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.
Hi All,
Newbie here (1st Post!) I have been looking back through my Egg statements (C/Card) and I know I can claim back things like unpaid d/d charges, BUT can I also claim the £20 Overlimit charge that they have imposed of several occasions also???
Sent email to Egg yesterday and go this reply today :- (where do I go from here?)
Dear Carl
I'm sorry to hear you feel like this about your Egg Card.
When you signed the credit card agreement on applying for an Egg Card you were shown the interest rates and charges. You then read and understood these terms and conditions. As you signed the agreement you agreed to pay these charges if you didn't keep to your agreement.
These charges are listed in your terms and conditions and are therefore legal charges.
The Office of Fair Trading gave recommendations only on charges applied by banks.
Egg don't generally refund charges accrued where the customer has failed to keep to an agreement that they accepted when they completed their credit card agreement.
I'm therefore unable to refund any charges to you as these have been applied legally to your Egg Card.
......these have been applied legally to your Egg Card.
They have NOT been applied legally to your Egg Card. Make sure you retain this letter for your court bundle which goes out on a limb deviating from the usual template churned off computer. I cannot remember ever seeing such blatant disinformation. I wonder if on the basis of this letter Egg can be done for blatant fraud.
The legal basis on the precedent of Dunlop v Garage 1910 ruled that one commercial party cannot "fine" or "penalise" another party financially. We claimants contend the Egg charge of £20, now £16 is an extortionate punitive charge, not a service charge for late payment or over-limit. Compare this with the £3 charged by banks and cards, on this day and every day, just across the water, in Dublin. See 2 links on V-E Day thread.
If you write back, inviting them to either withdraw their claim of legality and refund charges along with interest, or you look forward to seeing them in court to produce their post-event costings along with their "genuine preestimate of £16", to settle in front of the judge their claim of legality -- a claim so casually and rashly committed in black and white on Egg headed stationery.
My guess is they will hastily offer settlement, with a request "please sir, could you keep quiet about the claim we made."
This explains the surprise, it looks as if an inexperienced Eggployee improvised this injudicious Eggmail. Suggest you print it off and enclose a copy in a LETTER response you send to Egg, to make clear you have retained this evidence, and aim to present it for the judge's attention.
This does not look good for Egg. Only a judge can rule what is legal, Egg cannot go around laying down the law.
The above contains a suitable letter you could lift. Correspondence is like a ritual dance, where content is virtually irrelevant. Eggployees are not allowed to give in too easily, they are required to confirm you are firm in your intent, ready to go all the way to court.
Egg bosses will be reading in this forum daily, including this thread. If you reply enclosing a copy of Egg's email with severely misjudged sentence highlighted and exclamation marked!! Their boss will understand, that when this email reaches court, the judge will go ballistic at Egg's presumption in usurping judges' prerogative.
I've recently incurred a couple of over credit limit charges on my Egg Card.
The problem is they've charged me £16 which as we all know is above the £12 limit recommended by the OFT.
I've emailed them on 2 separate instances requesting they refund the difference between £12 and £16, there being 3 charges which of course comes to the massive total of £12.
In spite of me letting them know that I am prepared to delve back over the 6 years to see what the total charges are (I know for a fact that I was being pasted for charges around 2002) and suggesting that they will be a lot higher than the £12 I am asking for. The stubborn b*ggers have still refused, so being the awkward so-and-so that I am I'm considering taking them on just for the hell of it (damn I hate bullies). I've also threatened to make formal complaints to the OFT and the Financial Services Commission.
So what I really need to know is how powerful is the OFT finding that charges should be no more than £12? And has anyone here taken on Egg?
Is it just me, but I was sure these firms tout the internet as allowing them to have lower overheads therefore need to charge less? Even Capital One only charges the recommended £12!
Here's the last reply which I received from Egg today
Dear Kurt
I'm sorry that you feel this and your dissatisfaction has been noted.
Just to irritate (sic) what my colleague has already informed you, when you exceed your credit limit at any time during your statement period you're charged a £16.00 overlimit fee, if you don't exceed the limit no charge will be added to your account.
Therefore I'm unable to refund the charges that have been applied to your account already.
If you'd like top make formal complaint please write in to our Customer Relations department who deal with issues like this one on the address I've provided below:
On 5th April 2006 the OFT CEO did NOT say £12 is ok for credit card charges. They said at £12 and less, the OFT will not take legal action, i.e. they will ABSTAIN. At no time did OFT approve of £12 as acceptable. OFT were at pains to point this out endlessly. OFT are currently reviewing the wider question of card and bank charge levels, and may come out with a revised figure, but the OFT moves slowly.
In 2006 Egg did manage to wrangle a special dispensation from the OFT of £16 for Egg, claiming special costings situation for the only internet-based card in UK. This £16 is widely known, imbedded somewhere in the pronouncement below, running to reams of paper:
If punitive or profiteering charges are unlawful, then quite what level of charge would lawfully reflect honest compensation for cards and banks in the UK? Well, CAG found out via covert research that the Northern Bank group costed it at £2 to £3.
For me, action is more convincing than words. Across the water Irish banks charge only £3, see links below.
The reality is that Shylock cards and banks have been getting away with unlawful charges for 20 years, whereas claimants are seeking retrospective juctice for merely 6 years, unless claimants can somehow retrieve older statements as evidence.
Your situation regarding charges in 2002, is that for every £20 charged, by now you will have been charged additional monthly compounded interest adding up to a total of about £40 (assuming your account maintained a debit balance at all times). £20 charges are reclaimable, £16 charges are reclaimable, Contractual Interest is reclaimable. For every month you do not reclaim, that original £20 charge will be triggering £1 additional debit interest.
How can Irish banks charge £3 when Egg charges £16? Are Irish banks 5.3 times as efficient, or are they absorbing a loss of £13 each and every time? Egg is of course welcome to present evidence and defend their costings in court.
Justice is even-handed -- equally for the poor, and the rich.
On 5th April 2006 the OFT CEO did NOT say £12 is ok for credit card charges. They said at £12 and less, the OFT will not take legal action, i.e. they will ABSTAIN. At no time did OFT approve of £12 as acceptable. OFT were at pains to point this out endlessly. OFT are currently reviewing the wider question of card and bank charge levels, and may come out with a revised figure, but the OFT moves slowly.
In 2006 Egg did manage to wrangle a special dispensation from the OFT of £16 for Egg, claiming special costings situation for the only internet-based card in UK. This £16 is widely known, imbedded somewhere in the pronouncement below, running to reams of paper:
So much for the dot com motto of "we're internet based so we can keep our prices down"!
Well I've already asked then for the 6 years worth of statements. They had their chance to settle for 12 quid, now it's going to cost them a lot more!
......Back in December we missed our monthly payment on the 23rd due to charges being taken from our Bank account (£1200 in 3 months - which we got back in full in Feb, without filing at court). The payment to egg was less than £10. egg added charges of 2x £16 for unpaid D/D and £16 for a late charge. The Bank charged us 2x £39. So, for a payment of £9 odd we incurred charges of £126......
Assuming constant monthly interest at 1.85%,
assuming debit balance maintained throughout the period,
this charge of £126 triggered by a shortfall of £9,
would after 6 years turn into £471.
Had this reply from Egg from my last email - what should I do now??
Any help greatly appreciated.
Carl
Dear Carl
When you signed the credit card agreement on applying for an Egg Card you were shown the interest rates and charges. You then read and understood these terms and conditions. As you signed the agreement you agreed to pay these charges if you didn't keep to your agreement.
These charges are listed in your terms and conditions and are therefore legal charges.
The Office of Fair Trading gave recommendations only on charges applied by banks.
Egg are not refunding charges accrued where the customer has failed to keep to an agreement that they accepted when they signed their contract for an Egg Card.
Egg have already lowered their charges from £20.00 to £16.00.
I'm therefore unable to refund any charges to you as these have been applied legally to your Egg Card.
Thanks for your message.
Regards
Linda Moorehead
Internet Customer Services
-----Original Message-----
Date: 27 Apr 2007
Time: 18:58
Subject:Unfair Bank Charges
To Who it may concern,
(please read all of this email ? including your own response to my original email, as I am positive that your employee has assumed he knows the legal complications of his answer). I have saved the email from yourselves for production in court if necessary.
Thank you for your email dated 26th April 2007, 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.
I do hope that you will respond positively to this email 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 plus my costs. To clarify, a positive response being no less than an offer of full settlement of all charges incurred on my account.
In your email to me, your employee Jawad Nazir states ?These charges are listed in your terms and conditions and are therefore legal charges?, ?The Office of Fair Trading gave recommendations only on charges applied by banks.? and ?I'm therefore unable to refund any charges to you as these have been applied legally to your Egg Card.? I am positive that once this case reaches court, a judge would not be happy with Egg?s presumption in usurping judges' prerogative.
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, as per the attached schedule. I will give you 14 days to respond to this email before taking the matter further.
Claiming Charges from Egg
statements (C/Card) and I know I can claim back things like unpaid d/d charges, BUT can I also claim the £20 Overlimit charge that they have imposed of several occasions also???
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by carlstewart
