Thread: rjgreaves Vs Egg

Sent the S.A.R - (Subject access request) letter, 40 days ago, and received a letter back asking for a an original utility bill, which I sent them.

Yesterday which is now about the 40 day limit, they write to me sending the utility bill back and saying they now have 40 days to send me my statements. Are the taking the p***? they have just had 40.

Do I go to the Information Commissioners Office now or send the lba with 7 day limit or both?

Similar Threads:

• rjgreaves V HSBC ***SETTLED IN FULL***
• RJGREAVES v HSBC *SETTLED*
• rjgreaves Vs Nationwide
• rjgreaves Vs MBNA Settled!!

Sent Egg a request for return of charges letter and got a reply offering £16 in total!

(I had asked for £80 + £63.13 contractural interest)

Thank you for your letter dated 24 March 2007.

1. Your Credit Card agreement ("the Agreement") with Egg Banking pic ("Egg") clearly states that charges will be added to your account if you exceed your Credit Limit or fail to make your contractual payments. In accordance with condition 7 of the Agreement, a charge of £20 (or since August 2006, a reduced charge of £16) has been added to your account each time you exceeded your Credit Limit or failed to make a payment.

2. You allege that these charges are a penalty. You have put forward no evidence to support this allegation and we do not accept it. As explained in our previous letter, the charges set out in the Agreement are a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to Egg when a customer breaks the terms of their Agreement.

3. You may have followed recent media coverage of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigation into default charges. The OFT stated that a default charge could only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults. The OFT set a threshold for intervention of £12 but stated that default fees should not be equivalent to the threshold. The OFT stated that the presumption of unfairness in relation to charges over £12 would not apply where exceptional business factors apply and specifically referred to Egg's practice of requiring all customers to pay the minimum monthly payment by direct debit as an example. The OFT acknowledged that in those circumstances, a card issuer may be able to set a fair default charge above the threshold of £12.

look at 2 and 3 above. 2 says they have estimated their costs to be actual losses to them, how can this be?