Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TinaTurner2

  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.
  16. Afternoon I have spent the last 2 days searching the forums and I am still none the wiser. The passing of judgements in court cases also means that some info is obsolete and I'm struggling to get my head around what is current! So here's my questions... 1. Is it still the case (or did I see a court case to the contrary) that the creditor must still produce the original CCA if enforceing through court action (and not just the reconstituted version)? 2. An SAR is not the same as a Section 78 request. Under DPA, the creditor must supply copies of all documents held that identify the subject. I understand that to mean a copy of the whole document and not just the page that the persons name is on. I am encountering 2 problems with this:- a) the creditor just keeps responding with a reconstituted version and quote S78. I then write back and say it was an SAR request, please send me the document you hold. They then send back another reconstituted and refer to my S78 request (which doesn't exist) b) under the DPA I believe I am entitled to see all of any document which relates to me. One creditor refuses to send the T&Cs following a DPA request as they say they are not personal information. Am I right in thinking that they cannot then say they are part of the same document as an application form which, in their view, would constitute the agreement? 3. Is it still the case that prescribed terms must be in the '4 corners' of the signed document? Tesco have sent me an application form which they say conforms to the prescribed terms, etc. But I applied by post and at the bottom of the form it says something along the lines of "moisten here and fold then send". Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou to anyone who can help!
  17. Why were they not obliged to send a credit agreement in response to an SAR? It's a piece of data which identifies me so comes under the DPA. The DPA gives me the right to request ALL information held about me. The CA has (or should have) my name and address on it so is deemed to be personal information. Also, it's an offence under Principle 7 for them to lose it. And they should've kept the application form if they used it to identify me (which they would've done) cos of the Money Laundering rules. So, as that has my name and address on then I should've got a copy of that too. And I spoke to the ICO yesterday and they said I had a valid complaint and to raise it formally with the ICO. So, why do you think they don't have to provide the CA in response to an SAR? Seems to me that the banks can do whatever they like and there's not much anyone can do - even the court bend the rules in favour of them. I haven't had a proper response to my SAR (they can only reconstitute the original document, if the original doesn't exist then they can't reconstitute it. Therefore, even though I know there isn't one, they must think there is one and they haven't supplied it), they still owe me £100 (letter sent 1st Feb and no response) and they haven't responded to my request to move the payment date by 4 days (letters sent December 10th and 2nd Feb signed for). Are all of these 3 things together enough to put the account into dispute? I was thinking of writing to say that, unless these are resolved or a response received within 30 days confirming receipt of letters and that the issues are being looked into, then I would deem the account to be in dispute and stop payments until resolved. Or something along those lines. I've been looking at 'tacit agreements' and also the doctrine of estoppel by acquiesence. Was thinking I might be able to put something together on that basis? But not entirely sure. I don't think these strictly come into 'law' as it were - so you would have to have some other sort of defence in a court case and then this would just be the cherry on top. But, as I say, I'm still looking.
  18. Thanks for replying, both of you. My claim is for £390 so £100 is a big chunk. BC didn't give me any choices. In response to my preliminary letter they just responded saying that they had refunded £255 of charges and 8% statutory interest to my card. And that was it. As I mentioned, I wrote a letter saying I wasn't happy about it going on my card cos I wasn't in arrears (btw they took the £255 off my card but I still had to pay the minimum payment that month ) and also I think I should reclaim the money they earn't on those charges. But they haven't replied. I was thinking that, in the event that they don't have an agreement (which I suspect they don't as I can't remember signing anything except an application form, and their 'reconstructed' agreement looks like a set of terms and conditions (doesn't include my name or address btw), I would offer them a F&F on the basis of paying for what I've spent but without the interest. Anyone tried this? Can anyone confirm if a recon is sufficient to satisfy a Subject Access Request? Or is that only for Section 78 requests (as I suspect)?
  19. Afternoon I wonder if someone could give me a heads up on a problem I have with Barclaycard? Sent SAR in July 2010 and got paperwork back towards end of August 2010. Had a bit of a hectic Autumn so only just got round to looking at everything in December. Am attempting to reclaim charges plus contractual interest. Sent the usual letter. BC replied and offered the charges plus 8% statutory interest - about £100 short of my claim. Actually, they didn't 'offer' it as such, they 'told' me that's what they were giving me and then just took it off my balance. I'm not in arrears, still paying the minimum on the balance, still got the card, account still active, etc. I was a bit miffed and wrote back saying I wouldn't accept statutory interest, only contractual interest, and that they couldn't offset the claim against the balance as I wasn't in arrears (and referred to right-of-offset OFT guidance). That was on 2nd Feb (sent signed for) and I've had no answer. So I'm about to issue proceedings against them but I've come up against a bit of a problem.... Last July I sent a Subject Access Request via the DPA for all my bank statements, agreement, correspondence, etc. This was primarily to check that I'd paid no PPI and to see if I could make a claim for charges. I've just started doing the N1 for my claim but I've just realised that they've sent a 'reconstituted' agreement and not a copy of the original. In the letter attached to this reconstruction it refers to my "section 78 request under the CCA" and gives all the reasons why it's OK to respond etc. I didn't make a Section 78 request. Only a Subject Access Request under the DPA. Am I right in thinking that the 'reconstruction' rules only apply to a Sec 78 request so, if they have an executed agreement then they have to send me a copy of the original, not a cobbled together version? I've drafted a letter to that effect but, I suspect, I won't get a response. (The reason I think I won't get a response is because, since starting the charges claim, I noticed that some months the 'pay by' date was before the date of my standing order so I wrote in December (signed for) asking them to change the date, they still hadn't done it by beginning of Feb so I wrote again (signed for) and they still haven't responded - but that's a different issue!). So, I have a couple of problems... 1. If they don't hold a signed agreement then I can't reclaim charges because, based on the Barclaycard POC/N1 in the library, I need to refer to an "Agreement" and an "executed Agreement" but I don't actually know if one exists at the moment. 2. If they don't respond to the draft letter I'm about to send out, then I still won't have a copy of the agreement. According to the screen prints sent by Barclaycard in response to my SAR, the account was opened around March 2005. Thanks for any help you can give!
  20. TinaTurner2

    TT2 vs Egg CC

    Quick update... End November - Egg solicitors complained to the court (after default Judgement) that we didn't follow the proper court process in filing a certificate of service. Court informed them that the proper court process was followed. Beginning of December - Egg issued Default on the account stating that they would start legal proceedings on 31st December (Merry Xmas!) if we didn't pay up. Egg still haven't paid up from the Judgement Order. We wrote and told them they had agreed to place a hold on collection activity and they hadn't resolved the judgement. They wrote back and said the court had asked them to apply to have the case set aside because they made errors because they didn't know a case had been raised. We wrote back saying the court had said no such thing, they'd already got a letter from the court saying no errors were made, and that if they didn't know there was a case against them then how did they manage to assign a solicitor, send in an acknowledgement of service, and sign for the particulars of claim??? Got no response to this Mid January - Egg solicitors lodge a formal complaint with the court stating that the court did not follow proper procedure. Beginning of Feb - court dismiss complaint (again) stating that normal procedure was followed. Last week. Egg issued another default stating that they would start court proceedings if we don't pay by 3rd March. Judgement Order still hasn't been resolved by Egg. Now Egg must apply to have the Judgement set aside (if the court will let them) or pay up. While the Judgement Order is outstanding Egg can't issue proceedings against us. So their default threats are empty.
  21. Afternoon Did the usual stuff with Cap 1 to get statements. Opened the account around 2000 but Cap 1 took PPI payments for a period of 7 months around 2005. I'm self employed (have been since mid-90s) and have Income Protection Insurance so I NEVER ask for PPI on ANYTHING. So knew they'd taken it in error. Wrote my first letter to them 23rd Nov asking them for all PPI and contractual interest back and with a list of dates, etc that they charged it. They responded saying that I definately didn't ask for PPI (yes, I already know) and that they hadn't charged any. So my complaint was rejected. Idiots! Wrote to them again. Told them they were talking rubbish. And gave them 14 days to sort it or court action. Got another response saying they would refund all PPI payments, contractual interest (which was about £1.30 cos I used to clear my card most months) and 8% statutory interest. Oh great, I thought. But, alas no. The 8% statutory interest they offered was less than half what it should have been. I wrote back asking how they calculated the 8% and showing them the court guidelines. They wrote again saying that was all they were offering so tough. You might think I should've accepted it. But I'm very belligerent. So, if someone says "we'll offer the PPI, contractual interest AND 8% statutory interest" then that's what I expect! So, court proceedings were issued. Now bear in mind that they said - in writing - that they would pay "PPI, contractual interest AND 8% statutory interest" (there's no getting away from that) but that they are just calculating it wrong, you'd have thought the legal department would look at it and go "why don't you just pay it. That's what you said you would pay". But no. Today they filed an Acknowledgement of Service saying they intended to defend the claim. What's it all about, eh?
  22. We issued proceedings against Egg at the beginning of October. They returned the Acknowledgement of Service but they didn't file a defence in the timeframe. So we applied for judgement in default which was issued yesterday. No doubt they will apply for it to be set aside. No idea on what grounds as they had a solicitor working for them so should have known the process. Although they did write to the court to say we hadn't sent the further particulars of claim but we sent it signed for and had proof of it being delivered so a bit of a porky (or 'arse from elbow' syndrome). Anyway, the court agreed they had no claim and advised us to go ahead with the default judgement. Meanwhile.....A couple of days after they responded to the summons, someone from ResolveCall turned up on the doorstep. We sent them away with a flea in the ear. When we spoke to Egg to complain - because the account is in dispute and they shouldn't be sending Debt Collection Agents round - they said the account isn't in dispute. We told them that it most definately was as we had issued proceedings against them and they had acknowledged them so were fully aware. Their operative said "No, an account can only be in dispute if an issue has been raised with the ombudsman". What an idiot.
  23. TinaTurner2

    TT2 vs Egg CC

    Issued proceedings against Egg regards the charging of interest, etc after they terminated the agreement. The original agreement doesn't say they will continue charging interest but the latest one does. Egg claimed "I can quote any term and it would have been enforceable at one point or another" but the cluase which allows them to make changes says "as long as they are not detrimental to you". That's the basis of our claim. After much to-ing and fro-ing, Egg stated that they would no longer correspond on the matter. So we wrote once more asking them to answer our specific questions and resolve the issue and giving 14 days to do so. We go no response so issued proceedings. Their solicitor wrote to us asking for an extra month to 'investigate our claim' but we said no as they'd already had a year to investigate and had already said they'd investigated it. Their solicitor then wrote to us saying that it had 'come to their attention' that we had not file 'further particulars of claim' at court and that they would ask the court to award them costs if we went for a default judgement. Oh, and because of this they didn't have to file a defence. We spoke to the court who confirmed that they received our certificate of service and further particulars and also that the defendant had received them because they were sent signed for. So don't know what their solicitor was on about but they were totally wrong! Anyway, time is up and they didn't file a defence so we applied for default judgement and this was issued today. Obviously, they may apply for a set aside, but it made us happy for the minute. Presumably at some point we will need to apply for a warrant of execution.
  24. I agree that the T&Cs allow either party to terminate at any time. I think the point here is that the CCA is clear (well, clearish) on all circumstances where the agreement is terminated EXCEPT where the running-account is terminated by the creditor when the account is NOT in default. There are no guidelines in the CCA to cover this scenario. That doesn't mean to say it cannot be done, only that the CCA gives no guidelines. So, you have to go back to the T&Cs. Egg T&Cs for accounts opened circa 2000-2002 ish are flawed. This is evident given that the T&Cs of nowadays are very different so Egg have put some effort into to fixing obvious problems. Let's take a look at clause 12 of the 2000ish T&Cs. This is the 'circumstances where we will change the terms and conditions' clause. In this clause in 2000ish it says that they will only change the T&Cs to amend mistakes if the the correction will not detriment the debtor (there are other scenarios where the T&Cs can be amended too). In the most recent T&Cs it says Egg can change any T&Cs no matter what and the debtor has 30 days to terminate the contract if they don't like it. In the most recent T&Cs the 'termination' clause states clearly that you must repay the debt and carry on paying interest and charges on it until the debt is paid off. In the termination clause from 2000ish (clause 15) it says the agreement will remain in place after it has terminated but Egg will no longer provide any benefits and services. It doesn't mention interest and charges. Here's my problem with that original termination clause:- 1. It lacks consideration for the debtor 2. It does not say that interest and charges will continue to be charged on the debt. The later T&Cs cannot be used because the original clause 12 says Egg will only fix mistakes if they don't detriment the debtor. 3. One of the benefits/services Egg provide is an 'Account' (as defined in the T&Cs). The debt is the 'Balance' on this 'Account'. Interest & charges are paid on the 'Balance'. Clause 15 of the later T&Cs state that benefits and services will be withdrawn. The Account is a service so it must be withdrawn (and this is further proved by Egg wording in various letters that the agreement is terminated and the account closed). If the Account has been withdrawn and closed then the Balance cannot exist within the terms of the contract. So what is there to pay? We have had NUMEROUS correspondence with Egg over this point. We feel that Egg cannot continue charging interest or charges on the account and I suspect that the balance may also not be due. All down to badly worded contracts. Egg don't answer direct questions (for example, ask "where and how did I agree to the latest terms and conditions", Egg answer "the relevant clause is clause 15 in the original terms and conditions" - which we are already debating doesn't say the same as the current T&Cs) and don't address the issue specifically, technically, or in legal words. After 30 odd pieces of correspondence Egg stated "we will no long correspond with you on this matter". They are the big corporation, we are the little people. Our story's status is that we raised this with Egg 6 months ago and, as I said, have been corresponding almost constantly from then until the 'we're not talking anymore' letter we received in the middle of September, without them actually properly responding to the issues we raised. We issued proceedings at the beginning of October following our LBA to recover all the interest and charges they've applied to our account since they terminated and to stop them applying more. We're not trying to get out of paying the actual debt, just stopping them from adding interest to it as we see nothing in the original T&Cs that allow them to do this. Egg asked for a further 14 day extension to provide a defence and that deadline runs out next week. Yesterday we received a letter from their solicitors asking us to agree to a further 30 day extension because Egg needed 'to investigate the claim'. Obviously we will turn this down - what are they going to investigate in 30 days that they didn't investigate in the preceeding 6 months?? In addition, we reduced our monthly payment to be in line with the balance as we believe it should be (about £200 less than they are asking for). They have placed the account in default and sent ResolveCall to our house - this is even though we specifically told them not to do this (I don't live at home during the week and they know this) and the dent is in dispute. I spoke to someone on the phone and they said the account was not in dispute. I told them we had issued legal proceedings and had a response from their solicitor - the account was most definatly in dispute and they were fully aware of it! Their response? Oh no, it can only be in dispute if you have an open case with the ombudsman and that they will continue debt collection activity. What?? I asked the operative to point out where in the Debt Collection Guidelines it says that an account is only deemed to be in dispute if a case of open with the FOS and he said 'oh, I don't know the exact clause' to which my response was 'that's because it doesn't exist!' What a bunch of muppets. We now also have a case open with the FOS with regards to their breach of the Debt Collection Guidelines. This is purely my view of how I think the T&Cs are interpreted. The judge may agree, he may not. But, we're not going to lie down and let the banks walk all over us - Egg stated "we can quote any clause we like, they all would apply at some time and you must abide by them all" but this is against the original terms and conditions but so few people will question their authority which is why they'll get away with it 99% of the time. If 1000 people go to court and win, do you think that will impact their profit? Of course not. They probably spend more than that on the staff Xmas lunch. The people who fight back are such a small minority that is why they are so blaze about how they deal with complaints.
  25. Yes, that's it. I only have £7 in my account so I haven't used it yet. I don't know what that means but thanks anyway!
  • Create New...