WOO HOO! That's great news. So does that mean they actually bought the debt from Egg, i.e. they're not just passing it back to Egg again? These DCAs seem to just roll over when you stand up to them. Brilliant work!

Thanks for that. Good luck with the FOS, and keep us updated.

Hi PN, Did you ever receive your copy tapes from Egg? I guess you've heard nothing from the FOS? MC

Subbed

Hi superg When is your defence due in? "Issue date" is marked on the claim form. "Date of service" is not written anywhere but you can call the Court to ask them - it will be about 3-5 days after the Issue date. Your defence will be due at "Date of service" + 28 days. (If you don't get something in before that date you will lose by default.)

For those who have been defaulted and are now being offered settlement figures.... I would make sure you demand removal of default as part of any settlement agreement.

I still think that if your case made its way into the financial complaints letters page of a sunday newspaper, it would not only make good copy for them, but it would probably solve your problem in about 5 minutes!

In my working life, A DCA once offered me a 50% deal in full and final settlement for a "debt" they were chasing. I immediately became suspicious and, when I delved further into the details, found out that the company that the money was being claimed from hadn't yet been formed at the time the "debt" was incurred. The company who really owed the money had since been liquidated, so they had tried to switch the debt to a different company with a similar name. No wonder were so keen to settle for 50%! It will be interesting to see how low Egg will go. For some people, paying a fraction of the amount they thought they owed until recently would seem like a fair compromise, especially if such a deal were accompanied by a default removal - or at least default avoidance.

GG, I've been thinking about your case some more. Could you complain direct to the 3 credit referencing agencies, pointing out that you are still alive? I know they tend to want customers to go to the banks first - but perhaps that is more the case where there is an argument about whether you defaulted or whatever. In your case there can be no argument. You could point out that the incorrect information they hold on you (reference the Data Protection Act) is causing you big problems. You could mention the cost of not being able to get a competitive bank account due to the inaccurate data they are passing to third parties. You could send them a copy of any correspondence received from Egg which states that this should be corrected.

Not so positive about the s18 arguments with reference to PPI. But does tend to support N.P.'s line of thinking about funds diverted to pay off Egg Cards as being s18. Don't forget that one of our 3 loan agreements did feature this. On second thoughts, on re-reading this, does the judge just mean to say that it wouldn't be permissable for a credit agreement to combine a loan and a credit card into one agreement in general? (I.e. two parts to the contract going forward, not just what it was used to pay off?)

Subbing

How substantial?

Hi lunar jim Here is why: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html

Unless they have done any recent dodgy increases on the interest rates of any outstanding balance - which might be considered unfair by the Financial Ombudsman. Eddie, this thread has persuaded me to move my savings out of Egg and into a safer bank that pays a lower interest rate. When I called them up to do the transfer they never even tried to persuade me out of it.

No, it was correct to request a hearing per PT's guide. I have no experience on this either but am watching closely as we are considering the N244 route as our next step (we've already sent the letters) If I was going to be attending such a hearing I would start thinking about: 1. Behaving in the correct way in court 2. Having well prepared reasons for needing the document to avoid the judge thinking you are a chancer who just wants to get out of your debts 3. Trying to avoid the hearing getting diverted into a discussion of whether the CCA 1974 requires the creditor to produce an actual copy of the original signed agreement or not. Because that is not what you are arguing about, you are asking for a copy of the contract so that you can assess your case (whether it's about PPI or whatever) - just as you would want to see a copy of the agreement in ANY civil case where the rights of the parties were open to question.

Hi groovygran, Hope you're not offended, but I am trying not to laugh out loud at this - it is just so ridiculous! I can't believe that they are now trying to chase you for 18 months of interest after all the trouble they have caused you by reporting you as deceased on your credit files. I can't wait to see how this one turns out. It's the sort of case I would expect to read about in the media.....

My friend had an idiot call from Egg today. She told them she didn't want to discuss her account over the phone and that the account is in dispute. They said they know that, but they are looking for an increase in monthly payments! That will be an increase from zero then I presume. In your dreams, Egg. Bizarrely, they then told my friend she could have 28 days to come up with a completed income and expenditure questionnaire and an increased payment. Ok, look forward to talking to you again in 28 days then. Oh yes, and they are still totally silent on the loan account - even though its alleged balance is ten times the amount they are chasing on this credit card. Perhaps we should stop paying that one as well.

Hi NB, Do you have a thread started on this case? I would prefer to comment on your own thread, so it doesn't get mixed up with my friend's case.

Stange that Citi paid £575 million for Egg in 2007, and now seem to be winding the business up! egg_nog - you could make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you wish.

If you do file the form, maybe you could develop a special new signature for the court process - that way, you'll recognise it if you ever see it again. Smt has a court date now for the hearing.

Hi Sunshine, There may be a few possibilities. Start your own thread (link to it from here if you want) and post up a copy of your agreement if possible.

I suppose in the spirit of avoiding costs it's going to be necessary to write ANOTHER letter to Barclaycard, just to spell it out to them that we really aren't interested in section 78 of the CCA 1974 anymore. Otherwise I suppose they could say we hadn't been reasonable enough in explaining things so that their tiny minds could understand what we wanted, and that we had jumped straight in with litigation. This will be the 5th letter since last November asking them for a copy of the credit agreement in one way or another.....

In that case 9.9% is the correct APR. Every Egg loan agreement that I have seen has the correct APR.

Sorry beachy, I didn't mean it like that. Reading back on my post, I guess it wasn't that helpful to you, especially if you are looking for moral support. It is a very difficult point for many people when you stop paying and the creditor starts trying to raise the stakes and threatening you with all sorts of things. It is useful to be able to come on here and get reassurance. One thread that people seem to find helpful is this one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html It makes you realise that even the worst that they can do to you isn't that bad. In the meantime for your case, if you are prepared to fight them, and you are confident that your understand the arguments put forward by PT, then I would say definitely stay determined and think carefully before taking on a solicitor, as this could cost you a lot of money, with no greater guarantee of success.

I admire the way it is rendering a very complicated type of complaint/claim much easier for the layperson. But I was just a bit concerned that it might encourage people to tick every box, and that they might in fact undermine their case by saying that every possible mis-selling element happened to them, making their claims less plausible. For example - "I didn't know there was PPI added to the loan" + "They pressure sold me the PPI". Surely doing an SAR first is the right approach - collect your facts and then challenge them. Not just look like a total chancer. Oh yes, and last time I checked, it didn't have Egg on the list. And they seem to be one of the worst culprits.