was adamant that he had not lost a case at the time of writing.
Sorry to the OP for cluttering this tread up
Exasperated,
Could you possibly point me to the relevant post you are mention please? I`m also interested in wether our arguement would be suitable for fixed credit, as I have a Egg Loan.
N.P
If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<<
Reply by Egg to "Approved Limit" point
card taken out in 1999 with a balance of approx £5K, no payment since June 2009 and the standard "apporved limit" CCA and complaint on this basis made to Egg.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by FightToTheEnd
