r&b If you refused to pay based on their confusing "limit"/"approved limit"/"individual limit" term (not to mention "credit limit" on the website) you will not be alone, as there are probably at least 20 others following the same tactic.

I do agree with everything Toymaker1 has said about how to deal with debt problems in general. However, I also think there is some serious doubt about these Egg card agreements being enforceable or not, hence maybe a different tactic is required for them i.e. challenging them:

Hi A+ The following is my view of this, but it is not an area I know an enormous amount about, so please compare to other opinions.... ---- The way I read this letter is that it is another threat, a scare tactic. But this time, instead of threatening normal legal proceedings (a "court claim") they are threatening a statutory demand. They haven't actually issued a statutory demand yet. A statutory demand gives you 21 days to pay the full balance but can be set aside. I think it's easier to set it aside if you have already disputed the amount claimed. Here is some useful information about how stat demands are used to scare people and how they can be used to make somebody bankrupt, and how somebody can counter this: Legal Issues Explained - Statutory Demand

PC - I've seen some pretty inaccurate data on the Egg credit applications, but yours is certainly the funniest. I assume it's not an April fool! ---- NP - As I'm sure you realise, doing nothing is not an option here. I suspect that if you ignore all this correspondence you will soon receive a court claim, which they hope you will also ignore, so they get a CCJ by default to back their claim up. In my opinion you really need to dispute this properly, setting out your reasons to them. If they know you are serious then you might at least get a settlement out of court for a lower final payment, even if you are not prepared to fight on s18 all the way. By the way, which categories of credit are you saying your loan should have been divided between? (I mean which ones in CCA 1974)

Not to mention in breach of the Data Protection Act - ending an agreement and then continuing to pass information about your finances to third parties (some of that information being potentially defamatory).

Hi N.P Have you formally disputed the account, setting out your reasons? I think I'm right in saying they shouldn't issue legal proceedings if there is a genuine dispute? (but you should check). Perhaps Moorcroft will simply give up if they realise it's going to be difficult, and pass your account back to Egg? Certainly these letters are designed mainly to scare people - but of course they are right that they have now given you an official Letter Before Action. Remember the £5,000 small claims limit - if I have read it right your alleged outstanding balance is just over that, which could open you up to costs.

Hi Gary We haven't had a response to that letter yet - I will post on my thread when we do. To be honest I am waiting for the outcome of smt's thread - (s)he has a hearing in April, having filed the N244 at court. Here's that one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/165349-smt37-morgan-stanley-goldfish.html

Superg's thread shows what can happen. That story is not over yet. This is a useful thread as well, if it ever comes to legal action. (a lot more positive this one) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html Good luck

I find that the Which? website has some useful general information on PPI reclaiming: Payment protection insurance - Which? Campaigns Not sure how good their templates are however. There is also PPI Reclaiming Guide: Get £1,000s back on loan insurance... (great site, though their forum is not as helpful as the CAG one in my opinion). You will find the letter that we sent to Egg to dispute the account in the "Militant Consumer challenges...." thead that I linked to in my last post. You are welcome to use that, adapting as necessary. I should warn you that my friend's alleged balance is less than £1,000 - so Egg will doubtless put a bit more effort into chasing you than they have done with us so far. The other thing you can do is complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This is totally free and binding on Egg if you win (but not binding on you if you lose). Some people find it very frustrating that they take so long to look into complaints. But in theory Egg shouldn't be trying to recover the alleged debt from you in the meantime, so the delay could work in your favour. Don't forget that a proper PPI refund should potentially include the contractual interest they have charged you on the premiums over the years, plus 8% court interest. It can add up to more than you think.

Hi Jim Welcome to CAG. I wish you the very best of luck in getting everything sorted. I can tell you that my friend has an Egg Card agreement from 2002 which has a section in it called "Your Repayment Protection". Now, it is possible that Egg realised their mistake somewhere between 2000 and 2002 and added the section in. But there is another explanation - which is that you never requested the PPI initially, and but they started charging it at a later date. For example by selling it to you over the telephone, which Egg have recently been fined for doing. I would say you have a *potential* chance of not having to pay anything ever again on the Egg Card, because there are factors to think about if they ever took you to court:- 1. If you were self employed at the time the PPI was sold to you and could never have claimed, then this policy has never had any value to you. Mistermind's argument is true in many cases, but some would argue that if you have never been able to claim on the policy, then in fact you have never enjoyed the benefit of this at any point in time. Being self-employed puts you in a far stronger position with this kind of reclaim than somebody who is just saying, effectively, "I was tricked into buying something I didn't want" because it is a matter of fact, not opinion. 2. Penalty charges added onto the balance they say you now owe. These are generally believed to be unlawful and it is likely Egg will have to deduct these at some stage. 3. The agreement might be unenforceable. Now, I don't know what your outstanding balance is, and how much points 1 and 2 would reduce it by (or whether Egg could potentially owe you something!) but bear in mind that their decision of whether or not to take you to court and try to obtain a CCJ will be partly a commercial decision of what they could get vs what it could cost them. I'm sure you have read a few interesting cases already. I would recommend the following threads if you haven't seen them:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/177463-response-our-egg-cca.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/178357-militant-consumer-challenges-egg.html Don't forget that if DLC are just acting for Egg, if you send a similar dispute letter to the one we did in my friend's case (above) they will probably give up and pass the account back to Egg. This is probably a good thing. Here is somebody being taken to court on one of these agreements: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/186081-egg-ccj-form-arived.html A few people are trying to help superg - I think what this thread shows is that doing nothing is a bad idea. Hope all of the above is helpful.

When my friend complained about these charges they went through a cycle of 3 letters and finally just refunded them all. This was only about 6m ago.

Agreed. Especially about not signing them, or at least not with your normal signature.

Claim number xxxxxxxxx - find this on the Claim form Between xxxxxxxxxx - Claimant the name of whoever is taking you to court as on the claim form (probably "Egg Banking plc") and xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Defendant your name as on the Claim form Defence 1. I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx your name of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx your address am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxxx -------- Hope that helps

I agree with danson79 except that I would write to Moorcroft as they are acting on behalf of Egg and if you just write to Egg then the message may not get through to Moorcroft, who are the ones currently hassling you. DCAs tend to give up fairly easily when there is some kind of challenge to what they are trying to do.

Hi superg In post #32 above Jonseyblod has provided you with a defence which you could use. A lot of people on this forum believe the early Egg Card agreements are unenforceable by the court. This means if it ever got as far as court then you have a chance of winning and not having to pay a penny. Or they might try and settle with you for much less than they are claiming now. For the moment you haven't seen your agreement so you need to put in this holding/embarrassed defence. Remember that if you give up and no nothing at any stage then you lose automatically.

If the consolidation was just done over the phone as you say, then I guess there are some issues they really need to explain to you. If you continue to dispute this until they produce evidence of the consolidation, I predict that Moorcroft will give up and pass the account back to Egg.

I think that is rather a weak argument because you have not complied with the agreed payment dates and that is why there is still a balance owing. Presumably Egg defaulted you, which is their legal entitlement under CCA 1974 - i.e. that terminates the contract and then they can demand full payment of the remaining balance (or in reality agree a payment plan).

My view on this letter is that Cap One are responding as if you are claiming to be entitled to a copy of your agreement under s77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They are saying that supplying you with a copy of your agreement will not help you to determine whether you are entitled to a copy of it or not. They are absolutely right that this would be the case in such a situation. However, this is not such a situation. In fact you are threatening to bring a claim under s142 (declaration of the rights of parties) with respect to s127 (whether the agreement is enforceable or not). Or you are threatening to bring some other action, for example a claim for mis-sold payment protection insurance (a misrepresented contract, or a failure of consideration, etc). So you are using CPR 31.16 for standard disclosure of the relevant documents, just as you would in any civil case on any matter, not just an agreement regulated under the CCA 1974. It is important to make this clear to them by writing a follow up letter - otherwise you are more likely to be liable for costs, as you have not acted reasonably in helping to clear up the "misunderstanding" before going ahead and initiating legal proceedings.

If I were you I would be disputing the account on a better basis, either:- 1. The section 18 multiple agreements arguments debated earlier in your thread. OR 2. If there was any PPI on the loan then you may have a mis-selling claim

A+ Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Hilarious! Thanks for sharing that with us. Hope your sheer bloody-mindedness will stretch to helping Experian starting their own battle with Barclays!

Remember your defence needs to be written on the form that was sent to you by the court. Where there is a box for your defence write "see attached" and then include your defence on a separate piece of paper if it won't all fit in that box. Your defence needs to be sent to the court - it is not a letter to send to Egg's solicitor. Make sure you keep a copy of what you send for later reference.

And thanks for sharing it with the rest of us, it's great info.

Hi superg, I think we will probably have to put in a defence assuming you won't get that letter in time. Then we can bring in some more arguments later. I have posted a link to your thread in another thread about Egg agreements, so hopefully some experienced CAGGERS will come onto your thread soon and offer some advice.

They have now defaulted you. This is something that I asked you about in my post #5 on 12th March. A default means that they have terminated the agreement, which they are entitled under the CCA 1974. This will be reported on your credit files, where it will remain for 6 years. Now they are asking for the full amount, rather than the regular payments in the original agreement. Again, this is what normally happens in this situation. But in reality you would now, if you decided you want to pay them, have to agree an affordable monthly payment plan with them. This is something they are obliged to agree with you, they cannot just demand it all now if you can't afford it. I would stress that neither Egg nor any debt collectors have any legal right to take any of your property without a court order. Even if you are taken to court and lose, a payment plan would be decided by the Court. That is why Egg are obliged to agree a payment plan now, not just try and recover the full amount. There is no point in them taking you to court just to achieve the same outcome - a payment plan. The main weapon of debt collectors is fear - this they are already trying on your wife by the sounds of things. ---- Now, separate to all of the above standard procedures is the point about whether the alleged debt is actually enforceable or not, and whether you decide to challenge this and pay nothing. I suggest, again, that you read the threads that I have linked to in post #5 above. If you are going to stand up to them then it has to be your own decision (or you wife's decision if the account is in her name) and you will need to be informed before you make the decision. It will also mean you need to stand up to the phone calls, even home visits, threats of legal action, etc.