Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

V-E Day: Victory over Egg


Mistermind
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Suggest go to the last page

 

 

 

Venicegondolasatsunset.jpg?t=1190149312

 

 

 

A legend has grown up that Egg always digs in, and nobody can beat the Egg. This is untrue, Egg have caved in time and again and offered full refund, but attaching a confidentiality condition each time.

 

All who have been offered full refund are invited to briefly describe their success. As postings will be under anonymous forum names this action will not breach the confidentiality agreement -- unless any legal eagle knows different.

 

The jungle of Egg threads have grown to such volumes that it is hard to keep up. Suggest this thread be used like a quick index to navigate to other threads with full details -- the sheer number of successes will encourage others being put through the same ordeal by Egg.

 

Egg is in retreat. Lets turn it into a rout.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No offence to anyone, but if you let them attach a confidentiality clause to your settlement, you are letting them build that legend.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to let any bank attach any conditions to your claim. YOU are the claimant, THEY are the defendant, and there is no legal or moral reason whatsoever to accept them setting conditions to refunding you YOUR money.

 

Out of all the bank claims on my sig, all but one of them tried to impose confidentiality. I refused on every one of them. And got my money on every one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joa mentioned in his thread that Egg has switched law firms and now Egg appears to be falling into line, refunding like other institutions and no longer fighting to the last ditch wasting everybody's time -- cheers to all still going through the process.

 

Apparently Egg insists on a confidentiality agreement in every case, hence we have heard but a fraction of the success stories, without the heart-warming names and figures. No way can open secrets be covered up for long.

 

Message to Egg -- please pull your finger out of the dyke. The deluge is coming in spite of you.

Admanbo80 - won on 20th December 2006.

 

Johnnie Reclaim - won on 21st December 2006.

 

Joa - won on 22nd December 2006.

 

CAG Claimants 9 - Egg 0 icon10.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have claimed against several banks and 4 have tried t attatch a confy clause i do hope i will be the first to get payout without accepting the confy clause i am looking forward to seeing their confy clause

bring it on egg just try and break me if you can

SETTLED CASES

LTSB (CC) £20 21-8-06

HSBC (CC) £600 19-10-06

HSBC (Ac) No.1 £1900 25-10-06

RBS (CC) £900 25-10-06

Smile (Ac) £1300 17-11-06

A&L (Ac) No.1 £400 23-11-06

A&L (Mortgage ERC) £3900 4-12-06

LTSB (Ac) £200 13-12-06

A&L (Ac) No.2 £120 19-12-06

HSBC (Ac) No.2 £650 29-12-06

LTSB (Business) £1700 13-2-07

RBS (Ac) £4500 + Default Removal 17-3-07

Barclays (Bus) Warrant of Execution 10-3-07 not used yet

ONGOING CASES

Egg (CC) N1 Filed £1300 + Default Removal Judgment Order 9/1/07 In my Favour

Barclays Business loan & 2 accs. S.A.R N1 filed Judgment in Default isued 15/2/07

HSBC (CC) have failed to produce Credit Agreement

TO DO CASES

Egg (Loan)

LTSB (Ac Ltd Company)

LTSB (Loan)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the greatest respect to you Mistermind, I have not won!

 

Egg have offered a settlement figure to me which is incorrect, bound by unacceptable terms. Therefore I am unable to accept Egg's offer.

 

The battle is not over in my case!

 

Mistermind, I can appreciate that by compiling a list of successful Claimants may provide great encouragement to others, but obviously the list has to be correct. Your statement: "Angry Cat won on 30th December 2006" is wrong, I have not won but simply been offered an amount of money.

 

As soon as the Courts re-open, I intend to amend my Claim and or, issue a further Claim against Egg.

 

No offence intended.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Angry but Polite Cat, there is no greater compliment to a thread than an inaccuracy pointed out by readers.

 

Painting an impression on New Years Eve, the ranks of the Allied forces are massed outside the Brandenburg Gate, and the lawbreakers are hiding and squirming in the underground bunker unable to face unconditional surrender.

 

CAG Claimants 9.5 icon10.gif -- Egg 0 icon9.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

----------------------------------

On a different note, I read in Betfair forum the following interesting posting re delaying tactics, i.e. having settled in other similar cases, what is the bank's intention in making as if it wants to fight another case -- apart from dragging out the process as long as possible, and intimidating claimants who are laymen at law!

Such blatant time wasting will not be tolerated by the court.

------------------------------

 

Neil Warnock AKA Colin ******

 

10 Jan 10:45

spacer.gifIn Lincoln, a district judge put on the orders the following

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a 4th case where this has happened at Lincoln, the other 3 being myself (kazzaw) v LTSB, mahatmacoate v LTSB & jodyperry v NatWest?

 

If this is a fourth case which bank is the claim against?

FIRST DIRECT: £4751.86 SETTLED IN FULL 5/07/06 :-)

 

TESCO VISA CARD: £90 SETTLED IN FULL 12/08/06 :)

 

LLOYDS TSB: £4403.59 SETTLED IN FULL 17/08/06 :)

EGG: £451.52 SETTLED IN FULL 18/01/07 :)

 

 

Opinions and advice of kazzaw are independent, offered informally, without prejudice, without liability, and not endorsed by the Bank Action Group. If in any doubt, seek the advice of a qualified, insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll of Honour - full refund won from Egg:

 

.5th December 2006 - Yasmin

13th December 2006 - Mcuth

20th December 2006 - Admanbo80

21st December 2006 - Johnnie Reclaim

21st December 2006 - blackcatchillers

22nd December 2006 - Joa

28th December 2006 - waynedear

28th December 2006 - Sassylass

28th December 2006 - Feergal71

13th January... 2007 - Kazzaw....... (without confidentiality clause)

13th January... 2007 - KateandPete (without confidentiality clause)

 

..CAG Claimants 11 - Egg nil

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I know some people were also trying to get their default removed. Has that happened to anyone who has won his or her case?

 

 

Thanks,

Hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mistermind-

 

The following is the Egg Roll of Honour:-

 

Re: V-E Day: Victory over Egg

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Roll of Honour - full refund won from Egg:

 

.5th December 2006 - Yasmin

13th December 2006 - Mcuth

20th December 2006 - Admanbo80

21st December 2006 - Johnnie Reclaim

21st December 2006 - blackcatchillers

22nd December 2006 - Joa

28th December 2006 - waynedear

28th December 2006 - Sassylass

28th December 2006 - Feergal71

13th January... 2007 - Kazzaw....... (without confidentiality clause)

13th January... 2007 - KateandPete (without confidentiality clause)

 

..CAG Claimants 11 - Egg nil

 

Plus:-

 

18th January... 2007 - Schnide (without confidentiality clause)

 

Because my Court hearing is on Monday 29 January, I really need the Claim Numbers plus amounts & date of the winning Claimants!

 

I have trawled the Litigants Concluded forum and the only Egg Claimant showing that I can find on that forum is maroonfox5 that has had their Claim settled.

 

It would really help me and other future Claimants against Egg, if the County Court Claim Numbers plus amount claimed could be added to your roll of honour. Obviously, the members Claim Numbers, who accepted the confidentiality clause should not be added.

 

Angry Cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear pussycat,

 

With your hearing on Monday there is hardly much time left, and not everyone visits this site every day. To ensure making contact in time, I would have thought it best for yourself to send a PM with as much tact as urgency, to the 3 winners who were happy to make public their unconditional victory. Best of luck!

 

I have always got on well with cats, so am not scared of same.

But to the Egg I say: be afraid, be very afraid.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would really help me and other future Claimants against Egg, if the County Court Claim Numbers plus amount claimed could be added to your roll of honour. Obviously, the members Claim Numbers, who accepted the confidentiality clause should not be added.

 

Angry Cat

 

Here's mine:

 

KAZZAW V EGG

 

Claim number: 6QZ73946

Issued: 17.10.06

Court: MCOL

Charges: £300

Interest: £93.51

Costs: £50

Total Claim: £443.51

 

Transferred to Mansfield County Court. Bundle to be submitted by 18/01/07.

 

Received cheque for full settlement inc interest to 20/01/07, £451.79 on 16/1/07

 

Hope that helps AC. ;)

FIRST DIRECT: £4751.86 SETTLED IN FULL 5/07/06 :-)

 

TESCO VISA CARD: £90 SETTLED IN FULL 12/08/06 :)

 

LLOYDS TSB: £4403.59 SETTLED IN FULL 17/08/06 :)

EGG: £451.52 SETTLED IN FULL 18/01/07 :)

 

 

Opinions and advice of kazzaw are independent, offered informally, without prejudice, without liability, and not endorsed by the Bank Action Group. If in any doubt, seek the advice of a qualified, insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And mine..

kateandpete vs. Egg

Claim number: 6WA02787

Court: Warrington County Court

Issued:16/11/06 approx

Acknowledged: 28/11/06

AQ's filed by: 08/01/07

Settlement in full sent on: 9/01/07

Total sum: £456.72 (of which £320 charges, remainder interest charged on penalties, 8% interest on both and...)

Court fees: £50

NatWest Charges: £3708.81. Allocated to fast track 14/10/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 23/10/06 5% donation made

 

HSBC Default Removal and £186 charges: N1 claim issued 28/11/06 *WON* 28/02/07 5% donation made

 

Egg Charges: £370. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/01/07 5% donation made

 

Natwest Student: £150. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 10/12/06 5% donation made

Natwest Credit card: £317.01 INCLUDING CONTRACTUAL INTEREST, *WON* 30/11/06 5% Donation Made

 

Ikano Data Protection Act deception and non-complience: N1 claim issued 28/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/12/06 5% donation made

I am not a lawyer. All advice is merely my own opinion. Nevertheless, I've won £4675 so far!

Tip my scales if you like my advice :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possession may be nine points of the law,

but the tenth point has arrived -- repossession by bailiffs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430129&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

Customer sends bailiffs in to seize bank's computers

Declan Purcell: Striking a blow for the customer

 

A man who was fed up with paying massive bank charges decided to give one of the high street giants a taste of its own medicine. When Royal Bank of Scotland refused to refund £3,400 charges that Declan Purcell believed he was owed, he sent in the bailiffs.

Stunned customers at his branch of RBS watched as debt collectors seized four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash. The branch manager was told that the items would be sold unless RBS came up with the money owed to Mr Purcell. Only when the manager gave an undertaking that the debt would be paid did the bailiffs leave.

Mr Purcell said: "I think the bank was pretty shocked when the bailiffs went in. But my view is that this is exactly what they would have done to me." The move, which will raise a cheer from millions of other bank customers, is part of a consumer fightback against bank charges, which net an estimated £4.5 billion every year.

Every time a current account customer goes overdrawn by as little as £1 most banks will charge around £28, even though the administration cost is only about £4.50. Then every cheque, direct debit, or card transaction that goes through or is bounced incurs another charge of up to £38. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating whether banks have implemented these charges unlawfully. The Daily Mail's Fair Play on Charges campaign and that run by the Consumer Action Group have helped thousands reclaim charges in the past year.

Like other customers Mr Purcell, 48, from East London, had warned his bank that he was prepared to go to court to claim back charges he believes were imposed unlawfully. In June last year he demanded the refund of £3,400 charges he accrued during the previous six years while running a motorcycle dealership. RBS ignored the claim so in October Mr Purcell filed an online application to get the money back through the county court.

 

After 30 days the bank had not responded and so on December 10 the court ruled in Mr Purcell's favour. It ordered RBS to pay the charges and £120 court costs. When RBS again failed to respond Mr Purcell got the court to give him a warrant of execution, allowing him to order debt collectors to reclaim items from the bank equal in value to the amount he was owed.

Finally on Monday, January 8, a team of debt collectors walked into the busy Camden Town branch in North London, demanded to see the manager, showed their court order and announced that they were repossessing items.

Mr Purcell, who now works for London Underground, said: "I was dismayed by the bank's reaction when I made my claim for a refund – it was so rude and arrogant. They thought they were above the law, so it is great to know that customers can use the law in the same way the bank does to get money they are owed."

A spokesman for RBS said: "We are looking into this as a matter of urgency, but early indications suggest that unfortunately due to an administrative error, the bank failed to defend the claim leading to a default judgment being obtained on the branch and a resulting warrant. "The confusion was cleared up at the branch."

Marc Gander, who set up campaign website Consumer Action Group, which helps consumers get refunds from their banks, said: "I am quite sure that Mr Purcell will not be the last person to send bailiffs in to his bank. The continued operation by UK high street banks of their unlawful charges regimes will see to that. "The heavy-handed debt collecting approach is something that the banks have been handing out to their customers for years. Mr Purcell simply gave them a bit of their own back."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...