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.
Looking through Eggs terms and conditions i notice that there refusal to drop their charges on their late payment and overdraft fees. Not only that this is surely got to be the evidence that you only need to show in a court of law why they are charging people. It is that they admit that they only reason they charge people £16 is to cover their costs and they admit thats why in their terms and conditions, so they cannot say it is to pay for services or anything like that no?
KEY INFORMATIION
7. CHARGES
7.1 If you break the terms of this Agreement we may charge you the following, where relevant, to cover the additional cost caused to us:
£16 each month you go over the Credit Limit, even if we authorised the Transaction which resulted in you exceeding the Credit Limit;
£16 if you do not keep up the payments on the Account;
£16 for any payment returned or recalled for any reason;
any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by us as a result of your breach of this Agreement.
If you find this info useful please click on the scales in the bottom left corner of the thread
Vodafone To Remove Default Notices thread
Paid In Full HSBC Was Claiming £3851.42 But Instead of Paying Me Decided to pay my £4900 Loan OffDG Solictors. Need Help
Concluded Lloyds TSB 27/05/2006 Action Against LloydsTSB
Concluded Lloyds TSB for Girlfriend. 27/05/2006
Paid In Full Capital One £160 Settled
Paid In Full Capital One Sent 15/05/06 for £1372 for Girlfriend
Paid In Full Cetelem £130 Settled
Paid In Full The AA £400 Settled
Paid In Full First National £160 Settled
PDA LloydsTsb Credit Card Hand Delivered 26/04/06 £180
If that was published post-June, and you have been charged that amount post-June, send it to the OFT. It's more than £12, which was the threshold at which they stated they would automatically take action. Go get 'em!
Egg seem to be the one company who really believe they are 'unbreakable' and we all know how fragile eggs are don't we. Their arrogance is quite amazing especially when you consider the state they find themselves in, hardly a shining example of a outstandingly successful company are they? I take it you have seen the threads where they claim to have successfully won a court case - by default!!! Well if they are so confident, lets see them fight in court when someone actually does turn up!
Can't see them winning by default against OFT can you?
I no longer have an Egg card. I was just going through their T&Cs regarding a default that they have issued and came across that information. I posted it to just inform the people in the community who have an egg card still on this information which if they are charging the £16 then these people who still have accounts should contact the OFT.
If you find this info useful please click on the scales in the bottom left corner of the thread
Vodafone To Remove Default Notices thread
Paid In Full HSBC Was Claiming £3851.42 But Instead of Paying Me Decided to pay my £4900 Loan OffDG Solictors. Need Help
Concluded Lloyds TSB 27/05/2006 Action Against LloydsTSB
Concluded Lloyds TSB for Girlfriend. 27/05/2006
Paid In Full Capital One £160 Settled
Paid In Full Capital One Sent 15/05/06 for £1372 for Girlfriend
Paid In Full Cetelem £130 Settled
Paid In Full The AA £400 Settled
Paid In Full First National £160 Settled
PDA LloydsTsb Credit Card Hand Delivered 26/04/06 £180
The problem is that Egg were rather awarded special status by the OFT report. Because all Egg customers have to pay the minimum amount by DD they successfully argued with the OFT that this causes fewer late payments and therefore the relative cost in dealing with these was higher.
This seems to have gone completely to their head. However, the OFT report states that this effect should not be "over played". The fact that the OFT are not taking any action is by no means any indication that a court would not find against them. However, it does make it harder to claim that £16 is unfair in the same way as claiming that £12 is too high for the other banks would also be a challange.
On the other hand, claiming that any charges above £16 are reasonable is going to be very hard for them to defend. Why they are defending these cases at all then, God only knows....
The problem is that Egg were rather awarded special status by the OFT report. Because all Egg customers have to pay the minimum amount by DD they successfully argued with the OFT that this causes fewer late payments and therefore the relative cost in dealing with these was higher.
This seems to have gone completely to their head. However, the OFT report states that this effect should not be "over played". The fact that the OFT are not taking any action is by no means any indication that a court would not find against them. However, it does make it harder to claim that £16 is unfair in the same way as claiming that £12 is too high for the other banks would also be a challange.
On the other hand, claiming that any charges above £16 are reasonable is going to be very hard for them to defend. Why they are defending these cases at all then, God only knows....
From what I can see, all outstanding legal cases, (whatever stage they are at) are being offered a refund of £4 so if they believe the can prove in court that it's a £16 cost to them then they can say 'we made the offer to avoid legal action' in court.
From what I can see of the letters to me so far their 'costs' consist of the cost of employing people to call up customers and request money when they have a) not paid due to a DD bounce or b) the payment does not cover the outstanding amount. So basically they are saying that they are entitled to charge full cost for that 'service' from those who miss payments and/or go over their limit. All this despite the fact that the over limit charge will only result in a phone call IF your DD does not bring the account back under the credit limit that month.
I expect that they will be using these calculations for £16 in court when they finally defend an action based on the fact that they are claiming that they ONLY employ these people and computers etc. to follow up on missed payments and therefore they are only recovering their costs from the people who caused them to need to employ the collections team.
As I see it, they got however much in interest from me each month and yet they do not even provide a printed bill for free. They did have a call centre but in general, they insisted that you used the internet to check up on the account and monitor it and I believe it was reasonable to expect that the interest charged would cover the costs of a collections teram.
Well I hope they've got a record of all these telephone calls they haven't made to me to justify their charges because certainly as far as my account is concerned they do nothing for their money. At one time they did send the odd letter but that was at least 2 years ago, nothing since - not even an e-mail (except the automated one to say you're statement is ready)!!!
Worryingly, Egg manipulate the wording of the OFT report to bully the customer base by making strong inferences that the OFT support their £16 charging regime.
I started a thread in this forum on Saturday containing the wording of an email I sent to the OFT by way of a complaint (rather than repeat myself at length, the post can be found http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/39955-egg-its-wild-claims.html). If, as I suspect, Egg are using this defence as a very large stick with which to bludgeon it's more litigious clientele, others may wish to add their voice to the complaint against Eggs bastardisation of OFT report to suit its own ends.
I feel certain that the OFT cannot be aware of the claims Egg are making on its behalf, and are certainly not content with Eggs tall tales. If Eggs claims were true then the OFT would have court-cases coming from its metaphorical ears from all other banking institutions with wails of “no fair!”
Egg seem to regard themselves as untouchable by either the judicial system or by the OFT. In the immortal words of Judge Dredd, (filling mouth with marbles for a second-rate impersonation) “I am the law!” I fear it will take a concerted effort from multiple angles to topple this Goliath.
Egg Still Charge More than The OFT Say:o
i notice that there refusal to drop their charges on their late payment and overdraft
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by fighting_back
