In short, "You're nicked."

Not one credit card wants to fight in court the reclaim of unlawful penalty charges. They may threaten to, and deter the irresolute, but at the last minute they will cave in, as there is consensus they will lose and they do not want a precedent set. The situation is clearcut, but is less clearcut on PPI reclaims. My gut feeling about issues discussed in CAG is that if the answer is clearcut it would have been shared out long ago. If after extensive searching no definitive answer and precedent can be found, then it is a grey area. You appear to be seeking 2 answers: (1) Is your CCA enforeceable or not? Suggest click SEARCH on the top blue bar, click ADVANCED SEARCH, input keyword ENFORCEABLE, set search to THREAD TITLE ONLY. That would provide more reading, not only on what ought to happen, but also what actually happens, including the following: (2) You are ideally seeking closure in court after a pitched battle in your favour. As posted elsewhere, I believe a judge is empowered to rule a debt is enforeceable in spite of CCA irregularities, but he has no obligation to perform the mirror-image and rule once and for all time that the debt is unenforceable for all time. After 6 years of non-enforcement the debt is non-claimable any way. In the real world I believe courts will oblige with setasides and retrials if new documents are submitted by Egg in future. My impression is that if Egg reckons it will lose then it will decline a pitched battle in court, and the situation would quieten down into a mexican standoff with no further harassment for payment, but with the sword of damocles dangling over your client's head -- Egg may try again in future if they fancy their chances. If your reading uncovers clear precedents, do let the forum know as so many are groping their way forward. Good luck.

Would that be attempting to prove a negative? If Egg sues your client for a CCJ they would need to produce a properly executed agreement to warrant court enforcement of the proven debt. Easy if Egg choose a pitched battle in court. Lets say Egg do not try to enforce. You manage to get them in court, and you prove the document in your hand was not a properly executed document, will the judge rule that because an enforceable agreement was not presented on the day therefore an enforceable agreement could never be presented by Egg in future? Will the judge order permanent closure? There is a CCA forum which may contain precedents.

The alleged strength of democracy with a free press and free enterprise is that nothing can be kept secret very long, that without trembling submission to a king or a Stalinist dictator, the common people will speak out and look after the broader interests of society and nation. This appears not to be so. Those at the apex of democracy failed society by design or through incompetence. This is Enron and Worldcom all over again, only ten times worse. Imagine 30 itemised Madoff red flags not heeded by the SEC. The fire alarm was switched off, and the fire brigade went back to sleep zzzzzzzzz......

Egg monthly printed statement shows the debit interest rate applicable that month, and you will get these if you paid £10 for the fullblown SAR, i.e. a pile of papers one inch thick. But if you had paid £5 for Egg's list of itemised charges only, I am not sure if that version will say what the prevailing interest rate was. I am not sure that version would even list the monthely interest charged, say "£x.yy interest at 2.1%". Many CAG members received the £5 version, so they could confirm. Until now nobody that I know of retrospectively challenged the debit interest accrued on purchases.

The first letter needs only itemise the charges amounts and dates you want to reclaim, so that Egg can verify. Egg no longer offers more than token resistance, so legalese is irrelevant. If you must follow a template letter, try adapting the following example. It will do no harm and would probably save time if you say you are a member of CAG, so they know you know they know you know. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/586-credit-store-card-letter.html Once Egg verified your claim is numerically correct, they will send you a computerised template letter or secure message saying the OFT approved of their charge reduced from £20 to £16. Only at this point do you need the winning template letter from January 2008 which you have already been shown. This demolishes the Egg position and they normally come quietly. Using that letter no claimant that I know of has been refused and forced to go to court, score line 101 to 1, and that 1 was a PPI reclaim defeat. Good luck.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/172952-january-1st-government-deal.html The OFT make industry-wide pronouncements based on industry-wide research, so they take an inordinate amount of time to do anything. The government have now pulled the card companies in line effective Jan 1, but retrospective claims for rate reduction and compensation will also be handled by FOS who are better equipped than OFT for this. The nub of the question is, what will FOS rule as an unfair interest rate rise? Is it a rate rise which cannot be parried by cardholders without the money to pay off the outstanding balance? Is it a rise even as inflation and BOE Base Rate stayed constant? To gauge the lie of the land, cardholders could do with a history of fluctuating Egg rates, for themselves and for others.

I take it from the above that, instead of Sue owing Egg 100% of the balance outstanding as of now, Sue will owe Egg nothing, but owe 30% of the balance to Khans for services rendered, i.e. it will be like a 70% writeoff, or a 30% settlement. Khans will probably expect payment faster than Egg's 5% minimum monthly payment?

There is no contradiction in your solicitors saying they plan to take Egg to court, for which you need not pay their fees. Looks like Khans are THREATENING Egg to see them in court. Egg will not like a clear precedent established in court, that in circumstances such as yours, the judge will rule in favour of a writeoff. Tens of thousands of cardholders will follow you. If Egg lawyers believe they will lose in court, then they will likely try to settle with you, possibly with last-minute brinkmanship and trying their damndest to ensure you sign a gagging clause. If Egg lawyers are not scared of court, then they probably believe the judge will side with them not you, in which case there will be no writeoff, so no 30% for Khans. In the less probable scenario of actually finishing in court but managing an account balance writeoff, then you need to clarify your agreement with Khans. No fees to be paid to Khans for representing you in court, sure. But does the agreement say, 30% of successfully written-off balance for Khans regardless of whether achieved in court or out? I doubt if your agreement says, if a court hearing materialised, then no 30% for Khans even in the case of success.

Writing a letter is more likely to reach higher up the Egg office food chain, than phoning to be answered by a £5 per hour monkey. If you have a legitimate convincing case, you could tell Egg in writing that you intend taking it to the FOS, which if they take it on will cost Egg $400 win lose or draw. It will be in Egg's interest not to incur this charge. If you make it clear that any named Eggployee ignoring this warning will be reported by yourself to the Egg company secretary. The point is that Egg have over 2 million cards, and are now themselves hard up big time, so orders have gone out to play hard ball against customers. If you make clear two can play hard ball they will realise their best interests will be served by being reasonable. Good luck.

Subject Access Request response is required by law within 40 days, so the response to the request sent on 19NOV is due by 29DEC. Presumably your friend forwarded £10, otherwise Egg is not obliged to comply. A one-inch thick pile of paper will eventually reach her, much of it manually extracted by Eggployees, hence the long delay. Alternatively she could also send £5 to Egg requesting just a listing of her penalty charges with dates and amounts, this should take less than a week, but Egg will require photocopy of passport or drivers licence, and the original of an utility bill at the address. Once the exact reclaimable items are to hand, she needs only send a letter in English to reclaim same. This drill has gone on for 2.8 years and Egg knows all letters by heart. They will send back a computer-generated template letter claiming £16 is lawful. She can then reply with a CAG letter refuting same (see V-E Day thread page 5 January 2008 success fo this template letter). Egg management do NOT have the heart to resist this, not if your friend knows the drill. Full refund of penalty charges plus 8% p.a. should be forthcoming from Egg fairly quickly. The trouble with cyber card Egg is that they send out no statements ever, so if the cardholder does not check her statement online all kinds of errors could take place unchalleged. Your friend ought to DEMAND urgent restoration of logon privilege. Going overlimit should not cause suspension of logon privilege, more likely password violation three times etc. Egg have over 2 million cards and are now themselves hard up big time, hence persecution 4 times a day. Your friend needs to WRITE to Egg and refuse to deal with telephone monkeys. Tell Egg managers that any more persecution and you will complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which will cost Egg £400 win lose or draw. Remember the children's game of cowboys and indians? The cowboys chase the indians, but if the indians turn and stand firm, the cowboys will run. The law is on your friend's side. Good luck. PS. Once your friend's reclaim letter reaches Egg the dispute becomes evident as is the amount. Until then she lacks credibility. If the telephone monkeys sound truly on the verge of action as opposed to barking, i.e. applying Default Notice, it may be better to pay a small amount to calm their frantic urgency. She will get all charges back, 100% no question. But in the short term discretion may be the better part of valour. Damage to Experian record is no joke. This is a race as to who gets in first, her demonstrable reclaim or the telephone monkeys throwing a fit and acting precipitately.

Have mercy, MBNA are vegetarians.

As Late Payment penalty charges are now reclaimable, Egg no longer has this as a persuader for those who do not keep up with minimum monthly payments. Themselve now hard up for cash, they have racheted up the threat (and practice) of issuing Default Notice to make an example of one to encourage the others. My impression from reading forum threads is that they have speeded up on issuing DNs. Once issued, word from the front line despite brave talk, is that DNs are extremely difficult to roll back, so discretion is the better part of valour. If you reclaim asap all charges you are due (reclaim of unreasonaby raised interest level is a new fight for which there is no past form), and make a convincing case to Egg (e.g. income and expenses listing) that what you pay is all you can pay, Egg cannot sqeeze blood out of a stone. They want to be convinced, that issuing the DN cannot encourage you to pay anything more than you are already paying.

Newstyle £16 Overlimit or Late Payment penalty charges CAN be reclaimed in full plus 8% p.a. interest, and Egg does not put up much resistance. Usually a sequence of 2 letters in plain English is sufficient when you have your itemised list of charges -- see V-E Day thread page 5, at the Egg top "Sticky threads" section. Card companies have specifically agreed not to hike interest rates for those in payment distress. The scheme is due to start on Jan 1 2009, but retrospective reclaims will be handled by FOS, as per the posting 2 above yours. More likely just the mention of the FOS (each case costing Egg £400 win lose or draw), quoting the aforesaid new government arrangement should be enough to persuade Egg to cool it. As for defaulting yourself for nonpayment that would seem harder to resist. Egg does not put up a stubborn resistance when you know which buttons to press, as learnt from others' experience. Good luck.

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

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

This is an example of how serving Egg with legal papers can at times provoke worse results than sending a letter in plain English, into the care of Egg commercial managers. Egg managers manifestly have a policy of not contesting penalty charge refunds provided you know the counter arguments as laid out in CAG template letters. If however your N1 served at court gets to Egg lawyers as opposed to managers, the lawyers apparently sing from a different hymn sheet. You may eventually achieve full settlement out of court, or after lawyers' intimidating brinkmanship following a roundabout route which will probably take much longer, no knowing how long. Let hope you are not stuck in such a groove. There are numerous how-to examples of a simple letter to Egg achieving a full refund plus 8% p.a. interest, some within a week. See V-E Day thread in the Stickie Threads section above. Good luck.

It is not an Egg correspondent consciously speaking but their automated IT systems babbling. There could be for instance 200 different permutations of Egg-vs-customer situations which a human manager may recognise after lengthy briefing, but say only 50 Egg template letters carrying rigid text and stored on Egg computer. Whenevr the IT system senses a certain template letter is due, the nearest match is sent off. To be fair, many CAG claimants also fire off CAG template letters bearing inapplicable and irrelevant text to banks and cards. Such blindfolded automated mailing might be the explanation why they sent you a template letter requesting a manual signature (aimed at other manual applicants, or text left over from before 2004), when in your case an electronic tick had already been recorded on your online application -- if that was what happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7762981.stm Credit data firm to cut 300 posts Nottingham-based credit information firm Experian is to slash up to 300 jobs across the UK and Irish Republic in the New Year. The company said it would consult with its 4,000 employees before making the cuts at the end of March 2009. The cost-saving plan is part of a series of changes aimed at saving a total of £87m ($130m)......A full 90-day consultation period with staff facing redundancy will start in January. The company employs more than 2,000 people in Nottingham.

Egg have over 2 million cards alone, and are not like a military command with a pyramidal structure. Correspondence started by one clerk is carried on by another, with only tenuous notes for continuity. At this time of job cuts they are probably under time pressure, and many have reported Egg left hand not knowing what the right hand promised. Warning of DN is supposed to be sent out before issuing DN, but if Egg do not send it out but when challenged insist they did, it is very hard to prove a negative, as there is no legal requirement for the (single) warning to be sent by registered post. What this amounts to is that there is no dependable timetable of escalation, i.e. how many months overdue, how many warning letters. In the old days the threat of late payment penalty will encourage monthly minimum payment. With penalty charge now reclaimable, basically Egg have lost that sanction, so the only persuader they have left is blackballing a customer's credit rating. They understand that, and now do so with increasing frequency. With all banks and lenders and credit cards now increasingly loath to lend except to those with the best credit history, the value of the latter has correspondingly risen.

For the criteria governing a properly executed CCA, see below post and others by Steven4064 (setting SEARCH ELECTRONIC or SIGNATURE, display to POST rather than THREAD) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/147592-egg-no-agreement-default-4.html?highlight=electronic#post1724116 As for wrestling with Experian and other CRA's you will probably need 3 days holidays to read through the following thread and others: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/148780-experian-final-battle-commences.html. What the text of statute and regulation says is one thing, what the Commissioner or judge will do when approached is another. On the reclaiming of unlawful overlimit and late payment charges the postion is clear - Egg will not fight the reclaim. On CCA and Default Notice removal the Egg position is anything but clear. They will fight to the last ditch. The best reported result that some CCA claimants have managed after lengthy wrestling has been a Mexican standoff. If Egg believe they are on a losing wicket they tend to go quiet about collection, but they will never concede the CCA is invalid and unenforceable. In some cases Egg will wake up again like Count Dracula after many months then pass debt collection to a new agency who start the cycle of harassment afresh. For those in dire straits a Mexican standoff looks good enough. In your wealthier case your credit profile is likely to be blackened by DN, and much easier to be blackened than whitened again. Your struggle to overturn same will be uphill, with outcome unknown at this stage. Counting all the cost and the time and aggravation, the ultimate victory if there is one, may or may not be a Pyrrhic victory. There is no universal chorus of triumph for those pursuing the CCA route as there is for those reclaiming unlawful penalty charges. But good luck, this is as much as I know from reading what has been variously reported from the front line.

Injunctions are heavy stuff, to restrain a party which has clearly broken the law. They are expensive in both cost and time (one solicitor quoted £2,000 to handle one). The cause celebre below took NatWest to court for BREACH of an injunction already imposed. It went on for 8 months, with 5 court attencances, and ended with a score draw but no penalties for NatWest. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/61129-NatWest-breach-injunction-9.html?highlight=injunction#post592322 For broader background reading: click in the blue bar near screen top, click ADVANCED SEARCH, set keyword to INJUNCTION, select SEARCH THREAD TITLE ONLY, click SEARCH NOW -- returning 11 threads. Because of Citigroup and Egg poverty under credit crunch, Egg pursue debts harder than ever. They would only settle for less if the debtor's circumstances make it demonstrably clear, that if they did not settle for say 80% of the balance outstanding today, they may collect zero in the months ahead as the debtor falls further into difficulties. With your spotless AAA credit history Egg are unlikely to settle for less than 100%. Egg will understand you have a valuable reputation to lose as they blacken your Experian profile by truthfully recording your omitted monthly minimum payments. The validity of your CCA is for you to prove. If you did manage to prove invalidity to Egg's complete satisfaction, they may think again and settle for less than 100% rather than risk facing you in a court showdown over the CCA non-enforceablity issue. From there it is a different judgment to force Egg to retract all previous CRA recordings of your itemised non-payments and Default Notice if they went that far. Of the only two such Egg rollback successes that I have read about, one took 18 months and only succeeded because Egg made a legal faux pas. See: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/133906-only-successful-rollback-egg.html

see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1724689.html

SAR is separate from CCA request, and needs to be accompanied by a £10 payment (Egg also offers a faster-turnround slimline list of your penalty charges with dates and amounts, for £5 from you. The alternative is an one-inch thick pile of papers taking up to 6 weeks to arrive.) The charges list will be sufficient for making an unlawful penalty charges reclaim. You will probably be asked to supply a photocopy of passport or drivers licence, plus an original utility bill to prove you are who you say you are. So it will save another exchange of letters if you include the above with your £5 or £10. Nowadays Egg does not put up any serious resistance to reclaims. Once your reclaim is under way, you can tell the phone chasers that your balance outstanding will be shortly reduced by Egg repayment, and thus tone down their screaming urgency. If you are going to propose monthly repayments, then obviously such an amount could be reduced, considering the lower total outstanding. Good luck.

This excellent idea now has an excellent font size. Interestrateripoff puts in an awful lot of work. Have just clicked his scales.