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.
Just heard back from Egg after sending my Moneyclaim. They have filed an acknowledgement and stated that the intend to defend the full amount (only £80!!!).:o
Egg have really hacked me off and I think I am going to look at consulting a solictor and see if I can take them to the cleaners
They just seem to be using every little snidey way possible to weasel out of things and I think it will only take one seriously succesfull case to set the precident for the rest and I'm quite happy to spend a bit of cash to screw them
omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium
Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional
I think that it would be well wort one of the MODS setting something up where we can donate a small amount of money each and employ a solicitor to act for one of the claims. I think it should be for someone who has a very good case and Egg have nothing on them either. What does eveyone think?
I think that of you ask admin (not a mod!), they will tell you what I am about to tell you: Why pay good money to pay a solicitor who will have far less motivated in getting you your money back than yourself?
May I remind everyone that if one year ago, you'd gone to a solicitor and said: "I think my bank charges may be unlawful, I want to claim them back", the solicitor would have patronised you right out of his office.
It took "normal" people to take this out on the street, and with over 2 million pounds showing on the survey, they haven't done too badly, have they? What makes you think a solicitor would do better? The banks' certainly don't!
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
I agree..!
In all probability, a solicitor would most likely settle for the OFT's suggested £12 level; then charge you a large fee JMHO
When in reality, just by excercising a little brain power, plus following the excellent BAG/CAG FAQ's, then we the consumers can obtain full refunds on the Unlawful Penalties that have been levied on our accounts.
Come on Guy's, we have the motivation...and there is strength in numbers....little people can win. Just remember 'David & Goliath'.
OH MY GOD! I'm almost finished with Smile and thought it would be a good idea to tackle Egg next. I'm really worried as I've been really bad with Egg, not paying payments when due, going over my credit limit etc. I'm determined to go all the way on this though as they probably owe me in excess of £2k. What is the current state of play? Have egg showed up at court yet?
Go for it! Egg have said they do not agree with the legislation and will not refund my charges. They have until next week before their 28 days is up after my money claim and as yet have still not filed a defense. I'll keep you posted but i've got my fingers crossed I can just file a judgement by default!!
NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing
MBNA - settled in full
Morgan Stanley - settled in full
Egg - Settled in full
Egg filed a defense on the final day before judgement and I've been sent a copy plus an allocation questionaire to be returned by 22 October 2006.
Eggs defence seems a standard one as it looks photocopied. It reads as follows:
'1. The claimant applied for an Egg credit card agreement with the defendant in November 2003 (the "Agreement"). The account was terminated and the date of the last statement was 8 August 2005.'
'2. It is admitted that charges wree added to the Claimant's Egg account during the course of the Agreement.' ...Basically clause 7.1 of their T & C £20 for over credit limit and £20 missed payments on the account.
'3. It is denied that the charges are a "disporportionate penalty" as alleged.' ...They go on to try and justify the charges as legitimate reimbursement for their costs.
'4. Further the Defendent takes steps to ensure that customers such as the Claimant to not unwittingly incur the charges set out in Condition 7.' ...i.e they set up a direct debit.
'5. Accordingly, it is denied that the charges are unenforceable at common law.'
'6. It is further denied that the charges are invalid under S4 of the Unfiar Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.' ...Again they state the charges are reasonable.
'7. It is denied that S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies.' ... however should to court find this applies they argue again that the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss and expenses.
'8. The Claimant is put to proof that his loss as a result of the charges is £117.04 as alleged' ...what does this mean???
'9.' ... if the court finds the charges are unenforceable they ask the court to assess the actual costs to the defendent.
Can anyone help me or provide me with a bit of direction?:-|
NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing
MBNA - settled in full
Morgan Stanley - settled in full
Egg - Settled in full
Paragraphs 8 is basically saying that the hundred and 17 odd pounds that you are claiming is actually what they have charged you. This should be easy for you to do as presumably you have got it all in your statements. It is just another blustering piece of stupidity from eggs representatives.
Paragraph 9 is basically their fallback position and simply says that if you are right that they are not entitled to the charges which they have levied, then they east entitled to something and they want the court to decide what that something is.
This also is not a problem because this is what everybody wants. In order for the court to manage it they would have to see what eggs costings are. Of course they will refuse to provide the court with this information so it is another piece of stupidity. What they are saying to the judge is " we want you to assess what our costs are that we're not going to provide you with any information to allow you to do that"
Had he returned your allocation questionnaire yet? If you have not then I suggest that where it asks you if there are any particular directions that you want from the judge that you ask for standard disclosure. Point out that in paragraph 9 the defendant asks the court to assess its true costs. Point out to the judge that you accept paragraph 9 and that you are completely happy with the principle. Say to the judge that as it is clearly the defendant's own suggestion that you respectfully suggest that the defendant's suggestion is adopted and that they be compelled to reveal the true costs of the court so that the matter can be settled once and for all.
Point out to the judge that if the defendants do make this disclosure that this will properly help to bring to an end the current flood of bank charges litigation
Please don't pm me about specific questions unless you have posted and it has not been dealt with or unless the matter is confidential. Please include a link to the post you want me to look at. If you have received a defence, contact me.
Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
Tobes - Do you know what they stated as their costs?
BankFodder - Thanks for that. I've got until 22nd to return my allocation questionaire. Will probably get it done this week, was just waiting for advice before I sent it off. Thanks for your help.
Fingers crossed!!!
NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing
MBNA - settled in full
Morgan Stanley - settled in full
Egg - Settled in full
Citi have provided the court with their true costs
No, they haven't.
They provided the court with what THEY claim was their true costs, which, by some uncanny coincidence, was just about £12, and how about that? What were the odds? And did it last minute, and Claimant was not allowed to see the Breakdown... Talk of rough justice...
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Well, the court accepted their claims that the figures given were true and accurate so for all intents and purposes Citi have provided the court with their true costs until it's proven otherwise...
Had letter from Egg. They now say they'll refund £4 of each £20 charge in line with the reduction of their charges to £16. No mention of my court fees, interest or anything else.
Bugger it lets go to court then so this week sent my Allocation questionaire to York county court. They quoted some case they won in court. However looking at this forum, I think they only won because the claimant could not attend the court date.
Also sent Egg a letter saying that their offer was not good enough for me to withdraw my claim so basically see you in court!!
NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing
MBNA - settled in full
Morgan Stanley - settled in full
Egg - Settled in full
Has anyone else had Egg file a defense?
after sending my Moneyclaim. They have filed an acknowledgement and stated that the intend to defend the full amount (only £80!!!).:o
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by admanbo80
and I think it will only take one seriously succesfull case to set the precident for the rest and I'm quite happy to spend a bit of cash to screw them
