Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About TinaTurner2

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Forgot to mention...the default on the credit file did not take into account the outstanding county court judgement so it was unlawful - that's why we complained to the ombudsman. Also, as the agreement was terminated, they no longer had permission to report on credit files.
  2. Hi smEgg applied to have the CCJ set aside but the judge denied it at hearing in April 2011. smEgg then immediately went and logged a default on the credit file (even though smEgg had marked the record had settled in Feb 2009). We raised a complaint with smEgg in May 2011 which was ignored. We then raised a complaint with the Ombudsman about the Default in August 2011. smEgg then wrote to us in September saying that it was the same complaint that we'd made in November so they were associating them together. Obviously it cannot have been the same complaint as the thing we complained about (the Default) didn't exist until May. We think smEgg did this because you only have 6 months to raise a complaint with the Ombudsman and they were trying to make out that the 6 months had passed. But we wrote to the Ombudsman pointing this out. In the meantime, smEgg got taken over by BarclayCad. We already had a card with BC, all bobbing along smoothly with no arrears or anything. smEgg didn't send BC the full files so BC saw that smEgg had defaulted the account and so they suspended our BC card! We spoke to them saying that they didn;t have the full info and there was a complaint with Ombudsman. BC said tough and wouldn;t reverse the suspension. smEgg sent their internal files to Ombudsman but they didn't contain any reference to any defaults. So we duly sent our copies instead plus all documentation that had passed between us - just in case there was anything else smEgg had missed out Was contacted by the Ombudsman a month ago out of the blue to say that Barclays had reviewed the case and were offering a settlement. Not only did they revers the crap on the credit file (in fact, they deleted the record altogether), they arranged for smEgg to pay the county court judgement in full including interest, agreed that no further interest or charges would be added. And we had a letter from their solicitors yesterday saying the the account balance had been amended to be zero. So pretty happy with the outcome
  3. It was Egg who issued the defaults post-judgement, not BC. I believe it was before BC took them over but we've had no correspondence at all from Egg or BC so we technically aren't aware if the Egg account got transferred to BC. Yes, the judgement included post-judgement statutory interest.
  4. And there are 2 different accounts. A BC from 1985ish and an Egg Card from early 2000ish.
  5. @gezwee They didn't offset the Judgement against the balance. The balance pre-judgement was £12k. The judgement was given in Nov 2010 as a judgement in default (although we were in constant contact with Egg and their solicitors during this time and they said they would 'vigorously defend', they didn't file a defence. They said this was because we didn't send particulars but we sent signed for and gave them all the details of the woman in the post room who signed for them (I spoke to the post lady myself and she explained their internal process). They then said this doesn't prove they were delivered to the right person in the building and that they would claim damages if we went ahead and got a judgement in default. We got a judgement in default in the Nov. They said it was a 'technicality' and that they were applying to set aside. They didn't make the set aside application until April 2011 and the judge threw it out. In May they issued a default and terminated the account. The defaults/termination/credit file all have £12k on. at just about £5k which should have brought the balance down to £7k. Before the trial (like a week) we offered to pay the £7k but they never got back to us. During this time we offered to make a F&F and asked for a figure but we had no responses to any letters we wrote between Dec 2010 and August 2011. At beginning of August we wrote to them the last time saying that they should not have issued the default in May and how could they terminate an account that was terminated 2 years ago. At the end of sept we issued a complaint through FOS. Then in October we got a response to our august letter saying that it was the same complaint that we made last november and so they had added it to that - but they didn't actually reply. We think they did this because you only have 6 months to make a complain to FOS and, if they could claim that the original complaint was november, that we were out of time to go to FOS. We wrote back saying that the event that happened (the default/termination) happened in May so how could it possibly be related to a complaint in Nov, especially as we didn't write to them in Nov. We had no response. As to why we couldn't enforce the judgement....because Egg had indicated that they were going to set aside we were unable to do anything until that hearing took place in May this year. Immediately after the hearing (like, days) they issued the defaults and termination and we have been trying to get that sorted out. At the moment they are not chasing us for the balance of the account (although we're happy to discuss this with them and have been trying) and if we enforce the action and they pay then we may no longer have leverage to get the defaults removed.
  6. How can that be fair? Surely we can excersize this right without retribution? I read in the OFT literature this "treating any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred" is not allowed if a contract is unenforceable. Is the suspension or removal of the credit facility not a restriction? Will FOS do anything to help us? And what would happen if we actually didn't pay?
  7. Hi All I wonder if someone could give us some advice on what to do. OH had an Egg card which was terminated with the other few thousand back in 2009. Went to court and won just less than £5k in Dec 2010. Egg still haven't paid the Judgement and we've offered to make payments on the remainder but Egg refused. Egg issued defaults in May 2011 and this has been referred to the FOS. In the meantime, Barclaycard took over Egg accounts. So I don't know if the following story is due to this outstanding Egg issue. OH took out a BC in 1987. £10k of debt on it currently. He requested CCA in an SAR in July 2010. Followed it up a couple of times and finally got a 'reconstituted agreement' in July this year with normal letter saying they were allowed to do reconstituted etc (which we knew was allowable). BUT, the reconstituted agreement had an address from 7 years after he took the card out (3 removed from the correct address) and, presumably, the wrong T&Cs so we wrote back in July saying it was wrong. We had a letter in September saying they were still looking at it. Just received. 2 letters from them today in the same envelope. The first dated 28th Oct says that they are unable to provide the agreement and that they are prevented from enforcing the agreement but that if we don't continue to pay then they will inform credit ref agencies, debt collection companies, issue default notices, etc.. The second dated 27th Oct says they are "currently unable to provide a copy" and that they accept that they are "prevented from enforcing our agreement with you while this state of affairs continues". They then go on to say that they are suspending the account with immediate effect because "in our view there is a significantly increased risk that you will cease to make payments". We've never missed a payment but we have reclaimed default charges. We've never intimated that we wouldn't be paying the debt if they couldn't find the agreement and never even mentioned anything about unenforceability in our letters. Any suggestions?
  8. They didn't pay the direct debit so I didn't go overdrawn. And 'missed payment' on a current account means 'overdrawn' or 'over approved overdraft facility'. Let me explain with another scenario.... If the DD was for a credit card and there wasn't enough money in the account, the bank would bounce the DD. Then, both the bank account would have been marked as a 'missed payment', (even though no money was taken from the account and so the overdraft would be unaffected) and also the credit card would have been marked (as no payment would have been received). That's 2 black marks for 1 misdemeanor
  9. TinaTurner2

    TT2 vs Egg CC

    Egg terminated the account (again) without notice on the basis that the latest DN had not been complied with. As the DNs didn't take into account the Judgement Order (if they had, then the DNs would not have been issued as Egg owe us more than we owe them) they are invalid (have checked this with a solicitor). Have written to Egg accepting their unlawful termination. Have raised another complaint with the Ombudsman. Phoned the court today. Despite letters to the contrary, Egg have still not applied to have the Judgement set aside.
  10. Summary of POC was that there was no allowance in the original T&Cs for them to continue charging interest and applying charges after the account was contractually terminated. Egg said "yes there is, it's in another set of terms from some later date". I said "but my original terms says you can only fix mistakes in the terms if it's not detrimental to me. and that's detrimental to me. so you can't do it". Egg said "we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, that's our final answer" So went to court. Anyway, they continued debt collection activity after the got the judgement but they didn't settle the judgement. We complained to the Ombudsman. Egg then said it had all been a silly mistake and they would put a hold on debt collection activity until the matter was settled. That letter was dated 26th Nov. 2nd Dec they issued a DN. We wrote and said something along the lines of "what the 'eck are you doing? you said you wouldn't do this!". They said they could do whatever they liked. The DN was for £1.5k and didn't take into account the £4k they owed us. So it's invalid. February they issued another DN. Still wrong as didn't take into account the judgement. This week they terminated the account (again?!?) due to no response to DN. Judgement order is still outstanding. In November they said they were going to apply to have it set aside. To date they haven't.
  11. Cap 1 did indeed settle in full
  12. Hi Sorry I haven't responded - I didn't get any notification that anyone had updated the thread. "rates, T&Cs, charges" This is where I'm confused. If I don't get the original information from Tesco then how do I know that the rates & TnCs are right? Surely, in their 'reconstitution' they would have the corrected info whether it was there in the first place or not? Also, as Principle 7 of the Data Protection Act means they shouldn't misplace my personal data (ie CCA) then why are the ICO not upholding more complaints about reconstituted CCAs?
  13. I was awarded a Judgement by default against Egg in November 2010 for just less than £5k. I haven't paid the monthly amount on the account since the dispute started around June 2010. The Judgement remains outstanding. Egg have suggested they are going to apply for a set aside but they haven't yet. In Dec 2010 Egg issued a Default notice. The sum quoted didn't include the amount on the judgement. In March 2011 Egg issued another Default notice. Again, the sum quoted didn't include the amount on the judgement. Today I received a termination notice and they now want the full amount (£12k). Again, this doesn't take into consideration the £5k judgement order. Couple of questions.... 1. The balance owed (and, therefore, the monthly payment amount) was in legal dispute and, I believe, must remain so until the judgement is satisfied. However, I can't see anything in the CCA that stops Egg issuing defaults or terminating accounts when in dispute. Is this right? 2. The defaults don't include the amount awarded under the Judgement order. Would anyone consider that the default amount is therefore incorrect and the default is 'bad'? Ta 2.
  14. Also, how has this been determined? Is this the stance of the Information Commissioners Office?
  15. Who said I was trying to 'wriggle out of paying a debt'? That suggests that anyone who gets into difficulty and being taken to court by a creditor is just trying to 'wriggle out of the debt'. Like many people who have suffered the hardship of job loss and economic downturn, I am just trying to see a light at the end of the tunnel and prepare myself for the inevitable defence. I'm not wriggling, I'm drowning. I can't see much in Rankine that is relevant TBH. The Rankines were claimants so the burden of proof is different. Also, they claimed that the S78 hadn't been compiled with on the basis (it seems) that not all sheets were provided. Defaults, their personal loan, what constitutes a true copy under section 78. I can't see any of that being relevant in my case. But if anyone knows of a case where the creditor has taken a debtor to court and the debtor has pleaded that the agreement was uneforceable but then lost the case, please point me in the direction of the thread. "Should you get to the court stage and the Original Creditor produces a Reconstituted Agreement,Terms and Conditions or a copy of an Application Form signed by you ,and proof that you have used the money and made payments by way of copies of the statements ,you are unlikely to win This situation has been the subject of some very detailed,interesting threads" Could you point me in the direction of these threads please? I can find tonnes of people discussing some of the issues - what may or may not be the problem - but nothing that says what the courts are actually doing or if a reconstituted agreement is being accepted as conformation to the CCA regards enforceability. This particular agreement dates 2001 so 2007 regs do not apply.
  • Create New...