This probably means Egg's own Securemail logon not external email.

That is a shrewd comment from the legal profession. In April 2006 the OFT fired the opening shot which triggered a nationwide revolt by penalty charge victims. For the next 12 months banks and credit cards avoided a pitched battle in court like a plague. Industry sources estimated the total of out-of-court refunds as £500 million towards 500,000 claimants? Then in April 2007 came the Kevin-v-Lloyds trial. Many still believe this showdown materialised by accident. Lloyds barrister or solicitor did not bother to show up in Small Claims Court, but Judge Cooke surprisingly opted to try the case in absentia of Lloyds. Judgment went for the bank. Lloyds and other banks were cock-a-hoop, less afraid now of a precedent forcing the global refund of all charges going back 6 years. Then Tom Brennan took NatWest to court despite NW desperately trying to bribe him not to. The verdict again favoured the banks, with the judge complimenting the 7 NW QCs cutting no slack for Tom. After this other hesitating big guns lost their doubts and inhibitions. Immediately after the Brennan verdict the OFT announced a Test Case in the High Court, which led to a nationwide stay of impending claims. Two years and three trials later the Supreme Court again ruled for the banks, represented by 9 QCs to the OFT's 1. Lending institutions because of their corporate dynamics and industry-wide fear of establishing an adverse precedent binding on other institutions find it very hard to seek a decisive yes-no decision in court. In the end it took litigants to drag banks kicking and screaming into court. In so doing the gung-ho DIY readers of law books did the banks a multibillion pound favour, and put zilch into the parms of bank charge claimants too complacent to complete reclaim activity before July 2007.

DN reports events as seen at the time, not for a murder trial, not as pronunciation of debt accurate to the penny, but on credit registers passing an approximate signal between lenders with a common interest to sidestop dodgy borrowers. The burden to be precise is therefore modest. It serves practicality, not a battle royal over a question of principle. it seems to me unlikely that regulators or judges will get steamed up about a number seen retrospectively to be overstated, by a little. However after you have found the evidence of itemised penalty charges to reclaim, if you tot up the total. You have the option to reclaim the entirety plus 8% pa interestst as compensation -- Egg will make as if to fight this, but they will not, and you will make it clear you know they know you know the score. Egg like other credit cards is very very hard up for cash now, trying to flog themselves off to the highest bidder. Where the big stick for sure will not work the carrot at this time may. If you offer to forego reclaim of £X amount charges, in exchange for Egg quietly removing the DN. To make it easier for them to say yes and benefit themselves, you could point out how conscientiosly and responsibly you have handled you indebtedness, paying off in full in record time once your earnings made it possible. Just a speculative idea, but one which worked (quietly) in another case as described on the thread. What is cash worth to Egg compared to intransigence? What is cash refund worth to you versus waiting out another few years? All best wishes whichever way you go.

Despite your youth and limited earnings then, you honoured your obligations with admirable good faith. I would say you were deserving of your loan. What is the £ exaggeration in the published defaulted number? I am not sure why you are miffed by the wrong figure. Once the DN gets onto the credit register it stays there for 6 years. Other institutions which use Experian as credit check without exception do it thru automated IT where blackmarks are digested in blackbox fashion then summed as a credit score number. It cannot make a particle of difference if the DN showed £2K or £2.5K. As for pushing Egg to retrospectively amending the already-published DN figure at the time it was registered, shared public experience this would be like climbing a mountain -- Mt Everest not the local hill. See " Egg DNs successfully rolled back " If you succeed and publicize your story, others will want Egg to do the same. Egg will fight like their lives depend on it. It is hard too see the OFT or FOS wanting to take up cudgels for your very marginal case. However whereas you mentioned successful PPI reclaim, did you also suffer any unlawful Late Payment penalty charges, unlawful for being excessive? If you did, see below to claim your consolation prize: V-E Day: Victory over Egg (5)

Bankers' pockets also well lined. The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank.

YouTube - Jeff Randall interviews Alistair Darling, part2 (23Feb10) 3:35 minutes into the interview the Chancellor admits the Treasury is paying £40 billion per annum in interest payments on its borrowings for survival. This compares with Treasury spending 120 billion on Pensions 90 billion on Education 40 billion on Defence 100 billion on Welfare 1,400 billion UK GDP

If Egg unlawfully extracted premiums for missold PPI they are bound to refund same unless they want to contest it in court. However if these PPI levies displayed in your statements were not paid off by the cardholder, then Egg could argue that because you never paid for them, they need never repay you, instead they would be justified to REVERSE these charges plus 8% per annum as a paper transaction. If at any stage you had reduced your outstanding balance to zero or near zero, then you could argue you physically paid off the PPI levies, so now they should pay back into your pocket what was physically paid to Egg from your pocket. If since then your balance again rose due to purchases, that would be due to subsequent separate debits, which should not be offset by PPI refunds. Egg would say, as they extracted premiums from the account not from your pocket, then they would be justified in refunding the account so long as it remains open and in force. If the account is no longer open, but was actually sold off into the ownership of a DCA, then that would be very different. They are legally bound to refund you, not the DCA. Egg never took premiums off the DCA so they cannot refund the DCA. Unless the account had been sold, it would be a very difficult argument to carry against Egg, who are afraid they may refund you but you may not repay the account balance. I have never heard of anyone winning such an argument unless the account had been sold off to a DCA. I myself would not spend time trying. Sorry if this is not the favoured answer, but very well done in securing such a handsome refund, the drinks are on you.

Reclaim of penalty charges is not affected by closure of the account with zero or nonzero balance. There are many precedents about this, and i have never heard of any card company resisting charges refund on the grounds of previous account closure. The OFT issued a draft guidance, with an official guidance to come in April, after more Test Case verdicts come in. Their draft guidance already made clear the activities which the OFT do not support.

It is probably easier to reclaim penalty charges from Egg than anybody else. Hard-up Egg now talk tough, but will give in when they believe you are determined and confident and ready to file an N1 court claim. It's been done before successfully, 117 times. Use Mock1982 template letter from 30APR2007. It is bargaining, like the kasbah. Egg has nothing to lose by trying to bluff it out -- nothing unless you haul their £1,000-per-day barrister into court. Good luck. Best be quick about it before something else goes wrong. 2003 charges are in 2010 already beyond the 6 years Statute of Limitations. With every passing month you may lose more charges for reclaim. Some believe a criminal case could be mounted against Egg to overcome the 6 years limit -- no comment. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html

All creditors are focused on verdicts from the Test Cases, and the OFT will unveil their official Guidance in April. Whether Egg pays even a particle of attention to "In Dispute" letters is questionable. Once an account is passed over to a DCA, doubtful if Egg will bother to rein back the DCA. If you have a house in the UK and mortgage payments are still being made, it is hard to see well-informed DCAs losing hope about collecting or trying for CCJ and Charge Order. Until you return, possibly they may be forced to delay a court case. But also possible they may make a big stink with your relations. For the pressure to encourage you to make a payment agreement with them and be rid of the endless pursuit.

A High Court Test Case ruling within the last two months established that creditors who do not comply with CCA request may continue with debt-chasing activities, e.g. DN, blackalling, phone calls etc. Creditors simply cannot get CCJ without a full court hearing. It is not even established that the absence of CCA cannot be overcome by the judge accepting the debt claim on "the balance of probabilities". This vital question still awaits a test case verdict. I see no point in giving them your overseas address, it will simply encourage them. A letter sent with an EU stamp and credible franking will suffice to calm the frantic ardour of creditors so that they do not keep visiting your old address. If your relations return any letters that may be less convincing as the DCA may think relations are in cohoots with you and that you are actually upstairs? Once Egg has passed an account to a DCA they tend not to bother any more. They just say to the DCA, get on with it and collect as much as you can. Reasoning with Egg by writing long letters would be a waste of effort. Once a customer is categorised by Egg, they simply trigger the nearest-fitting template letter. Very doubtful any Egg human will spend more than one minute to read a letter. Modern financial fimrs are all IT automated now, no more human touch or discretion. Not surprising as Egg has or had over 2 milliont cardholders. You are broke? Ha ha ha, join the western world, most governments are in reality bankrupt now, printing money and surviving only by a mutual agreement, that if I do not press you too hard you will not press me too hard. Good luck with a job in the EU !

Evidently your DCA is not convinced you are abroad, or how long you will be abroad. When they are convinced it is doubtful they will pursue a small debt for doubtful reward at high cost of time and effort. Any CCJ handed down by a court without giving you a chance to defend against same can be routinely set aside after the event. Even so it would be bad to have your credit rating blackened by CCJ for any period of time. If you do not return for 6 years, then your liability will eventually fade beyond the 6-year civil limitation imposed by statute. UK loose ends while living abroad is a specialist subject which many readers have explored and posted upon. Suggest you: Go to the blue bar at the top of CAG screen, click SEARCH click ADVANCED SEARCH input ABROAD as search key, searching in title only. click start search. You will find many threads and many answers. Good luck.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the OFT's attempt to regulate the amount of bank charges, and the OFT has thrown in the towel As for MoneySavingExpert's proposed alternative legal challenge headed by 1 QC against the banks' 9, have not heard what has come of it. If reclaim of bank charges becomes kaput, donations to this site will continue to be impacted. This has got to be an expensive site to maintain, what with the volume of postings traffic. Perhaps a database controlled by CAG management could charge a fee for anyone who wants to keep up with events, to continue funding the threatened survival of this site. Solicitors and clerks also need to be paid so they can eat. A fee to make use of reliable research looks ok to me, even though this site's management has always shied away from giving official advice on options in particular cases, which is also very reasonable.

Have not followed this subject in detail. Is it the case that Mr Bennion who crafted the law now criticises the judiciary on what they do with it? The legislative branch instructing the judiciary branch? Are the judges on their part saying the legislators could not do their job?

If you demonstrate your history of honouring the compromise agreement and you intend to uphold same until your circumstances make a higher figure possible, it is pointless for them to demand money which is not available. On the other side Egg and DCAs are no doubt hard up, with mass unemployment and widespread inability or refusal to pay, the other side is no doubt getting desperate to extract as much as possible. It is up to you to explain what is not possible. Despite Egg's previous concession to accept £1 per month, i doubt if their wording will give you much chance to hold them to it for ever. I doubt if the regulator or the courts will uphold £1 monthly for all time. If this goes to court, most likely the judge will ask for I&E, then order a new monthly payment level. Good luck, and good cheer in your dealings with DCAs who make it their business to be unpleasant , so that debtors will be encouraged to pay up so as to be rid of them.

You want F&F settlement at 18%, they want 75%. Settlement well in excess of 50% would normally be a DCA's bargaining position, unless they have reason to believe you are about to go bankrupt or leave for the Irish Republic. As for daring them to go to court, that decisive move would be unlikely until the smoke clears imminently in the Enforceability Test Cases in Manchester. If these verdicts were to come out in favour of creditors, they are likely to rush to court roaring gung-ho. If or in that eventuality the emboldened creditors will be even less likely to settle for a low figure whether for F&F or monthly payment. Why would they when they can be assured of obtaining CCJ, and a court ruling assessed on obligatory I&E details, plus attachment of earnings and charge order on those who own a house? The Test Cases could of course come out the other way. Your call, but good luck.

Unlike refund of penalty charges, Egg fights against DN challenge like their lives depend on it. If you mean business, what is required is a seriously big carrot or the patience of a saint. Unless the DN was imposed by mistake (where you never fell behind on monthly payments), I would say you have less than 1% chance. As for Egg not posting the DN while saying they did, I am afraid that is almost their norm, and in a dispute it is their word against yours, as there is no legal requirement for them to use registered post. " Egg DNs successfully rolled back "

For a secured debt collateral is safeguarded before any default occurs, such as when a house deed is kept in the bank manager's safe. An unsecured debt could be turned into a secured debt retrospectively, but only if the judge grants the charge order, and only if the debtor does not leave the UK and the jurisdiction of civil courts. However even with a secured debt the creditor may not be paid, as in the case of general default the Inland Revenue has priority claims on assets ahead of creditors.

OFT consults on unenforceable credit agreements guidance - The Office of Fair Trading http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/OFT1175con.pdf An update from the OFT today. They will now consult with various stakeholders (welcoming feedback from the public, even consultation with the OFT in person ), then issue a firm guidance on 21 April 2010. The OFT do not have the powers of a court of law, but they are the annual licensor of credit cards and DCAs and can put them out of business by revoking same. The OFT have teeth and how. What is new about the OFT's clarification today is that they go along with the McGuffick ruling, that even where legal enforceability has not been confirmed in court, the creditor can continue to issue DN, blacken credit history and attempt to collect the debt outside of law courts. However, according to the OFT, the creditor or DCA must not threaten court action where they know an agreement is unenforceable. They may not mislead the debtor into thinking an agreement is legally enforceable where it is not. How either party can psychically ascertain whether an agreement will be confirmed as enforceable/unenforceable at some time in the future is beyond me. It is a judge hearing an application for enforcement who will make that final decision, yea or nay. The judge has discretion within limits. Who is going to read in advance the mind of a judge yet to be allocated to a case yet to be lodged in a court yet to be determined?

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf DCAs have to be annually licensed by the OFT, or they are put out of business, so if DCA management are scared of anybody they are scared of the OFT. The above is guidance issued by the OFT at their website. Complaints of practices pointedly defying their very own guidance will of course receive best OFT attention (licensing office in west London, with address on the web). Three of the OFT's no-no debt collection actions include ringing day and night, embarassing third parties to put on pressure, and harassing a debtor already certified ill by a doctor. A woman approaching childbirth would be in a comparably vulnerable situation. If telephone monkeys want a marathon wrestling match, the trump car above will nip it in the bud.

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts

Postings suggest CD UK is even worse than ARC. Debt collectors have targets to fulfill, possibly some are incentivised with bonus if targets are met. Whereas DCA may have rules of engagements, overzealous individuals exceed same. Some are telephone monkeys, others are telephone gorillas. Gorillas have also developed ways and means of winkling out home phone numbers through different search methods aided by the internet. Some will manage to find the phone numbers of relatives searching by family name, then put pressure on through relatives. Lets cross one bridge at a time. If given the I&E the two sides still cannot agree then deadlock continues. If they are offered £X per month and they demand £X plus £7, a difference of £7 is hardly worth their while going to court. Essential that the I&E does not mention luxury items like going on holiday. They will not check on I&E, they are not Social Security investigators. The monkeys need the I&E to justify their action to their superiors. They will squeeze for blood, but not from a stone. Perhaps if you make an opening offer pitched at a sum a few pounds below what you can afford. If they are adamant in wanting more, then you could give them those few extra pounds you have already prepared for, to show you are co-operative. I believe DCAs focus on monthly payments being kept up without fail, as much on the payment level being the highest agreeable, then not maintained. That would then use up more telephone gorilla time which could be used to chase up some other target. Good luck.

You seem to have a mental picture of an Egg manager knowing about you and your account history, and exercising human discretion in coming to a decision. The fact is Egg has (at least had) over 2 million cardholders, and most contact with customers are automated according to their own rules drawn up from experience. You paid regularly, unfortunately you stopped paying last June, and their automated decision-making had you down as an intentional non-payer. They do not have the manpower to fine-monitor the situation and recognise that Natalie is less likely to default than many others. My impression from reading posts is that Egg cardholders as a norm do not receive an Egg letter advising transfer of debt to DCA. Egg obviously are hard up now, no doubt with headcount cut, and apparently dodgy accounts are handed over to DCAs as early as after one month default. You evidently do not like this escalation or this dealing with Egg through a DCA. From reading other Egg postings I have never heard of any account going from Egg than going back to Egg. When such a switch happens at all, it is Egg passing to DCA, then DCA passing back to Egg when the DCA lose all faith in ever collecting a penny. Egg would then pass to a different DCA, Egg would not revert to dealing direct with the cardholder -- that is from what I have read in the Egg Forum. If there are any exceptions not reported to date, perhaps someone can say so. You would get more comment if you PM the Mods to move this thread to the Egg Forum. I would not fancy your chances of making direct human contact with an Egg manager and restoring a direct relationship. Once they pass to DCA they do not want to know any more, they just want money. If you can offer an impressive lump sum on condition Egg resusmes direct contact, that may conceivably get an Egg manager's attention. Apart from that I suspect escalation is one way, no way back. As for DCA, £1,000 could be worth collecting via court CCJ and Charge Order, if they believe there is a realistic chance of getting more than derisory monthly payments adjudicated. Anyone with firsthand experience of your DCA can tip you off what the DCA will do regardless of what they say. But in your maternity condition are not threats continually repeated in phone calls day and night as bad as a real court appearance? As for a judge reviewing your payment record in coming to a decision what you should pay, I doubt if past history is relevant. The judge wants to see your I&E to see what you can pay before setting an amount to be enforced by Charge Orders etc. As for ultimately paying less if you pay Egg direct, well DCAs will also accept reduced settlement if paid in a lump sum. From all sides it is a consideration of the carrot and the big stick to assist in persuasion and bargaining. If you refuse sending I&E to DCA, then escalation by your DCA looks probable. It looks as if you would prefer to de-escalate and go back to the old days of uneventfully paying Egg direct. Now it looks as if you intend to escalate. DCAs and Egg are likely to read a CCA request as a declaration of war, although others say a tough stand hass been known to silence the other side. Verdicts from the Test Cases will be coming shortly. Silence could be temporary as all parties wait for the smoke to clear in court, then they all come back to life with action. It is your case to be run as you see fit. I have probably exhausted all the info I gleaned from reading reports secondhand. Good luck.

Natalie it looks as if the telephone monkeys at the other end are also on a leash and captive of their own procedures and rules. I understand I&E lists are invariably accepted as read. They are not judges and have no power or inclination to dispute or investigate the spendings on the I&E, nor would they pass sarky comments on how rich you are not. Reading between the lines you feel it is an intrusion into privacy which of course it is. But if DCAs are not allowed to intrude in one way they will do it in another. As for whether they will bite as they bark and take you to court that's hard to tell. The debt needs to be big enough to be worth their legal costs, and they need to believe you can afford to pay more. A court ruling to pay £1 a month is hardly worth the DCA's effort. While all this goes on, there is no telling if they will not make endless nuisance calls day and night. If your I&E looks even half reasonable and in keeping with your proposed monthly payment, it lets the telephone monkey off the hook. Just that if the I&E says there is £100 to spare at the end of the month earmarked for a restaurant visit with wine then they would not accept £10 monthly payment offer . The I&E does not commit them to accept an offer, nor does it bind yourself, it is merely info to assist a decision on their part, along preset guidelines. A satisfactory I&E would enable them to accept your proposal. If the monkey accepts a payment proposal without the support of an I&E then the monkey could himself be thrown out of a job. Best of luck Natalie.

Egg are evidently hard-up big time, and resorting to desperate measures to collect as much as they can. It is an approach similar to mailshots. If they play hardball to the nth degree and manage through harassment day and night to secure a lump sum repayment from one debtor, that will be sufficient to offset the nine debtors who despite harassment cannot increase their monthly repayments agreed at a time before Egg became desperate. Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums would be a better forum for info specific to DCAs not necessarily specific to Egg. Best of luck! You are not alone. When the bankers were sinking they trooped together to the Treasury cap in hand, for bailouts using taxpayers' money. Debtors being chased separately can take encouragement from others in the same boat.