Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

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 comp
  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
  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 requ
  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
  9. 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
  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 th
  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 th
  • Create New...