Jump to content

militantconsumer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by militantconsumer

  1. Hi diddydicky Without wishing to fill up smt's excellent thread with this kind of argument, the issue I personally have is that: - banks get into debt and are bailed out by the taxpayer (us) so they can keep paying themselves more ludicrous bonuses - we get into debt and the banks sell our debt onto total scumbags, who engage in highly dubious practices and hound us to the end of the earth. Yes we live in a capitalist society, but we have to have laws to protect the evil abuses that can be brought about by relying on market forces. Or perhaps I should be allowed to buy some of RBS's debts for 1p in the pound and then ring Fred Goodwin up 20 times day or call round his mansion and threaten to take his grandchildren's toys away.
  2. Hi Fred Well, that is obviously one of their scare tactics - make people want to pay now to avoid the interest. We disputed their right to charge interest without a credit agreement and they wrote back to say no interest had been charged since they bought the account (even though interest had started appearing on their letters before that). This was on an old Next Directory account.
  3. It is widely believed on these forums that Egg never sent out default notices. As these were generated by an automatic process, they will not have a copy to send you.
  4. We have received a letter from Barclays saying (more or less) that they will be closing our complaint file if we do not complete the questionnaire within the next 10 days. It is not clear if this has crossed with our letter referred to in post #44 above. Either way it looks like this will be with the Financial Ombudsman by Christmas, at which point we shall use Slick's template letter so that our complaint includes the part about not supplying the credit agreement.
  5. Agree with diddydicky. If you were playing poker, would you show the other guys your hand and tell them every argument that had crossed your mind? Keep to the facts and don't waffle.
  6. Indeed. We are following up with precisely those questions (plus a few more). See here for further details: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg-6.html#post2588457 It does show they're on shaky ground though. They put up less of a fight than they did with refunding their late payment charges.
  7. It might interest you to know that when we recently made a complaint about PPI on Egg loans (1 loan plus 2 top ups on the same account) we got a refund back in less than two weeks. This presumably means that Egg have decided they don't have a leg to stand on regarding their loans PPI. And so they are probably worried about your counterclaim for the same reason. This might be a useful thing to bear in mind when negotiating.
  8. I guess the phrase "adverse credit history" would cover all defaults, late payment markers, etc. I'm not sure asking for the whole account to be removed, as if it never happened, is a good thing. Isn't it better to have credit on your files? Isn't it harder to obtain credit with no record of any credit in the past?
  9. Well, I'm actually assuming the PPI might be quite big compared to the Egg court claim. Big enough for them to worry about it. I agree with Magda about trying to settle. Some people enjoy big fights and trying to beat banks in court, but most of us just want a quiet life. I key thing must be the terms of the deal. I would be expecting at least: 1. balance written off to zero and marked as fully satisfied on credit files 2. undertaking not to take further action in the future 3. undertaking not to resurrect the balance and pass it onto any third parties You might also be able to get them agree to remove any default still on your files. If this has happened fairly recently then remember that it will stick around for 6 years and prevent you getting credit elsewhere. A term they probably want to impose on you is confidentiality. If it enables you to get everything else then go for it. It will be a disappointment to us not to hear the final result, but we can make our own assumptions when you come back on here and say "I can't comment any further but I am very happy".
  10. How big is the PPI counterclaim relative to the size of their claim? (sorry if this is answered earlier in the thread)
  11. I don't understand this. Surely if they withdraw their claim then the case would be struck out automatically???
  12. In our case, which is currently with the FOS, Egg have specifically stated that the box was not pre-ticked; they said "this was not pre-selected" The card was taken out in 2002. The thread is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/178357-militant-consumer-challenges-egg.html
  13. Today we have: 1. Sent a letter to Collect Direct thanking them for deciding to stop using psychological harassment, but suggesting that they go speak to Egg about the dispute on this account. 2. Sent a letter to Egg saying we are not happy about the resolution of our complaint, making the points detailed in post 110 here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg-6.html#post2588460 3. Made a complaint to the Information Commissioner about Egg's refusal to supply copies of the telephone conversations we asked for. I will keep you all posted on what we hear back.
  14. We received the letter below from Collect Direct today. Although they are obviously not going to take us to court I suppose we will have to respond anyway. Of course the amount claimed still includes the payment protection insurance refund. Disappointing (but not surprising) that Egg are instructing a company to send out letters like this on an account where they know they owe us nearly £2,000.
  15. Today's decision is quite a surprise and we will probably see the bank charges issue dealt with another way, e.g. through new legislation over the banking industry. I'm afraid I don't think there is now any chance of success with historic claims about bank charges (although credit card charges and payment protection insurance can still be fought against).
  16. Those notes come up on the site automatically when you type certain phrases in your post. The first part backs up what I said. I'm not sure about the back to 1995 part. I seem to remember reading something about going back more than 6 years somewhere. There might be a thread on it but you would need to search for it unless someone else came on here and said where it was. Is it Barclays banks account or a Barclaycard?
  17. The problem is that, due to the Statute of Limitations Act, debts over 6 years cannot be enforced. Bank charges are a debt that the bank owes to you, but it's too late to get them back due to this 6 year rule.
  18. The Shadow has posted something about this case on another thread. In reponse to Egg's comment that they are not obliged to send tapes to us:
  19. Hi HWDW I've tried to put everything I thought of and everything that other people suggested on here, so hopefully this is a useful resource for you. If you start your own thread for your case, or if you already have one going, then post a link to it on here. Then we can go over there and offer some advice, without getting mixed up with my friend's case. Good luck with Cabot.
  20. Thanks Slick, I will wait and see how Barclaycard responds on the PPI, and then we will make a complaint to FOS about either or both of these issues.
  21. Hi 218bhp It is better have £1,000 in your pocket than £1,000 off a disputed debt. We kind of consider ourselves 'debt free' already in that we have no intention of paying Egg anything! Alternatively, when you have money you can negotiate with creditors. Most will take a full and final settlement if you pay them a percentage of the total amount in one go. That's because they take a commercial decision about the costs of legal action, whether the customer actually has any money, and their chances of winning. They would rather have 50% now than nothing in the future. In our case there is a big question mark over whether the loan agreement is even enforceable. In the case of Wilson v County Trust (which went as far as the House of Lords) the loan was found to be unenforceable AND the customer got to keep the car! Obviously some people would raise some morality issues with this - you borrow, you repay, etc. etc. But if you look at the behaviour of most financial institutions you have to ask who are the real villains. And when Citibank (the owners of Egg) got into financial problems, the taxpayer bailed them out (yes, that's us). Yet they continue to set debt collectors onto their vulnerable ex-customers, many of whom they should never have lent money to in the first place (especially at those nasty interest rates). That's why there is a Consumer Credit Act to protect the CONSUMER - not a Bank Credit Act to protect the BANKS.
  22. I think we are going to send this in response:
  23. Unless anybody has any bright ideas, I think we will just write back to Egg, raising these points, as I don't think we've got a proper outcome to this complaint yet. If they don't cooperate then I think we should refer this to the Financial Ombudsman to get a final ruling on all these extra unresolved issues.
  24. Thanks for that, postggj. So the main point is that we are issuing a "formal notice issued under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1980". (Shouldn't that be 1998?) And that it is damaging to my credit file for all sorts of reasons - even being rejected when applying for a decent current account. And that this will cause me financial loss. And the main reason being that no agreement or contract has ever been entered into with Cabot (or Next) for the processing of my data so they have no right to do it.
×
×
  • Create New...