Good. Moc1982's argument is the one Egg cannot face in court, so they are unlikely to raise other difficulties which will get them there. No justification for Egg to pay third party Capquest any more than for them to refund into third party British Gas. Egg has a cyle of 2 or 3 standard template response letters, so there may be two more on the way regardless of what you write, but eventually they will see sense -- any option but not those unanswerable questions in court. Good luck.

It looks as if confusion has arisen over the ambiguous use of the word "Default". You were in default of T&C re exceeding your card limit. Accordingly several "Overlimit Charges" were levied on your account. The new yellow warning looks like an additional warning by paperless Egg to say the same thing in cyberspace. Default Notice is a formal last warning to bring your account back to order or else risk your account being closed with full balance payable immediately. Although postal delivery of DN is obligatory, Egg in many cases claimed to have sent same but cardholders claimed never to have received same. If at the subsequent closing of your account you were not asked for 100% settlement, then your account was not closed following issue of DN, but closed because Egg saw no future of making profits out of you. Whether an actual default was registered against you can be confirmed from a check by writing to Experian PLC of Nottingham enclosing £2 cheque -- I doubt it (Egg generally likes to withold the issue of DN as a threat to those who will not pay). Egg like other cards and banks are broke, and have little appetite for unprofitable accounts. If they have reviewed your value to them and have come to a conclusion, very unlikely they can be disuaded, but you can try. Reclaim of alleged unlawful penalty charges is a separate issue from all of the above. Experience over 3 years makes clear Egg WILL refund penalty charges to those who know the score, and Egg do not want to land in court to defend against penalty charges. They caved in 105 times, no reason to change now. Egg's commercial managers will refund faster than their legal department. Even with N1 claim already under way, if you simply write a letter to the commercial manager in plain English to shortcircuit the process. No harm mentioning your N1 claim either. Normally a ritualised exchange of two or three letters is sufficient to secure full refund plus 8% p.a. offered by Egg. For template letter see case 01 weeks - 30 APR 2007 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - Eggmail then 2-day payout - moc1982 v Egg in http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html Good luck.

Times are very hard now at Citi cards, living on government bailout. They will do anything say anything to save money. You can point out the record about "Charge Off and balance zero" (google then point out you understand they have written off the balance from Egg books.) They cannot reduce a balance which does not belong to them and is no longer their's to reduce. If they claim to be paying a third party they are still liable in law and answerable to the judge -- the last place they want to be. This is kidology and brinkmanship, waiting for you to blink. Steven is right. Ignore them and read the riot act.

Charges refund is a legal issue between yourself and Egg. Debt repayment is a legal issue between yourself and Capquest. The two are unrelated, and nothing to be gained by raising an issue which does not arise. Egg clerks at the bottom of the food chain will trigger preset procedures when the expected cues arrive, i.e. a ritualised exchange of 2 or 3 letters, a dialogue between the deaf proven a hundred times. Any extraneous issue raised will simply cause a letter to be filed at the bottom of the tray, as an exception from the rule for the attention of the next level up. Simply ask for a refund to you, offering your bank account and sortcode if you wish to shorten this choreographed dance. Egg are not going to pay Capquest, no point giving them the idea and a reason for delay.

Egg is a separate legal entity from Capquest. Egg is answerable in their own name to the regulator and to the law for what charges they levied. Chances are Egg have sold this debt to Capquest for a fraction. If you still had an ongoing account with balance owing, then it would be hard to argue if Egg chose to refund charges back into the same account where charges were levied in the first place. But you no longer have an account with Egg. All reported past experience suggests Egg will refund you direct, they will probably ask for a bank account you nomiinate, as they do not like sending cheques through the post. No need to discuss this with Capquest and give them ideas to give you hassle or try to intercept the refund. Charges reclaim is known to be a success, in the case of Egg with very little hassle. No point in coupling a known winning campaign with an entirely different tussle without the same delivered results. It's your case to do as you choose.

On charges refund deal with Egg, not Capquest. Capquest's pressure for payment is an unrelated issue. It has been established for 2 years that Egg management, even Egg lawyers, do not want to defend penalty charges reclaim in court. What you received was a standard computer-generated letter to kid the uninitiated. There may be one more template brushoff letter from them, no more. Eggployees are required to go through the charade even though they know they intend to pay out in the end. As a rule when they cave in they volunteer to add 8% p.a. "statutory interest" on top. Very doubtful you will get more. You could try, but it will slow down repayment, and you could finish up in court defending a contractual interest reclaim already defeated in the High Court. Simply ignore Egg template letters and press on with your own template letter based on the following: 01 weeks - 30 APR 2007 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - Eggmail then 2-day payout - moc1982 v Egg See: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html If you demonstrate you know the end result, Egg will not be encouraged to indulge in more mumbo-jumbo. They do not want to face you in court and set a precedent amidst press publicity to encourage more claimants, so will pay up, in many cases within a week, in others over 2, 3 months. "Charge Off" means that for tax and accounting reasons Egg wrote off your balance as a loss. Your account at Egg no longer has a balance, but your debt at Capquest does. This does not remove Egg's answerability for Overlimit and Late Payment penalty charges which are reclaimable for up to 6 years back. You say they are unlawful. Egg do not want to argue in court. Good luck.

Click "SEARCH" on the blue bar near the top. When the dropdown opens, click "ADVANCED SEARCH" at the bottom. Input "Connells" into the search box. Select search whole thread not just title. Select RETURN AS POSTS, not threads. You will find many postings, some of possible interest, such as: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/152502-connells-estate-agents.html

Hi Redcat, Suggest you click SEARCH in the top blue bar, then click ADVANCED SEARCH, then input keyword HARASSMENT - in thread title only. That will return many threads which will offer good info, not least the sticky thread below started by the boss man. Telephone harassment - an action plan Egg voluntarily offered to lend during the good times, so as to make a profit. You are already trying your best to honour your debt. They knew what the risks of lending were, now in bad times they cannot expect blood from a stone. Best wishes to yourself and family. Cheers!

What was the outcome, any thread on that?

Completely up to you LMD as to the timing, but as you pointed out Egg appears very worked up over this issue, not surprising if they feel threatened by the potential loss of £13K in one fell swoop. Why wake up a sleeping rotweiler unless you have reason to? On the loan front, Egg T&C provides for a 3-month payments holiday, once only during the lifetime of a loan, to allow for unavoidable hard times. I availed myself of this holiday. No hassle, one phone call and politely concluded. No reason why this holiday cannot be taken even from the second month of the new loan -- all provide for in the T&C.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7778218.stm

The following case is due back in court in 10 days for a final judgement on unenforceable CCA: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/113999-egg-dlc-final-straits-2.html#post1986030 You have a spotless credit history with no payments missed, this is a major asset for landing a job or buying house. With such a good relationship with Egg, no point antagonising Egg except for demonstrable benefit. Even with the poorest of the poor Egg will not freeze the interest, but it has been reported that after issuing a DN (and wrecking your credit rating for 6 years) Egg will in some cases suspend further interest. With £13K balance and probably ownership of a house, there is less chance than a snowball in hell that Egg will informally suspend interest. Your problem appears to be ond of short-term liquidity, and if converting your card balance to a loan account at a lower rate of interest, and possibly with some cash upfront for you, if the terms suit you, it is your decision. With your immaculate record you would stand a chance second to none. As for skipping payments, Egg under the whip from upstairs these days escalate very quickly. In one case a DN was issued after only two monthly payments missed, and it took a courageous cardholder 30 months to persuade Egg to roll back that DN. No need to do anything irreversible until the aforesaid case ruling comes through. Very best of luck LMD.

3 cases of successful DN rollback were reported. One took 18 months of continuous effort, one took 30 months. The third was achieved quickly. In a situation where Egg looked in some danger of not being paid at all, the claimant paid up in full. From relief and gratitude Egg manager volunteered to rescind the DN. If you have paid Egg in full it looks like you no longer have a bargaining chip. Egg DNs successfully rolled back "

Lollipop, Egg evidently read your postings. Altogether now, "Hello Egg!".

Lenders rushing to seek repossessions | Money | The Guardian £190 for £340 owed sounds low to me. If Egg have ever been lenient about accepting partial payment as full and final settlement, which I doubt, they are not lenient now. Their owners Citigroup the biggest bank in the world are headed towards 40% ownership by the US government. No doubt relentless pressure is being put on at all levels to generate Egg income for them to stay alive. Basically institutions such as Citigroup and RBS cannot pay their bills. A Treasury minister owned up that one day last winter RBS was within hours of locking their doors and stopping ATM withdrawals, before Gordon Brown stepped in to offer whatever they needed. If it is any consolation to you, any Eggployee you speak to over the phone may not have a job much longer. If you really want one last try to settle on a partial offer, I suggest you make the most convincing Incomes and Expenditure list available to Egg together with evidence, then speak to them on the phone, holding nothing back, and owning up to all your other debts. And a convincing explanation that if Egg will not accept less than 100% they may finish up with 0%. You may have to offer more. If anybody is going to give ground it will be Egg not the hard men of CDS who have nothing to lose. As for whether CDS will go to court to recover £340 rather than accept £190, hard to tell. Once they go to court they will add legal expenses to the £340. Men like that believe, the harder they press, the more they will get. If you think Eggployees are rude, they are boy scouts compared to CDS. Good luck and chin up Bea!

Egg declined to accept your offer in writing, Egg were not given the chance to bargain with you, Egg then voted with their feet, passing the case to hardball CDS. It is pretty obvious Egg will not accept £190 instead of £344. Hard to see any point in repeating your written offer through the hardline intermediary. If you spoke to Egg direct there conceivably might be room for small movement? What you say to CDS is unlikely to get back to EGG, the two organisations have different agendas. Egg is hard up now, they want every penny they can get. Debt collectors have been asked to escalate -- hard. Good luck.

The debate hinges on whether there is a prohibited merging of two separate categories of credit into one single agreement, or whether Egg simply lifted the amount of the loan to enable the payment of PPI premiums. If a borrower calculates his requirement with great precision and finds he needs £2000. Egg agrees to a loan of £2000, but can see immediately that £2000 will be insufficient if on top of it the borrower needs to pay monthly PPI premiums not previously entered into his calculations. Egg now grants a loan of £2800 instead. The question is, did Egg grant an £2800 loan for convenience? If so there can be no objection to interest being charged on the entirety of the £2800 loan - a loan is a loan is a loan. If there is some hidden secret understanding, that whereas the £2000 can be spent by the borrower, the £800 can at no time be spent by the borrower, then that will constitute evidence of a restrictive clause, as will the clawback of £800 by Egg is after one month PPI subscriptiion is ended by the borrower's choice. Without such evidence it seems hard to make out there were two separate loans dressed up as one. I have not seen the paperwork. If it were the case that PPI terms were not made clear to the consumer, then that will be covered separately by insurance legislation, rules and regulations. PPI mis-sold? Sure, but that is a separate action. PPI with separate loan restriction and interest terms disguised unwritten inside the main loan carrying different terms? The evidence of such existence if any, will be exposed at the extinction of the "PPI loan". It is not as if it has never happened before. The judge will likely insist on ascertaining this position. If it does not walk like a duck, it does not swim like a duck, it does not quack like a duck, is it a duck? Any way e_inspired's final court hearing on this very subject comes up within 3 weeks, and this question will be categorically answered by the one who counts - the judge.

Agreeing to the contract puts the cardholder under no obligations to spend any money whatsoever and under no risk to lose anything. The T&Cs stipulate that the cardholder is free to terminate the agreement at any future date (then pay the outstanding balance if any). The cardholder is thus not bound to the agreement either. After Egg receives the cardholder's signature I understand they make a final check with the alleged employer to verify the claim of employment. From the moment Egg makes themselves bound to the agreement they stand the risk of losing money, but not so the cardholder. The two positions of risk are not symmetrical.

Click SEARCH in the top blue bar click ADVANCED SEARCH set poster to PETERBARD display returns as POSTS not threads.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

What did HSBC say about your outstanding card balance after blocking its further use? Some will vehemently disagree, but credit card T&Cs look to me to have 2 distinct components: (1) A variable option to lend or to borrow. The card company can raise or lower their limit at will. Conforming to the principle of mutuality and reciprocity the cardholder can stop borrowing and cancelling his account at will (all in the T&Cs). (2) A fixed obligation to repay the outstanding balance, i.e. minimum monthly payment. Unless monthly payments are defaulted, the card company cannot demand the outstanding balance at will (again in the T&Cs). With two parts to this agreement, seems to me any card company is simply looking for trouble from litigants when it says in black and white it is "terminating the agreement". For goodness sake, terminating which of the TWO parts of the agreement? It's up to the judge.

At PPI cancellation time if there ever had been a hidden PPI financing loan, this would be the time for Egg to unwind te loan. The purpose of such alleged loan having been cancelled, if Egg does nothing then to unwind the "loan" then where is the indication there never was a hidden PPI loan restricted in its purpose. The purpose having gone the loan was not recalled, but is used for other spending instead. The basic loan was informally boosted to ensure the customer has enough to pay for PPI. Egg acted like an insurance broker or PPI stakeholder ensuring monthly PPI premiums are paid to the insurer. If Egg charges a little more premium that they pay the insurer, that would surely fall within the remit of insurance legislation not money-lending legislation. Upon unwinding the insurance the premium payments stopped, but there was no unwinding of the alleged loan, so where did that loan come from and where did it go?

I have not gone into the fine print, so just to consider the alleged concept of PPI premiums paid out of an "implicit" loan arranged for that purpose. Say £1500 frontloaded for PPI, on top of a £4,000 loan. (1) IS the £1500 loaned for payment of PPI only? Those in the front line can tell us: Can you voluntarily cease subscription to PPI say after only 2 weeks? If yes, will Egg accept your PPI bow-out? If yes, do Egg have arrangements to claw back their "loan" of £1500 for PPI only? Are there clauses in the agreement to enforce this claw-back? If none then where is the restriction on the use of the £1500 loan to finance PPI premiums? Say if Egg lends you £4,000 over 5 years, not only will there be PPI on top, there will also be interest on top. To ensure you can meet payments AND obtain use of true nett liquidity of £4,000 Egg could offer you a loan of £8,000 upfront. Are you saying there is one explicit agreement hiding two implicit agreements - PPI financing and interest financing? By what device does Egg ensure your spending does not encroach on the pot of money ringfenced for PPI and interest? For me the acid test on whether there is a hidden PPI financing agreement will hinge on what happens when you abort the PPI but not the loan. If you have such separate paperwork then it is a different story. As for the different issue of TWO genuine credit agreements such as an old loan account and a new loan account merging into one -- what actually happened in the case? Did Egg agree to a separate new loan, and out of it spot cash was transferred from the new loan account into the old account closing the latter with finality? If so I cannot see any difficulty about two financial products masquerading as one because they did not. All this, of course, subject to Egg doing it with the customer's agreement. Exactly what paperwork was generated at the switchover? Most people do not want to read such paperwork when they are after dosh. And the answer shortly due in court:

If you believe it is quite straightforward, if you know what the court will do, what is your advice for Eddie about to go to court?

The law obliges Egg to maintain copy of all info they store electronically about a particular cardholder (in case it is wrong and needs to be challenged), not to store a verbatim copy of every letter they send to every cardholder. If the latter then Egg will need to treble their magnetic storage media. When template letter no. 137B is sent out to a cardholder, the most that will be stored is a marker on the account showing said letter has been sent out, possibly with a date but may be not. When the same template letter is sent out to 161,000 cardholders it is inconceivable for 161,000 identical copies to be stored on each account. Anybody mounting a lawsuit for a group of 10 is launching class action, i.e. it will be transparently obvious to the judge, his verdict will become at worst encouragement and at best a precedent for 161,000 others in the same boat. Purely hypothetically, if the judge found himself leaning towards the verdict "cardholder no longer liable for his debt after agreement termination", he will be acutely aware his verdict will deprive Egg of 161,000 outstanding debts -- say at average £2,000 per account, then a total of £320 million. A county judge will most likely withhold a verdict triggering transfer of £320 million deeminig it more appropriate to the High Court after exhaustic examination, and if he did Egg will be certain to appeal all the way up at ruinous legal expense to all parties. Tom Brennan tried in court to take on the banks as the battering ram for millions of common folk. The judge would have none of it, ruling that battle was for the OFT-v-banks in the Test Case. And if the Egg cardholder loses his lawsuit in county court? Quite likely some or all of Egg's costs will be awarded against the losing party.