Egg Money CCA received - is it enforceable please

[cadwallader]

Apologies for second CCA post today but I also received a response from Egg with my Egg Money CCA. They included 32 pages of computer screen printout of 'Legal information you need to be aware of' but I have only included the first page of these as an example.

 

Could I please have any comment as to whether you think it is enforceable?

 

Many thanks

Egg Money CCA.pdf

Edited May 20, 2009 by cadwallader

[Pinky69]

If that is as good as it gets, it is illegible and they must send you a legible copy of the agreement. The las says it should be read " easily" and it would be a defence in court that you cannot read it.

[Pipster2797]

i think its readable but its unenforceable. read the following thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what-new-post.html

[cadwallader]

Thanks for the comment & link pipster.

 

The agreement does not contain the default charges - these are contained within the separate 32 page print out of Conditions.

 

It refers to a Approved Limit but does not state what that limit is.

 

Is there anything else I have missed?

[steven4064]

It is unenforceable as it does not have the prescribed term "credit limit". "Approved limit" will not do.

[beachcomber60]

If you zoom in on adobe reader your name and address is visible !

 

Beachy

[steven4064]

Beachy is right - I have removed the attachment

[cadwallader]

Thanks for spotting that. Have posted amended attachment with info obscured.

[beachcomber60]

Thanks for spotting that. Have posted amended attachment with info obscured.

 

 

 

No Problem -

 

Beachy

[cadwallader]

After much DCAing, including latest with Fredrickson, have now got my first ever letter from Bryan Carter!

 

 

What's the best response (account terminated last year on a faulty DN and as above, CCA unenforceable:

 

A. bemused letter

B. Tell him termination was rescission, which I have accepted, and that the CCA is unenforceable, or

C. Something different?

 

Thanks

 

Cadwallader

[Pinky69]

I go for the jugular and tell them the agreement was rescinded an why then leave them to stew. Watch Carter for trying to raise court action using a different address. Keep an eye on your credit reports to see if anything is entered.

[cadwallader]

Thanks Pinky. I must admit this seemed to me to be the most attractive option!

 

Haven't had another address for over 20 years but thanks for the warning - I will keep an eye on my CRA reports.

 

Regards

 

cadwallader

[cadwallader]

Just reviewing where I stand with this one. Below is the DN I received. Dates seem OK, even for 2nd class, but I am not sure about the demand for 2 payments - arrears & over-the-limit.

 

If I paid the arrears then the account would have been back within the limit. If I paid the over-the-limit amount then surely the arrears would be reduced by a similar amount? Aren't they collecting the same money twice?

 

 

 

 

Any comment appreciated

Thanks

Cadwallader

[Pinky69]

I think what they meant was the arrears was the amount due up to the limit and then there was an amount over the limit. However, you can challenge this DN on the fact that the amount given to remedy the breach is not "clear and easily understood" as it must be to comply with the Consumer Agreements (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. Also, the sum of what you must pay must be given in the section telling you what must be paid to remedy the breach so it is clear and easily understood. In my view this DN is invalid because they have confused you with the amounts saying what you must pay and have failed to give you the sum of the amounts in the required section. These are not de minimus matters. A DN must be exactly as laid down in the regulations.

[cadwallader]

Thanks Pinky

 

I will check the sums this evening but I think that they were demanding an amount to reduce the balance to the card limit and then demanding arrears of the outstanding payments (and not taking into account the over-the-limit payment) i.e. they are asking for the actual arrears plus an amount on top.

[Pinky69]

It seems to me academic what they are asking because the agreenens is illegible and the DN is defective. If they are still asking for payment, I would put the account in dispute if you haven't already done so and then ignore them.

[cadwallader]

The arrears amount on the DN equates to the first outstanding payment less 2 token payments. There is a second monthly payment outstanding at that point but it is more than they are asking as an over-the-limit payment, so doesn't make sense to me.

 

They did terminate shortly after the date given in the DN - when the account was in dispute because of non-compliance with s78 request.

[Pinky69]

Then if the agreement was terminated, it was terminated on the back of a faulty DN, which is unlawful rescission and all they can ask for is the arrears, if they ever find out what the arrears are.