I too have received the letter saying basically, bog off! I knew it wouldn't be easy but I'm only asking for £160! Peanuts to them.

Should I complain to the Ombudsman or wait for their response to the letter before action that I'll send today?

I have submitted a claim to the court re egg's charges. I'm only claiming about £140 plus costs. Today I found out that they intend to defend the claim.

I was so ready to kick arse before but now I'm a bit worried. Should I follow the claim through and what are my chances of success?

Follow it through - read the other posts which show that they sometimes 'say' they will defend, and then mysteriously fail to submit any!

If you receive their defence, however, simply get in touch with the site staff (BankFodder or Dave) and they will guide you through it.

It need not be scary!

Lots of people are here to suppor you, guide you and hold your hand...don't be bullied any longer x

Go for it!! We are all here to support you, good luck!!

Yep, Dont back down...

They use scare tactics to stop you from claiming!

If you back down you will loose the claim and the costs....

Everyone is behind you, just have faith

Good Luck

xxxx

Yes - hang in there. If the bank kicks you, you kick them back, but twice as hard. Good luck.

This morning I have had the defence and counterclaim paperwork. Signed by the same chap as ANNALH.

Did anybody decide what this meant?

Not sure I want to continue now. Can't afford to lose more cash.

Maddy, copy the wording of the defence and post it back here. I will get site staff to look over it and let you know what to do next.

There is no need for you to worry about this - Egg will not want to show evidence of the costs they incur, which they would have to do if they followed through with their defence.

You have to remember that they will do their best to put you off - because it will save them a small fortune.

DON'T PANIC !!! We will help you.....

Was it exactly the same counterclaim?

The general consensus is that if they intend to counterclaim their costs they will have to prove how much these costs are. This would clearly be a lot less than the charges anyway.

That is why we are so surprised at the counterclaim - No bank or credit card company has ever given any evidence to anyone as to have much their costs are for unpaid DDs, late payments etc for obvious reasons.

I assume the court costs were 30(?) quid.

That is all you stand to lose, if it went to court and you lost - which is not very likely in my opinion - judge is going to see that the charges are punitive without a doubt, in my mind.

Also, think about the cost to the bank - their solicitors, the paperwork etc...

PLUS, if there was a 5% chance that they would lose (and I belive it to be about 99.5%) then the risk would still be too high for them. If (and when) they lose, their charges will be deemed unlawful - which means, for one thing, that they will have been seen to have concealed the true nature of the charges - and thus, opening the door for not only everyone else (due to the publicity that a case like this would enevitably attract) - but for everyone else REGARDLESS of the limitations act - i.e. people could claim back form many, many years - not just the 6 years as specified by the limitiations act - because they will have been proven to have deceived people into believing that they were entitled to the charge money, when in fact they wern't.

It's my guess that you will see the £140 quite shortly, along with a letter stating that it's not worth their while defending as it would cost more than that to do so, even though they still beleive that their charges are fair etc....blah....

They're just trying to scare you off - they know (or at least it's my opinion ;-) ) that they would lose and the repercusions of them losing are far wider than you just getting your money back.

See it through - see it as a fun game - I bet their directors do when they all stand around at cocktail parties congratulating themselves on making ANOTHER 3 Billion quid from the charges.

Thanks for that guys. I feel a lot happier about it now. If all I have to lose is £30 then it's worth a go.

I'll keep you updated.

Forum clean up - your claim threads have been merged. Please try to keep all posts about your claim to a single thread only. Thanks

This morning I have had the defence and counterclaim paperwork. Signed by the same chap as ANNALH.

 

Did anybody decide what this meant?

Can you please show the wording here, then the site staff can help you to proceed.

Thanks!!

Ok, here goes.

1. The claimant entered into an Egg Card agreement (the "Agreement) with the Defendant on 1 June 2004. The claimant is currently in breach of the Agreement and the Defendant has agreed to a scheme of arrangement ("the arrangement") whereunder the Defendant will waive any further interest due on the outstanding balance under the Agreement (£865.46), and the claimant has agreed to pay the Defendant £865.46 at the rate of £1 per month (to be reviewed at the end of six months). The Defendant avers that having agreed to repay the Defendant £865.46 under the Arrangement, the claimant is estopped from claiming that the said balance should now be reduced.

2. It is admitted that charges were added to the claimant's Egg Card during the course of the Agreement. Each charge was made pursuant to the clause 7.1 of the Agreement as a result of insufficient funds being available from the claimant's designated current account to cover the amount of the direct debit due on the Egg Card. Clause 7.1 clearly states:

"If you break the terms of this Agreement we may charge you the following, where relevant, to cover the additional cost to us:

£20 each month you go over the credit limit

£20 if you do not keep up the payments on the account.

The claimant failed to make payments on the account in April, July and November 2005 and charges were added to her account accordingly.

3. It is admitted that the claimant was charged for an unpaid direct debit on 19 July 2005: however, in accordance with the Defendant's policy to only charge one unpaid direct debit default charge per month, the charge was refunded to the claimant's account on the same day.

4. It is admitted that the claimant was charged for exceeding her credit limit on 24 April 2005 and 17 November 2005. Although the charges were added in accordance with the Agreement, as it was the unpaid direct debit default charges added to her account that caused the claimant to exceed her credit limit on these occaisions, the Defendant has refunded both charges to her account.

5. It is denied that the charges are a "disproportionate penalty" as alleged. The Defendant recognises that customers, such as the claimant, sometimes default with their Egg Card Agreements and the Defendant therefore puts in place systems to deal with such defaults. Such systems require computer systems, employees and necessarily incur administration and other costs. The Defendant's charges are calculated on the basis of the total costs incurred by the Defendant in maintaining those systems and the estimated number of customers (such as the claimant) who will exceed the agreed limits on their accounts. The Defendant avers therefore that the amount of the charges applied represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss and expenses caused to the Defendant in respect of such defaults.

6. Accordingly, it is denied that the charges are unenforceable at common law.

COUNTERCLAIM

7. In the event that the Court finds that the default charge levied on the claimant was an unfair penalty and is thus unenforceable, the Defendant counterclaims for the actual cost to the Defendant of dealing with the claimant's breach of contract in exceeding his credit limit, such costs to be assessed by the Court.

8. The Defendant counterclaims further for all and any other sums which may be due and payable by the claimant to the Defendant as at the date of judgement.

Statement of Truth

Dated this 28 April

I believe that the facts herein are true.

David St Clare Nelson

Legal Counsel

******************************************

Phew! That's it. Let me know what you make of that. I've only got until until 20th to get my defence in! Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you for that - it is currently being reviewed and we will reply asap.

John

Thats a real foot in the mouth defence and counterclaim. The idiot legal counsel who drafted that is now comitting Egg to proving their actual losses. The very thing that all banks have consistently refused to do - even before the parliamentary commission. Priceless.

I would bet my right arm that you will get your money and that defence will never see a court room

As to defending the counterclaim I would do this:

DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

1. The Claimant avers that the true cost to the Defendant as referred to in its counterclaim is deminimus only since it is the Claimant's understanding that the charges are levied automatically and by computer.

2. The Defendant is put to strict proof of the amount of the actual cost to it of dealing with the particular breaches by the Claimant of her agreement with the Defendant.

3. The Claimant denies that she is indebted to the Defendant in the unassessed amounts referred to in the counterclaim or at all in respect thereof.

Statement of truth etc.

Hope this helps

Just to let you know that I too had one of these defence and counterclaim letters signed by same guy. Egg did not pay the fee for the counterclaim part, and were given extra time to pay it. It has now been dismissed as they didn't pay, LOL....

The defence is still going ahead and I am now being sent the allocation questionairre. Maybe it would be worth looking into yours as to whether they have paid the fee yet.......just a worry tactic????

Good advice Yasmin - well done!

Just to let you know that I too had one of these defence and counterclaim letters signed by same guy. Egg did not pay the fee for the counterclaim part, and were given extra time to pay it. It has now been dismissed as they didn't pay, LOL....

The defence is still going ahead and I am now being sent the allocation questionairre. Maybe it would be worth looking into yours as to whether they have paid the fee yet.......just a worry tactic????

How do I find that out?

By the way, thanks so much for your help everyone. Was starting to get worried again!

OK maddyrose, the general consensus is as per the post above by rbrears (many thanks) which I will copy here agin for you........

DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

1. The Claimant avers that the true cost to the Defendant as referred to in its counterclaim is deminimus only since it is the Claimant's understanding that the charges are levied automatically and by computer.

2. The Defendant is put to strict proof of the amount of the actual cost to it of dealing with the particular breaches by the Claimant of her agreement with the Defendant.

3. The Claimant denies that she is indebted to the Defendant in the unassessed amounts referred to in the counterclaim or at all in respect thereof.

Statement of truth etc.

It would surprise everyone if they actually used that defence (i.e. by letting this go all the way) since they would effectively HAVE to produce evidence of their charges - this is the very thing they don't want to do.

Opinion is that the wording etc is only designed to scare you, and anyone else that gets it, into backing down.

If there is anything else you need to know, just post here again.

John (and the rest of the team)!

When I received the defence & counterclaim, there was no allocation questionairre with it. So, Called the court to enquire about the proceedure, that's when they told me that Egg hadn't paid the fee. At that stage court were giving them little extra time to pay it. So I guess if you have received the allocation questionairre, they will have paid the fee. However, if not it's worth giving the Court a call...Best of Luck.

Thanks everyone. I'll get it sent off today and let you know what happens.

Just had a thought reading through my defence again.

"3. The Claimant denies that she is indebted to the Defendant in the unassessed amounts referred to in the counterclaim or at all in respect thereof."

I am actually in debt with them and I'm way behind with payments. I have come to arrangement with them though through the cccs so I'm paying them £1 a month. I'm not great at this "legal English" but doesn't that say I'm denying that I'm behind with payments? If so, would it be wise to leave that bit out?