All the domain parking/registration services are up to date, it was only the hosting renewal that I no longer needed that they were billing me for.

Hi all, I'm having a similar issue with streamline. I've had an 'unlimited hosting account with them for a number of years that I haven't really used for nearly three years now, as I moved all my sites to a VPS with Memset (who I can't praise enough!). The last time it 'auto-renewed' for 2 years I just accepted it and thought I would find a use for it eventually. However this time, as the credit card details had lapsed, I just left it assuming they would close the hosting package when they were unable to take payment... Noooo, a day or so after the renewal they sent me an email saying that in 7 days time they would start applying penalty charges to the account. So I immediately logged in and submitted a support ticket asking to cancel the account and that I did not want another 2 years 'unlimited hosting' as I had no need for it, expecting a reply within the stated'24 hours. A week later I received thefollowing reply: So, dutifully I updated my card details and the payment for £190 was taken from my credit card: A week later I queried with them when I would receive a refund for the (nearly)two years hosting which I paid for in advance then cancelled at the begining,only to be told that: Quite frankly i feel like i've been blackmailed! Is hould have just ignored their requests for payment when the Card lapsed but unfortunately they are the registrar for the domains I have too and they blocked access to the control panel when they couldn't take payment. Any advice people? Is it still Derek Rudeforth at Derbyshire Trading Standards that's dealing with these EDITS?

Right, it's been a month or two without doing much, but i'm starting to prepare my case for the FOS just now and i have a few questions and queries. Firstly, when i sent my initial claim it was for the PPI charges plus simple interest at 8%, after reading a bit on here and taking advice from others i think i should be claiming for PPI Charges + Contractual Interest + Statutory Interest @ 8%? I have attached a spreadsheet i found on here that calculates the the above figure does it look correct? Is it okay to alter my claim to this amount now i'm approaching the FOS? And if so should i fire off another letter to EGG advising them of the new amount i will be claiming from the FOS? What date do i use for the end date of claim? The date of the last PPI payment or the current date? Egg have varied my contractual interest rate several times since i took out the card, do i have to work out an average interest rate or do i use the current interest rate on my card? Sorry for all the questions but i've been knocked back once before by the FOS on another issue so i want to get everything right this time. Muchas gracias for any help Egg Charges Calc.xls

Yeah, did a bit of Google research and a thread from here came up lol Second post down seems to suggest that it was 'Pre Ticked' box in 2001 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?242438-Cant-believe-Egg

Yes, it's their final decision and they state they will not enter into any further correspondence with me about it. I have a suspicion it was a 'Pre-Ticked' box too but can't be sure, it would be handy if anyone can tell me when exactly Egg were using that particular weasely tactic.

Well after months of waiting i've finally recieved a relpy from Egg nd they are refusing to uphold my complaint. The key points of their rebuttal are: I have to take issue with the 'Required you to positively confirm' bit as i would never have agreed to insurance if i had known it was optional at the time, in fact after applying i remember being under the impression it was mandatory. I took the card out in Aug/Sept 2001, does anyone know if Egg were up to their 'pre-ticked' box nonsense at that time? I'd like to get my facts straight so i can decide whether or not to take it to the FOS.

Hi all, just posting for a little advice, and to see if anyone else has been in a similar situation to me. Way back in 2009 I submitted a SAR to Egg to obtain a copy of the credit agreement for my Egg Credit Card and all the statements since the opening of the account. At the time i was interested in seeing whether or not my agreement contained the contentious 'Approved Limit' term. Since then and due to the favourable Court ruling on reclaiming PPI charges i've decided to initiate a claim against Egg to reclaim the 'Credit Card Repayment Protector' charges that were applied to my account since 2001 along with simple interest @ 8%. About a fortnight ago i sent them a letter of complaint stating that i felt that the PPI on my Egg card was mis-sold to me stating the reasons why, a spreadsheet detailing all the charges and interest at 8% due until 31st may 2011, along with a photocopy of every single card statement with a 'Credit Card Repayment Protector' applied to it. Today, i've received a letter acknowledging my complaint and asking me to fill in a 'Payment Protection Insurance: Consumer Questionnaire', Which is just a carbon copy of the FOS questionnaire. I suspect this is just a stalling tactic, should i play along and fill it in? Or should i send another letter telling them to get stuffed, they already have all they need? Also, how has the change of ownership to Barclays affected these claims to Egg, or is it still early days to tell? If this has been covered eleswhere then i appologise in advance, any comments or advice is welcome.

I've just resubmitted the SAR but sent it Special Delivery this time

Anybody else get an email today informing of an interest rate increase? They Just increased mine by 7%

In my experience, no. Egg will do everything within their power to get your money out of you. If they do not have signed agreement (as appears in my case), the only way to get them to acknowledge this and to stop them enforcing the debt seems to be through the courts. If you have one of the agreements that uses the the dubious 'Approved Limit' term and not the prescribed 'Credit limit' term then you may be able to get the agreement declared unenforceable, but again this will have to be acheived through the courts. Others on here may have other opinions but i have found Egg will not simply write off the debt. Edit: just realised, the above appears a bit negative, sorry, it's definately do-able but it will be a hard slog with Egg

I'm starting to think that Egg's initial response (see first post) is indeed a true copy of the credit agreement containing prescribed terms but ommiting sig and adresses etc as they state, and hence satisfying my Section 78(1) request. That is why the FOS has not upheld my complaint. If anyone has a different opinion as to what constitutes a 'true copy' satisfying Section 78(1) i'd be greatful for your input I suppose the fact that if it does satisfy a Section 78(1) request but it is evidently not a SIGNED true copy could be evidence that Egg don't have an agreement with my signature on it. That is why the FOS adjudicator points out that 'It is possible that a court may find differently but, unlike this service a court does have the power to declare an agreement unenforceable' I suppose the only real way of getting to a signed true copy is to wait for the results of my subject access request? Or should i submit another 78(1) request? I sent my SAR off on the 2nd april but still haven't heard a peep out of them, i sent it recorded delivery but all the tracking says is that it has been accepted at the post office. Is this kind of time scale normal? Should i chase up the postal order and see if it has been cashed?

Shower of toothless bar-stewards http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/FO1.jpg http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/FO2.jpg http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/FO3.jpg

Well, two weeks now and no response to that letter, not even a 'we're dealing with your complaint' letter.

I've had a read of the regs and that response just to make sure i understand what i'll be getting at, basically arguing that T&C only constitute an agreement in limited circumstances (reg 9) and in all others the T&Cs must be included in an agreement and not comprise one. Minimal editing (cheers Viscount Stair! )but i'm thinking of firing the following off: ------------------------- Dear Sir/Madam I see from my recent bank statement that Egg Banking Plc debited the sum of £*** from my account on the **/**/** having ignored my letter to you dated **/**/** placing my account in dispute due to your continuing default of my legal request pursuant to section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Contrary to assertions made by Egg Banking Plc in a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. EGG/********), Egg Banking Plc has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. *******) from Egg Banking Plc. However, Egg Banking Plc did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act. Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified. The documents supplied to me only constituted the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided. Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlook both the distinctions between the wording in regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other. Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied. Egg Banking Plc would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (i.e. to agreements entered into prior to 1985). Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions. Accordingly, Egg Banking Plc was, and is still, obliged to provide a signed true copy of the executed credit agreement in its original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided. I would be obliged if this could now be provided without further delay or prevarication. In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that Egg Banking Plc is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account. Therefore while your default of my legal request continues: You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. You may not add further interest or any charges to the account. You may not pass the account to a third party. You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency. You may not issue a default notice related to the account. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing. --------------------------------------------------------------- Have i got my facts straight? I'd be greatful of any comments. Foxy

Magic stuff Viscount, many thanks