It would be great if somebody could answer a question for me, as I am helping a newcomer to consumer credit litigation on this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/186081-egg-ccj-form-arived.html My question is: what happens if the claimant ignores the CRP letter and you don't have a copy of the CCA - what do you put in your defence? Can you change your defence later once you see a CCA and know for certain how it is flawed?

Hi smt, Hope you don't mind that I put a link to your thread on the original PT thread. We really need to get people following through on this, most are giving up after letter 2 is ignored.

Two pages will be fine. If you can afford it you might want to send by "signed for" mail (about £1?) so you can prove you sent it later. Or even special delivery (next day) but that costs about £3.60 I think.

Great stuff superg. You just need to tick to say you will be defending all the claim (not contest jurisdiction). I assume you have selected the option giving you 28 days and you are just doing the "Acknowledgement of service" at this point. If Bryan Carter are the solicitor acting for Egg and their name is on the "Claim Form" then I'm pretty sure it's ok to write to them with the info request as they will pass it onto "their client" (i.e. Egg)

A few people have been posting on here to say that PT's CRP 31.16 line of attack hasn't been working for them. I also sent the two letters and found they got ignored: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/187319-militants-friend-barclaycard.html But if you give up at that point you haven't followed PT's suggestion all the way. You need to do the N244 form. Here is one case where it is being tried out: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/165349-smt37-morgan-stanley-goldfish.html

Yes This is my friend's Egg loan case that I am helping/dealing with: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

Don't forget about the "secret" backing sheet that proves it. Yours will no doubt have a figure in the "Egg card 1" box.

Have you read this link? Basic Introduction to Consumer Credit litigation I think this does tell you how to obtain all the documents from the company taking you to court? I think you can offer a reasonable payment plan at any time - after all, even if they win against you, that is exactly what the court orders i.e. a reasonable payment plan. I think costs do get added but not massive amounts if it is the small claims court. If you look on the front of the "Claim Form" you will see they have already added some kind of "Court fee"?

Superg, I don't think you should give in so easily. 1. You return the "Acknowledgement of Service" to the Court within 14 days of the Claim Form they have issued. 2. You send the letter requesting all documentation from Egg - this is in the thread I have give you a link to. This documentation will have to include the CCA they are trying to prosecute you on. How can they beat you in court if they don't produce a copy of the agreement??? 3. You send in your defence to the Court within 28 days of the Court Claim being issued by Egg. 4. You might never have to appear in court. They might settle for a lower amount. Even if you do have to go to court, let me quote from that other thread: "You’ll go into a nice office room, with a judge whose job it is to take into account the fact that you are a litigant in person, i.e. a normal bloke or lady who doesn’t have much experience of Law. The “trial” will be informal, involve lots of looking at law textbooks by the judge and solicitors, and at worst you’ll end up with a county court judgement for essentially the same amount of money as the claim (give or take a hundred quid)." I can understand people fearing being taken to court - BUT you already have the claim form issued against you so you have nothing to lose now by defending it. Oh yes, and everything to gain because you might win and then you won't have to pay anything ever again. They are trying to scare you into paying.

Now you have a court claim that has started you have to either defend the claim or admit the claim. If you are offering to pay then you are admitting the claim. If your agreement is unenforceable you need to defend the claim, otherwise you will have lost the right to challenge it. You need to read the link in my last post to understand how the court process works. You also need to read the first post of this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html As you can see, there is a lot of evidence that the old Egg Card agreements are unenforceable. But if you admit the claim and pay, or if you ignore the court process, you will lose by default and that will all become irrelevant.

Thanks j-dub, I guess the site team should consider making that thread more prominent. Personally I find this whole site very confusing to find my way around, but I guess that comment will offend somebody! Good luck with your case. It sounds like you've got a reasonable deal out of that company all things considered. Will look forward to hearing the outcome as quite a few of us have these agreements and are keen to challenge them.

Hi NP There has been a lot of discussion about this on PT's epic multiple agreement thread. I think the general opinion is that this set up is NOT a multiple agreement. There was a recent case (Jan 2009?), which steven from the site team posted somewhere, where the judge said something like it can't be a multiple agreement if you could have paid it off with your own funds. Your only saving grace might be that you never saw that money and were therefore not free to use it as you wished. Also that Egg had the 'secret' backing sheet showing how funds were to be restricted. However, is paying off a credit card really a different category of credit within CCA 1974? Will try and find a link to that new case and post it here.

I think the 1st letter you wrote is absolutely fine - just change "two reasons" to "one reason". You can always use the other arguments later. If what PT is saying is correct (and he is saying that he has defeated Egg 5 times over this in his professional life) then just the "approved limit" vs "credit limit" arguments are enough to render the alleged debt unenforceable. I assume you have already been defaulted on this account. In which case the worst they can do (other than harrassment) is take you to court, which they probably won't do if they know they can't win. Try sending your letter to the current debt collector. They will probably send the account back to Egg. Then Egg will probably sit and wonder what to do next, like they other on all the other accounts where people are challenging them for this reason.

As far as I can see from this forum, this loan is ENFORCEABLE. I cannot think of any reason why it wouldn't be. Only a few "prescribed terms" have to be on the same piece of paper as you signature (not the full terms and conditions). Read this (esp post #4) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

Hi j-dub I will be interested to hear about the arguments that are used in your defence, and how successful they are. That is a very general statement that takes no account of the fact that there are obviously a lot of dodgy and/or incompetent claims handling companies out there. You haven't told us anything about their fees, win or lose. For others reading your post and considering handing it all over to somebody else, I would suggest reading this:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html I realise people panic when they receive a Court Claim/Summons in the post - a lot of people even confuse it with a CCJ. But that really is the point of this site - helping people to take on companies themselves. It's empowering, and not has hard as people imagine. And I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of companies "specialising in these things" get a lot of their ideas from reading this forum as well!

Correct - that is exactly what is being suggested in the link I have given you. The loan agreement is a totally separate agreement. It cannot be "page 11 and 12" of something that starts with a credit card agreement.

I still have my original agreement from 2000. The signature page is on the BACK of the other page - therefore this is NOT a reason why they would be unenforceable. The reasons for the credit card agreement are in the thread I linked to above. No idea about the set aside process - maybe ask in legal issues section of the forum?

Here's somebody who just did the N244.... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/165349-smt37-morgan-stanley-goldfish.html Our clock is ticking away after sending letter 2: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/187319-militants-friend-barclaycard.html Can we be included in their toxic loans? Barclays faces scrutiny by City as it explores state cover for toxic loans - Times Online

Many would say UNenforceable as in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html

Hi Pinky69, Have you seen this new thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html I think PT has been to court a few times against Egg. A few indications that these agreements may well be UNenforceable after all.

I would say fine, except that my "two reasons" were 1) missing the word "credit" and 2) payment protection insurance. The fact that it is called a "Credit agreement" rather than a "Credit card agreement" does not make it unenforceable, just improperly executed. I just included this line of argument for extra collateral ammunition. What I am saying is you only have "one reason" not "two reasons". If you want a second reason I suggest you look at this new thread started by PT: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html This includes points about interest rates for cash withdrawls and the fact that default charges are not detailed. I was not aware of these issues when I wrote my letter. (but I am now )

This is the question I have been asking in various places for the last few months. I think it means you take Egg to court but, instead of asking the court to order Egg to pay you £xxx, you ask the court to make a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable by virtue of section 127 of the CCA 1974. But I have yet to a) find out whether this can be done through Small Claims (important as you avoid costs if you lose) b) see a template Particulars of Claim for such a case

Here is a new thread which PT has started on why he thinks all the old Egg Card agreements are fundamentally flawed: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html The most significant point not already covered in my own thread is the failure to correctly state the rate of interest for cash withdrawls. I feel an even sterner letter to Egg coming along.... ----- Egg credit card agreements are fundamentally flawed in my view, i have seen a number of the older Egg agreements (Pre 2005) and on each one there are a number of defects Firstly, the word Approved Limit is used, my view which is supported by case law is that the word 3.Limit which is set out in the margin and the word Approved limit is not sufficient to advise you what the credit limit is or how it will be decided. therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated the case i refer to is Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states 24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that: (a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and (b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is Following HHJ Overend’s view, the agreement should make clear to the consumer, who is likely to be a lay man, what the credit limit is or how it will be determined. It is not possible to say with any certainty that the documents EGG have provided are clear, unambiguous or that a consumer would understand that the approved limit would be their credit limit. secondly, the agreements fail to state the rate of interest for cash withdrawals. From what i have seen the agreement only states an APR which is not sufficient for cash purchases as cash purchases includes a 1.25% handling fee which is included in the APR so it cannot be an accurate reflection of the rate of interest. Again a prescribed term is missing Finally Egg will try to tell you that the missing information is set out within their terms and conditions, if they do this, then in stern words tell them IT CANNOT BE. The reasons for this is that Regulation 2 (4) Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (SI1983/1553) requires that the statutory information set out within Para 3-19 of schedule 1 and 2 SI1983/1553 should be shown as a whole and not interspersed with other information if the agreement is to be properly executed and compliant with section 61 CCA 1974 Also it is worth noting that, Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and Egg Agreements DO NOT These are just my observations based upon my own experiences

It only costs £10 and can make very interesting reading. However, you should remember that a SAR is only a request for information and will not in itself mean that any action against you is suspended. It just might give you more tools to defend yourself with in the future.

If they take you to court and you do not have a UK address, where are they going to serve the papers? Even if they manage to sue you and win (either in court or by default if you do not enter a defence) how are they going to enforce the court order? They cannot send UK court bailiffs to the country where you live and take your property. It is a big waste of time and money for them.