Jump to content

militantconsumer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

1 Follower

About militantconsumer

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Fred I haven't read all 334 posts on this thread but I get the general gist. We recently successfully defended a case brought against us by Egg. (They gave up about 5 minutes before the hearing and decided to discontinue proceedings). I would say that the exact way you word your defence is not of huge importance, because you will also need to prepare a witness statement at a later date, and of course attend the hearing. Having said that, there is the issue of engaging a solicitor. We also decided to engage a solicitor at a later stage. However, the first one we contacted said
  2. What a pity that a key part of the story has been deleted from this thread at some point in the last 24 hours. Perhaps those couple of posts broke the forum rules, but I haven't received any kind of message explaining this.
  3. LOL!!! We couldn't have achieved any of this without the help and experience of many other posters on this site (including Elizabeth1). In my excitement to post the result I forgot to thank everybody, so here is a big: Thank you to everybody else who has contributed to this story ! PS The ironic thing is that this WAS a rolled up loan as it combined various other Egg loans and Egg card agreements, which might have been enforceable on their own, into one big topped up loan. But they got greedy and tried to add some PPI onto it without telling us, and that was their und
  4. Calculations of Amounts which may be owed 1. The court may disagree with my arguments in the areas of the Default Notice, Multiple Agreements, Secret Commissions and the Unfair Relationship, finding that the agreement is enforceable. 2. In this case it will be necessary to determine the exact amount (if any) owed to the Claimant. 3. Despite numerous requests, the Claimant did not send me any statement of account until 25th June 2010, after proceedings had been commenced – Exhibit KA3 – Reply to CPR Letter from Claimant. 4. These state
  5. Unfair Relationship I believe that this agreement, together with the way that it was initiated and maintained, and taking various other factors into account, has created an unfair relationship between the Claimant and me. The Claimant used ‘hard sell’ techniques on many occasions to persuade me to sign up to complex financial products at a time when I was financially inexperienced. For example, on 15th July 2004 I telephoned the Claimant with an enquiry about a savings account and was transferred to a sales person who tried to convince me to to
  6. Secret Commission I believe that the Claimant may have made a ‘secret’ profit from the PPI policy sold with the loan, and that the cash price of the loan may therefore be less than the figure appearing on the agreement. The Claimant is not an insurance company and so would have arranged PPI using third parties. According to a Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) press released dated 10th December 2008 - Exhibit KA15 – FSA press release - the Claimant was fined £721,000 by the FSA for mis-selling PPI policies to its customers. Although this f
  7. Multiple Agreement The Claimant’s own internal documents relating to this loan show that they considered loans to be made up of various parts such as cash, PPI and payments towards “Egg Cards” (the Claimant’s credit card division). Exhibit KA13 – Claimant’s multi-part breakdown of loan The loan agreement appears to show that I received £505.29 in cash, that £6,100.71 was retained by the Claimant as settlement of a previous loan agreement, and that there was also a PPI policy which further increased my indebtedness by £1,418.24. Exhibit KA13 – Clai
  8. Notice of Default Section 87(1) of CCA 1974 states that a default notice must be served on the debtor before the creditor may terminate the agreement or demand earlier payment of any sum. Therefore if no default notice was issued the Claimant has no right to take legal action against me for the alleged debt. LJP2 contains a ‘template’ default notice which the Claimant states was sent to me by Royal Mail and not returned. The Claimant does not give a date for the Default Notice in their Witness Statement. The ‘template’ LJP2 includes only the d
  9. Introduction I, XXX of XXXX Street, XXXX, XXXX, make the following statement, believing it to be true. This case has come to court after I decided to stop making regular payments in March 2009 when I believed I may no longer be indebted to the Claimant and the Claimant was refusing to provide information about my account. The Claimant was using a debt collector to demand £5,224.33 as late as 22nd December 2009, whereas the claim is for only £3,746.84 – Exhibit KA19 – Debt Collection Letters. I have written over 20 letters to the Claimant
  10. Witness Statement 1. Response to Bryan Carter Witness Statement 2. Introduction 3. Notice of Default 4. Multiple Agreement 5. Secret Commission 6. Unfair Relationship 7. Calculations of Amounts which may be owed NOTE: Numbering in the next few posts is not consistent. In the original document we used continuous numbering, i.e. from point 1 to point 118. (the forum automatically re-numbers in places)
  11. I have to go to work this afternoon but can/will post up copies of various documentation later - mainly our own witness statement, which is what Egg were up against. I can tell you now that the main points covered in our witness statement were: 1. Was default notice issued properly (or at all) - if not they can't take us to court 2. Multiple Agreements angle (re-finance, PPI and cash) and so improperly executed and so unenforceable - as explained earlier in this thread 3. Secret Commissions - was a secret commission made on PPI and was this a 'charge for credit'. If so they shou
  12. The interesting question is why Egg didn't want this to go before a judge. There was no risk of costs because it was small claims track. They had already spent money on the court claims, on Bryan Carter preparing a reply to our defence and a witness statement, on Shoosmiths making calls and sending us offer emails over the last week, on an Egg employee writing an additional (ludicrous) witness statement, and then on sending a barrister along today. Having already spent all that money, why not let the barrister go into court for one hour longer and get a judgment for £4,000? Why offer to s
  13. We have won!!! We went back to court this morning to find that Egg had sent a barrister (Mr Faucett) along to represent them. He tried various negotiation tactics with us in the waiting area, up until the point that the judge was waiting for us to go into court. We didn't accept any of these offers because, although the claim of £4,000 eventually went down to an offer of us paying just £1,000 to Egg, they were only going to mark our credit file as "part-satisfied" rather then "fully satisfied". The judge let us know via the usher that he wanted to know what the issues were and whethe
×
×
  • Create New...