You scan the document into your own pictures folder, then from Photobucket you upload from your folder. I think your scan needs to be in .BMP file type, not .doc

Sure, under a microscope. Claimants are being rapidly overtaken by events. With a spate of Test Case verdicts coming from Manchester Mercantile Court over the next few weeks, it is the judges' opinion which matters. Happy New Year to you

Could have been a typo. Did he mean werewolves?

IEA = Improperly Executed Agreement

Hi dizzyblonde, I am unclear on several points. In what sense was it a sworn statement? Before whom did they swear (assuming it wasn't bl**dy effing @#%&*# ). Was it just a notarised statement? What was their precise description of "copy of DN". I previously thought you meant they supplied a misrepresentation of the CCA, now I realise it is the DN, which is less serious. Egg are notorious for claiming to have sent the DN without having done so. As registered post is not required it would be very difficult to prove your word against theirs. However both cards and DCAs are licensed by the OFT who take a dim view of shady practices, as long as the victims take the trouble to make it known to the OFT. The OFT are the executive branch not the judicial branch who bend over backwards to be precise and to be seen to be fair. The OFT can form a judgment according to probabilities and as licensors act decisively and read the Riot Act. They may ignore one dizzy blonde, but they will not ignore one hundred dizzy blondes writing in ;-) . You might like to read the following before New Years Eve and give it a bump: -------- Did Egg send your DN? --------

Have not had time to read the latest judgment, but I doubt if a judge will let pass such a blatant typo. More inclined to read the text as intended to say: "when s78 (6) expressly says that the agreement will be enforceable subject to the listed conditions being fulfilled, for so long as the breach of contract by the cardholder persists. If S78 does say that. then the agreement remains unenforceable owing to the current absence of compliance with listed conditions. If at some later stage the breach by the creditor such as non-production of a valid agreement is cured it is difficult to see why the creditor should not then be entitled to enforce. " Ambiguity arose because one word was used to describe two different breaches: (1) Breach by the cardholder in not paying as promised. (2) Breach by the card company in not producing a true copy agreement as required by law. If such a breach is not anticipated by S78, then by inference S78 is referring to the breach by the cardholder not by the creditor. Unfortunately the judge appeared to use "breach" to refer to two actions by two separate parties.

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts (4th December 2009) Draft OFT guidance was taken onboard by the judge in reaching his verdict. Of the 4 points the OFT will not allow during reconstitution of agreements, bullet points 1 and 2 would be relevant to your case. As you yourself did produce the original agreement, bullet point 1 would not apply. As for reconstitution coming under the guise of copying, and worse, misrepresentation under the guise of reconstitution, that act has been overlooked by the Draft OFT Guidance. As the formal OFT pronouncement would probably not come until February, a chance for you to contact the OFT asap for them to make good their omission. Suprised at your mention of a sworn statement by Cohens. In this civil case did Cohens take an oath in court?

Threre are furious disagreements in the other thread about the implications of the latest jdgment. No two lawyers will agree what day of the week it is. With a spate of Test Cases due in January followed by a probable OFT pronouncement, too early until February to say who apart from the turkey has benn stuffed.

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts (contents below)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2663133.html The Test Case verdict in the Manchester High Court yesterday afternoon specifically introduced in court the draft OFT guidance which the judge upheld. Full judgment text link below. Following more Test Case verdicts in January there should come a pronouncement direct from the OFT CEO. Those who want to be up to date on 12 frontline Test Cases in Manchester can follow the thread below, currently with 600 postings. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-31.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2663433.html

Everything comes to those who wait, even Egg full refunds. The coffee with Bailey's Cream are on you then? A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

This is Xmas time with depleted staff overstretched. Probably different clerks have to fill in different input transaction forms. As you have the Egg letter confirming total refund, I have never heard of such an Egg undertaking not being fulfilled. Well done! Your PPI contributions refunded effectively became your unintentional savings account.

This is a standare Egg letter like bargaining in the Morocco Kasbah. Egg have nothing to lose by haggling and playing hard to get. Reply saying you are ready to file a claim for full refund in the Small Claims Court, without further notice. Egg do not want to go to court. They do not realise you do not either. They have caved in 114 times and refunded in full, not going to stop now.

I understand now. That £16 penalty is not Late Payment Fee, rather it is their standard returned D/D Bounce Fee. It looks as if you cancelled your bank D/D mandate, but did not get Egg to cancel their arrangement, so they went ahead to try collect the D/D. In the mean time they have not charged Late Payment Fee, because your manual payment £45 made it just in time. This £16 penalty is excessive and profit-making, and therefore reclaimable in court as unlawful as per Dunlop-v-Garage precedent. The standard 30APR2007 moc1982 letter will do with a minor variation. Egg will not want to go to court, so will refund £16 after putting up a token resistance of several computerised template responses. A real nuisance though. They require D/D as mandatory condition for opening an account. Best check T&C as to what are the consequences of terminating D/D arrangement, unfortunately signed by you in agreement. If they refuse to stand down their monthly action in claiming their D/D, there will be a replay of this pantomime next month. Good luck.

What is the precise deadline date for the monthly minimum payment? What date was the payment shown on your statement as credited to your account? If on their own statement the pay-in was credited ahead of the deadline, Egg have no case for levying this Late Payment Fee -- which in any case can be reclaimed, though a nuisance requiring effort. If the statement says, credited on the 10th, penalty charge levied on the 17th, this could hide the fact that the deadline was the 9th. The late payment was recognised retrospectively when the monthly IT run was triggered. If your manual payment was credited on or before the date normally shown for previous D/D's then Egg really have no defence.

That's fine, but be sure to itemise your charges with amounts and dates -- these will be verified by Egg. If they say no, ignore that letter and re-send your claim, adding: "Look forward to seeing soon in court your £1,000-per-day barrister. Claim will be filed in court." They have paid 114 times, not going to change policy just for you. Good luck.

This is an Egg standard computerised reply, the first variant of either two or three. Egg do not put up a big fight, they only want the uninformed to think so. In recent months court and regulator attitude has turned against cards big time. In case of doubt they lean heavily for cardholders and against cards. So much so that recently Egg have more than once caved in immediately. One court case reclaiming PPI had the judge so incensed he ruled for total return of PPI contributions, plus he ordered total wipeout of the outstand debt. Not surprising Egg and others no longer have the appetite for fighting even half justified PPI reclaims. Send the 30APR2007 moc1982 template letter below. Egg know it by heart, and caved in repaying in full plus 8% interest per annum, only 114 times. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html

Not sure if you are the victim of mistaken identity pursuit or identity stolen. Others have been in your situation, so you might as well assimilate their hard-won experience. Click SEARCH on the blue bar on the top of screen, Click ADVANCED SEARCH Input MISTAKEN IDENTITY as search key, select from dropdown box "search in thread title" Press SEARCH NOW. Quite a few threads of interest. Good luck.

New Years Eve is Thursday 31st December. Interested victims of AWOL DNs may like to mail first-class, everybody posting on New Years Eve! Happy New Year (not necessarily to Egg) ! :D

Any number of posters have mentioned they never received an Egg Default Notice by post as claimed and as required by law. They were later shocked to discover from CRAs that Egg had registered said DN thereby denying cardholders a chance to remedy the default within the statutory time limit. This is a serious breach of consumer regulations, most especially for Egg the cyber card which does not send out letters by ordinary mail like other cards. Cardholders who do not regularly logon to check statements etc will miss any Egg secure messages mentioning DN, ending with serious damage to credit history, as Egg would rather die than roll back a DN. OFT the regulator will for sure become interested if a pattern of Egg non-compliance is reported independently by a large number of customers. Understandably the OFT would take little note of anonymous letters or forum postings, but for sure they will be roused if on 2nd January 2010 one hundred letters arrive in their in-tray describing firsthand experience on the same subject, each letter appended with signature, address, and Egg account number, confirming the cardholder never received a DN, one which Egg keep saying they sent out by post. All in favour, say aye. For the sake of all cardholders, anyone interested: on the last posting day of December to send a letter to: Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre OFT Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX Each letter in your own words but all bearing the same heading: Egg did not send Default Notice to me as claimed The OFT do want to hear from the grassroots. This is your chance, your voice to the top. I have no connection with the OFT, not drumming up business for them.

Until a judge bangs the gavel and booms "next case" uncertainty rules. The judge has the last word, not the plaintiff or the defendant. It is one thing if Egg's actions go contrary to the thoughts of posters here, it is another to try overturn a DN physically issued by Egg. Two instances of rolling back unjustified Egg DNs took 18 months and 30 months. It is up to you, but Egg are known nowadays to issue DNs like confetti, given an excuse. More clarity will come soon from more test case verdicts. It all takes time and makes barristers rich. That's the way it works.

OFT can threaten to withdraw their licence for credit card owners. This would obviously be an extreme action not lightly taken. OFT are the non-elected appointed executive branch of government, but there are checks and balances from the judiciary courts and legislative parliament. Then there is the court of public opinion and freedom of the press. All the ingredients being put into the melting pot will come out clearer with Test Case verdicts in January then a clear declaration from the OFT. Until then everybody is struggling with legalese and intentionally unclear statements . Not long to wait now. Yesterday's link looks to be an OFT leak to the BBC. There should be a declamation direct from the OFT in the new year, the way their declamation on 5th April 2006 changed everything, unleashing a tidal wave if not tsunami of penalty charge reclaims.

(The OFT cannot overule the courts, but the OFT has the power to license or not license credit cards.) 5 hours ago: BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts (contents below) Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts The outcome of the test cases will affect thousands of potential claims Lenders must not mislead borrowers that their debts are enforceable, when in fact they are not, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) says. The regulator also says many debtors have, in turn, been misled about their ability to escape their debts. The OFT's comments are part of an intervention in a series of High Court test cases about the enforceability of debts under the Consumer Credit Act. The outcome could affect thousands of potential courts cases. The OFT has supplied its draft guidance on part of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) to Judge Waksman, who is hearing the cases in Manchester. "The OFT's decision to prepare guidance at this time has primarily resulted from our concern that debtors are being misled as to the meaning and interpretation of sections 77-79 [of the Act] in particular," the OFT said in a letter to the judge. "And on the other hand concern that some creditors appear not to understand the nature and extent of their obligations under these sections," it added. Numerous disputes The 12 test cases at the High Court in Manchester are aimed at settling a number of contentious issues about the interpretation of the law. It is important to remember that the purpose of these sections is to provide information to consumers, not to provide a method for consumers to avoid paying their debts Draft OFT guidance The general position is that lenders who wish to chase defaulting borrowers for the repayment of their loans have to comply with a number of obligations. One of them is that under sections 77-79 of the Act they should supply a "true copy" of the original signed loan agreement within 12 days of the borrower asking for it. If they do not then the debt is unenforceable until such time as the copy can be provided. "Unfortunately, consumers have often been given an exaggerated expectation of what the creditor or owner must do in order to comply with an information request, as a result of misleading claims by claims management companies and inaccurate information on the internet," the OFT's draft guidance says. "As a result, numerous disputes have been generated over whether a request has properly been made, whether the duties have been complied with and whether as a consequence the agreement can be enforced," the OFT adds. Unfair business practices The OFT's guidance clearly disagrees with some of the arguments that have been put forward by some claims management companies on behalf of their clients. In particular, the regulator points out that it is perfectly legal and proper for a bank that has lost the original loan agreement, or whose copy is illegible, to supply an accurate "reconstituted" version instead, to show that the agreement did in fact include the information specified by the Act. "It is important to remember that the purpose of these sections is to provide information to consumers, not to provide a method for consumers to avoid paying their debts," the OFT says. But the OFT goes on to advise that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by: • hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place • providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones • confusing the borrower as to who they should send an information request after selling the debt to a debt collection company • failing to preserve data so the borrower cannot be given an up to date statement of account. Carl Wright of Cartal Client review, one of the claims management companies involved in the test cases, welcomed the OFT's views. "During 2008 and 2009 the number of financial claims made by consumers have increased significantly," he said. "Banks and credit card companies have in the main, steadfastly refused to confirm any inability to be able to provide a 'true copy' of the requested credit agreement, where one never existed." Disagreement A recent High Court case, between Philip McGuffick and the Royal Bank of Scotland, established that even if a debt is temporarily unenforceable, the lender can still mark a customer's record with a credit reference agency as being in default, because the debt itself has not been extinguished. The OFT can take into account any practices which we consider to be oppressive, misleading or improper, whether they are unlawful or not -- OFT official The OFT agrees with this, but its draft guidance goes against the grain of other conclusions of that case. The judge said it was legal for lenders to take other steps to get their money back, such as demanding repayment of the loan, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action, and even starting legal proceedings. But the OFT said it might take a dim view of these tactics. "For the purposes of considering whether a company is fit to hold a consumer credit licence, the OFT can take into account any practices which we consider to be oppressive, misleading or improper, whether they are unlawful or not," an OFT official said. The OFT's draft guidance says: "No communications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt where the creditor or owner is aware that it cannot and will not be entitled so to enforce the agreement." "The creditor or owner should make it clear in communications to the debtor that the debt is in fact unenforceable," it adds. The guidance goes on to warn that: "To mislead debtors into making payment may in certain circumstances amount to an unfair commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008." "It is quite clear that the OFT guidance would increase consumer protection and instigate standards within the banking industry that would reduce the abuse of consumer rights," said Carl Wright. The OFT has delayed publication of its draft guidance until the outcome of the Manchester High Court hearings, whose judgements are expected to be delivered in January 2010.

In the Mercantile Court ruling in October, McGuffick-v-RBS (verdict apparently under appeal) the judge said that debt collection activities may continue even though an agreement has not been ruled by a judge in court as legally enforceable with CCJ, charging order, etc. What the judge said was that the debt existed independent of legal enforcement, i.e. in situations where he has not granted legal enforcement (however situations where he rules an agreement is irredeemably unenforceable for all time may have extra-court debt collection activities ruled differently, pending clarification via further Test Case rulings) he will not stop extra-court persuasion activities including DN, CRA blackmarking, pnone calls etc (NB. the McGuffick verdict is under appeal). In the McGuffey case the cardholder claimed for DN rollback because of noncompliance by RBS over supplyinging CCA within 12 days. The judge dismissed the claim and refused to roll back the DN. This verdict did not help to clarify general principles because in this particular case RBS managed to find and produce the agreement at the court hearing when the judge deemed it enforceable after all. The judge did not rap RBS knuckles for not producing same before the 12-day deadline. The significance of this case centred on the judge's Obiter Dicta, his thinking aloud explaining how he arrived at his conclusions. Although such thinking aloud is not part of the ruling it is recorded in the judgment and often influences lower courts even though not binding on them. Drawing a line against OTT harassment is the separate executive not judiciary remit of the OFT who annually license DCAs subject to good behaviour. If the judiciary will not prohibit debt collection it is hard to see the OFT prohibiting it beyond tempering their zeal. There are grey areas, and legal matters are as always subject to endless hairsplitting debate. Anyone wanting to add to this debate will have a whale of a time in the 23-page McGuffick thread in the LEGAL-ISSUES forum. In the mean time unilaterally suspending monthly payments will leave yourself open to almost certain DN issuance then if ignored, the demand for 100% immediate repayment. Whether Egg will take this demand to court, whether you can use a court case to erase 6-year blackmarks is another subject for endless debate until a judge says YES or NO. More Test Case will produce more verdicts and precedents. It is your choice bearing in mind it is your good self and not brave commentators who may one day stand in front of a judge trying to repair your own credit reputation. Good luck .

Jesus must have lived on the Isle of Wight.