I complained about Egg: 1. Initially raising my interest rate arbitrarily. 2. Terminating my agreement whilst the account was in dispute. 3. Issuing a default. 4. Sending me a credit agreement that was missing required terms. 5. Not sending the required terms and conditions in response to S78. 6. Passing an account in dispute to a DCA. 7. Lack of compliance with S85. 8. Applying interest and charges whilst in default. 9. Penalty charges in general. Probably more, but that's the gist of it.

I am not going for any money back as long as they don't push me. I will happily settle for not having to pay them anything else, but if they push it I will go for all interest paid under Section 85 & flawed credit agreement, which would clear the debt and leave me plenty left over. It's their call.

Received two letters this morning: One from the FOS saying they are allocating a caseworker to look at my complaint against Egg. This made me smile as I know it will now cost Egg £400. The second was from MBNA, offering me a discount of 40% to settle my debt with them. This made me smile too. MBNA wrote to me a couple of weeks ago stating that their credit agreement was 100% watertight and they could easily secure a CCJ and a charging order on my house. I wrote back telling them to go ahead and try and listing all that was wrong with their so called agreement. Do you think it is now a coincidence that this letter has come, dated 4 days after they would have received my previous letter? I certainly don't! I love to watch them squirm.

How could a judge go so blatantly against what the law states? Answer, they couldn't.

Hi AC, did TS say which bits they feel Egg haven't compled with? This is all of interest to me as my Egg agreement is the same as yours.

Not sure about that, but the fact remains that Egg apply default charges to accounts governed by these agreements. Where is their right to do so if it's not mentioned in the agreement itself?

Hmm, do I smell something?

Just a quick correction, the fact it's not signed by the creditor makes it improperly executed, but not unenforceable. It can still be enforced by a court as long as it contains all presribed terms and is signed by the debtor.

You know, I'm still not convinced on this. If an agreement is executed on my signature, that's it, it's done and binding on both...no going back. Now, agreements with the wording 'not binding on us until we have completed our final checks', or the like, leave the creditor a way out. Therefore, it cannot possibly be be executed at my signature as there is still some work for them to do before they will accept it. I could be barking up completely the wrong tree, but couldn't this be challenged under 'agreement to enter into a future regulated agreement', making it potentially void?

The agreement would be regulated by the CCA 1974. The fact that the heading is wrong is just another thing wrong with it and another thing to challenge.

Default charges are a required term, not a prescribed term.

FFS, you are starting to annoy me now. Section 127 (3): 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). Shall not = prohibited. Get it yet? I'm usually tolerant but you are now deliberately trying to mislead and that makes you a moron!

But what debate?? It's black and white, no agreement = no enforcement.

Giving misinformation. And you didn't answer my question.

See, you're doing it again! Right, first things first. The 2006 amendments are not retrospective in terms of S127, so if an agreement was made before 6th April 2007, it is still covered by S127 and is completely unenforceable if no agreement exists. So, are you actually saying that if a creditor takes a debtor to court and no agreement exits, and the debtor points this out to the judge, then the judge may still make an enforcement order simply on the basis that payments have been made?

meshi is right, you're talking nonsense. I suggest you read the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in particluar sections 60, 61, 65 and 127. If there is no agreement (or an agreement lacking prescribed terms) a judge is prohibited from making an enforcement order. It wouldn't matter if the debtor had a t-shirt on saying 'I owe the money', the law is the law and a judge must implement it.

rich, it's not really my statement. The links I posted show what it and isn't a cancellable agreement. In terms of our Egg agreements, did we have face to face discussions with Egg before signing the agreements. No we didn't, therefore it is not a cancellabe agreement. It's fact, not just my opinion.

You can't prove a negative, so there is no obligation on you to prove you didn't receive it. The onus is on them to prove they sent it, and their records should show this if it is true.

Hi, there is no obligation for the bank to have a credit agreement for an overdraft facility. Overdrafts are not covered by Sections 77/78 of the CCA 1974.

A mortgage is a loan to buy property, regardless of amount. A loan of any kind over £25,000 is not covered by the CCA 1974 until the 2006 amendments.

From OFT guidance: A cancellable credit agreement is one where: - during the negotiations before the agreement is made, a trader (who, in this case, may be the creditor, the credit broker or the supplier) – in the presence of the customer – discusses the prospective agreement or a transaction to be financed by credit provided under it, and - the unexecuted agreement (that is the document embodying the prospective agreement which has not yet been signed by both trader and customer) is signed by the customer off trade premises. If these conditions are not met, the agreement is non-cancellable.

Best to read these to see the difference: OFT guide to cancellable agreements OFT guide to non-cancellable agreements

The Egg agreements don't need cancellation rights as there was no face to face discussion between creditor and debtor prior to the signing of the agreement. Therefore, they are non-cancellable agreements.

Hi Peter, wouldn't D apply to running account credit rather than A?

I don't think it matters does it? If they are in default he can stop payments anyway.