Jump to content

Mistermind

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mistermind

  1. Mistermind

    Mills1vEgg

    To keep up with the latest countermeasures against disturbing home visits: click Search on the blue bar at the top click Advanced Search inside the popup box search for keyword VISITS, selecting "present in the thread title" click "Search Now" Good luck.
  2. No harm at all writing to Egg, but address it to the attention of their General Manager. No need to mention £20 charge not appicable in your case. No harm telling Egg that WHEN, NOT IF you go to court to meet their £1000-per-day barrister you will be claiming extra for your own court fees. Without question Egg management know about the thread below. Egg have given in 121 times, they are not going to change now. If you demonstrate your resolution, and make clear that you know they know you know they will give in and refund, it would be pointless for them to waste time and indulge in brinkmanship. Best to get paid without hassle, but if hassle they want, hassle they can have -- in court. Sticky: V-E Day: Victory over Egg (1 2 3 4 5)
  3. Egg have called your bluff intending to test your mettle during the current hard times for them, but you can call their bluff. 01 weeks - 30 APR 2007 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - Eggmail then 2-day payout - moc1982 v Egg This is the question Egg do not want you to ask in court. When you give notice you will ask it they will not face you in court, likely to cave in and refund at the last minute.
  4. If you were taken to court the judge will assess a monthly payment according to your means as demonstrated in court. In view of your circumstances this would be a token amount. So the DCA and their lawyers have nothing to gain by taking you to court, and you have nothing to lose except for a CCJ to recorded on your credit file for 6 years. The DCA will try to squeeze out as much payment as possible by harassment. If you come clean with an income and expenses summary, well they cannot get blood out of a stone. The main thing is to avoid too many ugly confrontations. Egg have evidently given up on you as a lost cause, so no surprise if their harassed staff do not want to respond. They cannot however escape their legal obligations to respond to SAR and CCA requests. Do you have unlawful penalty charges to reclaim, which would reduce your outstanding debt? Do you have missold PPI instalments? Good luck.
  5. I read the judgment a third time during office hours and at last understood it. The crux of the judgment is below. Walker went to the High Court because the county court judge did not rule on the fact that if the figure in the "credit" box was wrong then the agreement, said the Law Lords, would have been rendered irredeemably unenforceable. Subsequent appeals then centred on whether the broker fee should have been classified as "credit" or as a discrete "financing charge". The borrower said the broker fee attracted debit interest and was repaid over a period same as the borrowing. the Law Lords said it was right for the broker fee to be classified as a financing charge because the broker fee was NOT "credit" as defined by legislation. On this basis the ruling of the Law Lords went for the lender and against the borrower who is now allegedly £100K in the hole for this failed legal action. Wilson was the analogous and opposite precedent, where a financing charge was incorrectly added into "credit" thus rendering the agreement legally unenforceable. The Wilson and Walker cases could not both be upheld for the borrower, as they were exact opposites. The obiter dicta deemed of interest is that the Supreme Court clearly affirmed the criticality of Prescribed Terms as opposed to Required Terms, and the accuracy of terminology. But would "Credit Limit" in contrast to "Approved Limit" supported by explanatory notes on the same page be ruled on in the same way as when a broker fee was wrongly stated in the "credit" box -- a categorical black-or-white error on which the Wilson case supplied a clear precedent?
  6. The Walkers borrowed £17K. How could they possibly pay £100K to fight all the way to the Supreme Court? Even on a no win no fee basis the lawyers acting for the Walkers were doomed to lose out. Somebody bankrolled this action as a test case?
  7. My impression is that in all cases of misstatement the intention behind misstatement would be taken into consideration by judges, whether there was any intention to mislead and misrepresent, whether any benefit or loss issued from the misstatement, or even mispelling. In the case of misstating the amount of credit, clearly parliament was ahead of the game, allowing no latitude for misstatement.
  8. You are not the only one confused. DJ Gilham in county court ruled the debt was enforceable and allowed a suspended charge on the house(?). Walker appealed, and Circuit Judge Halbert on 27 April 2009 upon appeal ruled it was unenforceable, overturning the charge on the house. The lender appealed, and on 12 NOV 2009 the Court of Appeal allowed the lender appeal, and gave permission for the borrower's appeal to the Supreme Court. Walker then appealed to the Supreme Court to rule again on the lender's appeal on 12 NOV 2009. In para 30 the Supreme Court dismissed the (lender's) appeal. I understand it as the selfsame appeal as was ruled on by the court of Appeal, i.e. the second ruling by a higher and binding court. The entire document says the law lords agreed the true amount of "credit" was misstated, as per legislation before 2007. If that is the correct reading then as their lordships said, the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable in court. Whether the lender will try to collect outside of court is doubtful. My impression is that the OFT clearly said they disapproved of continuing attempted collection where the courts have irredeemably ruled.
  9. The whole issue of enforceability turned on the fact that an upfront fee being "the cost of obtaining credit" was added into the box described as "credit" -- similar to credit, claimed the lender, in that the cost of obtaining credit attracted the same debit interest as the "credit". I understand their lordships to say they were in essence two separate loans and to comply with the law would need two agreements, linked if applicable. Moving from the letter of the law to the spirit of the legislation, it could be that the legislators did not like the misleading signal that the borrower benefitted from the loan to the amount of the loan (which he could use to his benefit), plus the amount of the loan fee (which he could not use to his benefit). For this reason their lordships would not allow the spendable loan figure to be inflated by the unspendable loan fee in the same box. The loan fee has already been spent on the transaction, and cannot be spent by the borrower. It is therefore not true borrowing for his own benefit. It is borrowing for the lender's benefit. It is misrepresentation which the legislators sought to prevent. If the lender will not play ball with parliament, the Supreme Court will not play ball with the lender, Q.E.D. Lenders will not like presenting a borrower with 2 separate agreements to sign, as it draws the borrower's attention to the inflated cost of the loan, to the part he cannot spend. Lenders who habitually put the combined amount in the CREDIT box will now have a very big exposure, if they can survive at all. Any way this final verdict applies only to agreements signed before 6th April 2007.
  10. Mistermind

    star12 v egg

    It would cost you only £5 to receive past statements, hopefully in days not weeks. If that would set your mind at rest, why not? But you would need to discover at least £5 refund omission to show a profit. Egg generally offer SAR requestors 3 options: (1) £5 for just a computer-generated list of penalty charges (and possiblly PPI instalments) (2) £5 for a reprint of all past statements as they were issued first time. (3) £10 for a one-inch thick pile of papers including screen prints, taking up to 40 days and possibly costing Egg £50 staff time. Egg are already in the doghouse with regulators on PPI, so they would be foolhardy to intentionally hoodwink customers to save a few quid and risk being caught red-handed. To safeguard against over-refunding, you would have thought Egg had double-checked their sums. Well done taking only 10 days. Egg effectively ran an involuntary savings scheme for you, and have now refunded your savings as an unexpected windfall. The drinks are on you. :D
  11. On 5 April 2006 the OFT pronounced a fair charge to be £12 for credit cards in general, but made a special dispensation of £16 for Egg who claimed that as a cyber bank with obligatory DDs they chalked up fewer penalty charges, and therefore needed to be higher to pay for their IT and admin costs etc. All this was based on Egg's "genuine pre-estimates" not Egg's audited costing figures. You could call Egg's bluff and lawfully require Egg in court to reveal the latter not the former. 4 years after OFT's starting gun Egg still does not want such a showdown in court which would establish a precedent if it were to escalate to the high court, binding on the entire credit card industry. Egg is unlikely to change its stance now, and eyeball-to-eyeball will blink at the last minute and refund. Issuance of the N1 form in Small Claims Court should be enough. The more Egg believes in your resolution the faster they will bow to the inevitable. If unfamiliar with online filiing of N1 others will be better on advising you on procedures. See 01 weeks - 30 APR 2007 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - Eggmail then 2-day payout - moc1982 v Egg
  12. Hundreds of people did not receive a DN from Egg. When pushed up against the wall Egg invariably said they did send it. There is no legal requirement to use registered post, so it is your word against theirs. Nobody ever got any leverage out of it that I remember.
  13. Mistermind

    star12 v egg

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html#post888909 See the section near the bottom: 16 PPI claims won, 2 lost. Egg is retreating in the face of PPI refund claims, with a recent £1600 refund given after only one letter from the claimant. The fact is that the regulators take a dim view of PPI mis-selling and in a borderline situation of doubt nowadays leans in favour of the claimant. If your PPI enrolment tickbox was pre-ticked YES it seems unfair tactics, as a customer may not notice the pre-tick at all on a crowded online screen. I should keep safe retention of Egg's admission (in black and white?) that the box was displayed pre-ticked. Were you ever eligible for PPI unemployment claims at all, e.g. were you self-employed? That could further strengthen your reclaim. I am not aware of any PPI reclaim template letter, or one tailored for Egg. If you read the 16 successes that should give you enough info and encouragement. In many cases Egg caved in immediately where they know from the circumstances and the known past form. If they know they will lose in the end, then in the process they do not want to antagonise the regulator OFT and FOS further, possibly risking a fine in addition to forced refund. So a straightforward letter from you should be enough, claiming full refund plus 8% per annum statutory interest. You could if you wish, politely PM the successful case most resembling your own, for further encouragement. Good luck.
  14. Past statement request should definitely go to Egg. No reason why they would refuse to supply same unless they twig your motivation. If you make this request in the form of SAR they are legally obliged to send same, albeit within 40 days. Egg will likely offer you 2 options, both paid upfront as provided for in law: Just a concertina'ed list of penalty charges for £5, Or full statements for £10 -- which you need for your purpose.
  15. Credit card debit interest is much higher than loan account interest available in a competitive free market. Credit carholders agree to the high interest rate because unlike loan accounts credit cards offer the facility of charging purchases and drawing cash advances up to the credit limit with no questions asked. Premium interest is justified by a premium service, i.e. a service as well as a debt owing. After Egg closed down the premium service due to no fault from the cardholder, credit card balance was for all practical purposes converted into an outstanding loan. Whereas it is hard to argue for complete cessation of interest on an outstanding loan, not hard at all to seek arbitration from the regulator OFT or appear before a judge bringing a case of Unfair Terms, to retrospectively apply to January 2008 -- why credit card level interest continues to be charged on a loan account defying market norms.
  16. No lender is obliged to update CRA registers, they do it for mutual sharing of lending risk info. The absence of any CRA record is neither here nor there, with no effect on legal liability. As Capquest wrote to say they know nothing about the intended purpose of your S/O payments, and by implication they are not yet claiming ownership by virtue of receiving your gift, I should write to Capquest asap and claim back refund of same before something else goes wrong. You could always deposit this money in a ringfenced account earning interest. If nobody demands repayment of your o/h's debt by 2012, then the 6-year Statute of Limitations determines expiry of the 2006 liability. Then in 2012 time for a party courtesy of Capquest. If some CRA wakes up and chases your o/h before 2012 then you have the protection of your ringfenced nest egg. Possibly Egg wrote off the debt, though unlikely. More likely their office systems got into such a muddle they lost all trace of the debt after transferring its handling from DCA to DCA. Or one of the DCA's went out of business and junked all their paperwork. It is up to the creditor to chase the debtor, not for the debtor to find the creditor. No point looking for a sleeping dog to wake up. Count me in for your 2012 party invites .
  17. I believe SAR compliance covers all material stored in electronic form only. CCA request at a cost of £1 would cover non-electronically stored agreements. Ownership and storage of such agreements can quite legitimately be separate from management of ongoing debt repayment. Even there a recent court verdict ruled that manual reconstitution of an agreement from various IT records where unavoidable, constitutes sufficient compliance of CCA request. If debt enforcement is sought from a law court, only at the physcial hearing does the need arise to produce the original signed document. And even then a judge has the power to rule on enforceability whatever the state of paperwork. The judge rules.
  18. The issuance of a DN based on non-payment is precursor to withdrawing card privileges and attempted collection of the entire balance outstanding. Egg chose to withdraw from further lending just as a cardholder may decide to abstain from further borrowing, but at the time of withdrawal Egg did not demand full repayment, only monthly minimum payment. The subsequent issuance of DN would be justified by proven non-payment, unrelated to Egg's earlier decision to withdraw from further lending. These two different decisions are separately justified, the second not justified on the first and arguably not related to the first. One cardholder went to High Court to try overturn his DN on the basis no copy of enforceable agreement was received from RBS. In court RBS did produce an agreement ruled by the judge as enforceable. For good measure the judge added that collection activities (other than CCJ, Charge Order, Attachment of Earnings etc which are the prerogative of the court) may proceed before enforceability is proven in court. This ruling triggered by a proactive litigant upset cardholders big time. Once a ruling is made, it applies to everyone and inflences consideration by other judges even where they are not literally bound by legal precedent.
  19. This is not about 6 years limitation on collection of unpaid credit borrowings. This is about reclaiming penalty charge 6 years after they were levied. Continued monthly payments are irrelevant to the issue of charges due to you as opposed to the outstanding debt due to Egg. This is like saying someone gave you the wrong bill and you paid it. After the elapse of a certain period the question is what the judge will say to the claimant in court. It is your privilege to browse numerous threads and choose what to believe. I have nothing further to add on this subject.
  20. Bank charges were ruled in the highest court as service fees, whereas credit card charges remain viewed as excessive penalty charges, ruled refundable in Dunlop v Garage 1911. 4 years after the OFT fired the opening shot no credit card has dared fight this ruling in court. Your penalty charges are reclaimable in full, except for charges before May 2004, now gone beyond recall because of the 6-year statute of limitations. If you demonstrate your conviction and resolution Egg will cave in at the last minute. They normally add 8% interest without prompting, but do not mention "Contractual Interest" which was dismissed in the High Court. Normally an exchange of 2, 3 letters should be enough without recourse to court, but if they remain intransigent you need to demonstrate you are about to file N1 claim in court, with legal costs added. Good luck. But reclaim it before Egg goes bust. :D
  21. On the blue bar near the top of the page, click SEARCH click ADVANCED SEARCH input your own userid select "threads started by user only" click START SEARCH You will find your two other threads. Not sure which forum is the best for mortgage problems. You can also search by subject keyword as in a library catalog, not by userid. If you browse around you will find other posters with questions and answers. A pool of info to save reinventing the wheel. I am not really an expert on subjects like mortgage, but others will have firsthand info. As for feeling downcast because of shortage of the readies, the Irish government is borrowing £500 million every day just to keep paying government bills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pays out £40 billion a year interest on his borrowings to keep the UK afloat. Now surely you feel relieved about the smallness of your debts. :grin: :grin: :grin:
  22. Don't let them open the violin cases If the solicitor is not paid by you then no harm in carrying on if it makes you feel better. The outcome does not depend on you, it depends on Egg who will mount the case if they do. DCAs are only cheering for their side. If Egg does not want a lawsuit then this case like numerous others has no outcome. So long as Egg does not go to court, there will be no court ruling to stop them from pursuing the debt. The reality is that if Egg chooses not to pursue a legal showdown you have no means of pursuing a legal showdown. The balll is in their court, you cannot force them to return the ball. Everything may change of course, if decisive Test Case verdicts come out of the courts over the next few months. No doubt Egg are keeping their gunpowder dry, waiting for the legal position to clarify. Good luck. Why worry, summer is here and the volcanic ash is going away.
  23. Solicitors are hard up now. They are paid for activity, not for doing nothing, so they would have a vested interest in their client continuing a hubbub of activity despite no outcome over two years. Awful confusion arises over different uses of the word "enforce". DCAs do not send round Scarface with a violin case, so they are not using force, just persuasion, hard to see how DCAs "enforce". Only a law court can enforce if it wants to. Pay up or face a CCJ, Charge Order, Attachment of Earnings, bailiffs etc. DCAs cannot enforce or attempt to enforce. Only a judge can enforce, and he does not even need a violin case.
  24. If the barker never bites and never goes to court, so long as the collection tactics are not too frantic, why worry about it. After the elapse of 6 years the creditor has no legal claims at all, and after 6 years credit black marks will be dropped by the CRA.
  25. In a landmark judgment a few months ago a judge in Mercantile Court ruled that creditors can pursue a debt even without establishing legal enforceability, ie. blackmarking, letters, phonecalls, possibly doorsetpping etc. In such activities credit cards and DCAs licensed by the oFT are restrained by OFT guidelines re acceptable debt collection conduct. Unless another enforcement test case verdict has come out recently which I have not heard about, to legally enforce in court aiming for a CCJ, Charge Order, Attachment of Earnings etc, a creditor needs to produce a CCA IN COURT for the judge's approval. If the creditor does not really intend to go to court and does not bother about producing a CCA, in practice there is not much that can be done. Another recent Test Case ruling said they can now RECONSTITUTE an agreement from their IT records, so there is not much percentage in purusing a CCA until or unless the case goes to court. Having reponded with a reconsituted agreement the creditor can finally arrive in court showing a different CCA. They can prove it is legally enforceable by going to county court while debiting legal costs to you if you lose, but you cannot prove it is legally unenforceable until they summon you into court -- unless you wish to preempt a showdown which never comes by trying for a legal injunction at a cost of about £11K. It would be cheaper to dare them to take you to court if a shootout is what you wish. Only a judge can rule what is enforceable, the rest is opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...