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.
I requested copies of statements over the phone on mid March and they arrived a couple of weeks later.
Sent off my Prelim on 4 April for £268.00 and last Friday received an offer from them:
....Following the OFT investigation last August Egg reduced their charges from £20.00 to £16.00. Although they state this reduction is not retrospective, they have offered to refund the £4 difference to me.....
Quote:
“2. You allege that these charges are a penalty. You have out 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 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.
4. Following the conclusion of the investigation, the OFT indicated that it would not proceed further against Egg on the basis that Egg reduced it’s charges from £20 to £16.”
Before I send off my rejection and lba is there any wording that anyone knows about that can respond to these comments in particular?.... please
You have great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £20.
You have great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £16.
You have great respect for all future Genuine Pre-estimates.
As a cardholder you cannot help wondering, if after 15(?) years in business Egg has ever tried to reconcile Pre-estimates against Post-event audits.
You are confident that a company devoted to justice and truth like Egg will not withhold evidence from the cardholder, that Egg will present evidence in court to show after-the-event costs, as well as before-the-event Genuine Pre-estimates.
You are so much looking forward to seeing Egg in court.
Thanx Mistermind ... certainly to the point. My response came on the back of my lba. Should I still send a rejection letter, confirming that action will be taken as per my LDA letter (deadline) and detail as confirmed above.
Thanks for the posts and congratulations to Animaleyes.
I have spent some time drafting the following letter for my response:
Thank you for your letter dated 13 April 2007 in which you offer £XX.00 in Full and final settlement of my complaint, however, I do not consider this a satisfactory response. I refer to the points raised in your letter as follows:
(1) Regardless of whether the credit card agreement states that charges will be added to the account if the credit limit is exceeded or fail to make contractual payments, it is the amount of the default charge which is in question.
(2) You have been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me, as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I believe your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ. 963. It was held that a contractual party can only receive damages for an actual loss or liquidated loss. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and/or real loss.
If your charges are indeed a genuine pre-estimate of the administrative costs likely to be incurred by you in dealing with defaults then in order to reassure me that your penalties really do reflect your costs, I once again request that you provide me with a Breakdown and proof of all costs involved with regard to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (e). I would expect this to include a comparison of all charges levied against all customers and the actual costs incurred by you when those customers default.
(3) I refer to your comment regarding the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) default charge threshold of £12.00. I am aware that the OFT have stated that “where there are exceptional business factors... for example where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg….it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold”. However, this does not mean that your £16.00 is considered fair. The OFT state that only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair.
Therefore, I will accept the sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder, with a county court claim, if necessary, although I sincerely hope that it will not be. Please also be aware that the Leeds County Court are transferring all claims of this nature to the Mercantile Court.
I do hope that you will respond positively to this letter in order to avoid court proceedings, as if this case does go to court you will be aware that you could also be liable for 8% statutory interest on the total amount of charges claimed (as of today this amounts to £XX) plus my costs. To clarify, a positive response being no less than an offer of full settlement of all charges incurred on my account.
I am aware of many cases that you have settled in full out of court to date and I assume therefore that would also be your intention in this case. If that is so, then to allow this claim to get that far may be considered an abuse of the court process, so I once again, respectfully request that you refund the total amount of charges I am claiming, now totalling £XXX.00 as per the attached schedule. I will give you 14 days to respond to this letter before taking the matter further.
Any comments, suggestions etc greatly appreciated.
For one year the same legal arguments have been replayed like table tennis by both sides without variation, in a dialogue of the deaf, with Egg refusing to show up for a showdown in court.
Egg's stance is that £16 is their latest "Genuine Pre-estimate", and cardholders critical of same have failed to produce evidence they are not a true reflection of Egg's costs. Various Australian studies have put the cost to be a few pounds. CAG undercover investigation found out Northern Bank's inhouse costing system Cynthesis put the cost between £2 and £3 -- alas without convincing photocopies as evidence.
I believe the most convincing word is deeds. On this day and every day, Irish banks charge £3 where Egg charges £16 and Natwest charges £39. If one shop sells an item at £3, and the shop next door sells exactly the same for £16. For what reason?
Denied access to Egg's inhouse costings, this is the best evidence of punitive charging which Egg cardholders can produce pre-trial. Are Egg's costs 5.3 times as high as Dublin's? Are Egg's salaries 5.3 times as high as Dublin's?
I believe the Dublin evidence would act like a crucifix held in front of Dracula -- there can be no rebuttal. For 2 Irish links showing £3 T&C online, see V-E Day thread.
As for institutions threatening all the way to defend in court, then at the last minute diving under the carpet and settling out of court, this is Abuse of Process. If this phrase is imbedded inside the letter, and the letter imbedded in the legal bundle, eventually the judge can see for himself, and Egg knows this. The point is, Egg have been warned. Forewarned, any repeat Abuse of Process is intentional, not accidental.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but I've written to Egg using a variant of the letter in post 8 and now get the reply about "genuine pre-estimate". They say it's their final response to my "complaint" and that I can go to the FSO if I want.
I also have a possibly dubious CCA from them.
I'm wondering if I should write and send the letter from post 3, but I think they really do not intend to pay and that legal action would be my only recourse. If so, it would be better to challenge the CCA first if it's not enforceable.
Me v Egg
reduced their charges from £20.00 to £16.00. Although they state this reduction is not retrospective, they have offered to refund the £4 difference to me.....
Reply With Quote
