Mills1, Creditors generally try it on to get as much as they can. If you show you know the ropes they will generally decide it is more cost-effective to go and bamboozle the less knowledgeable. If you miss even one monthly payment they can threaten to issue Default Notice, and if you ignore the warning these days they will more than likely issue to DN. Many CAGgers report they never received DN through the post, never knew it was issued, so never had the chance to remedy the situation. It would be Egg's word against the cardholder, and Egg are not obliged to use registered post. So long as you do not miss a payment and suffer a DN, Egg cannot demand immediate full payment, end of. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7778218.stm

Ah you are hungry for green shoots . For this admirable ecological sentiment I have just tipped your scales. May your things get greener still.

Announcement: Ray Cox QC to spearhead bank charges fightback 27th November 2009 alanfromderby (Site Team)

Within a week of the Supreme Court setback, a very different result on the credit card front. The much heralded Manchester Test Case involving missing agreements resulted in MBNA settling out of court: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-17.html

Also possible to click the blue "Thread Tools" button at the top to subscribe.

The text of your quote suggests you have obtained this info via an intermediary. For up-to-date accurate info best to logon to companieshouse.gov.uk. Info available for max £5. A company may be dormant, active, or dissolved. Does the letterhead quote a company number? Names of directors? Munn could be dissolved as a company but still trading separately as a business name or under their own name. Can't really guess if Munn are bluffing or not. The Legal-Issues Forum may give you more info on their forum -- search "Munn" in thread title.

The UK needed 60 years to pay back the national debt borrowed from USA in 1940 in the form of armaments for the survival fight against Hitler. Despite this millstone round the national neck, during 6 decades since, life in the UK managed to see the bright side. Iceland, a nation of half a million, is now many times bankrupted to an unthinkable extent, both their government and private citizens. But Icelandic life goes on. The earth has not opened up, Icelanders continue to eat, continue to make friends and get married. The Irish governent are borrowing 600 million euros each and every day to pay bills -- debts plus interest which will have to be repaid over a whole generation, with imminent unemployment, cut in earnings and rising taxes unavoidable. The UK and USA governents are printing money night and day . So, welcome to the club. If it makes you feel any better, the best people are in this club. When debts versus income are such that physically there is no possibility for them to be repaid in full, no point worrying about it. Creditors should have known better than to over-lend to an insane degree, they are part responsible for creating this situation. Debt collectors will eventually realistic there is no blood to be got out of a stone. Debtors can only do what they can, a poor person still needs emotional and mental wellbeing. I cannot say I have heard of any law courts accepting clinical depression as a reason to suspend debt collection. If anybody else knows different they can say so. To read about others in the same boat, click the blue SEARCH bar at the top click ADVANCE SEARCH input "depression" as search key specify "post" rather than "thread" press SEARCH NOW Chin up and good luck

The Judgment To discuss this question it will be necessary to look at the big picture and the history of this movement. Anyone with the time may like to read the full 45-page PDF judgment with link provided in the opening post. In this doc all 5 law lords give reasons for ruling against the OFT, in favour of 7 banks and 1 building society. The five eminent judges at the top of their profession write lucid prose that laymen can understand. They disagreed with the judges in High Court and Court of Appeal. Facing five law lords on Wednesday, ........the OFT fielded 3 barristers including 1 QC ........the banks fielded 23 barristers including 9 QCs. Evidently the banks not the people were the big battalions. This came as the final battle in a 3.5-year war potentially deciding 15-20 £billion charges refund. A battle now finally lost, but many say the war has only started. But from here it will be a long haul. Prior struggles Although the consumer refunds movement started with Stephen Hone v Abbey Bank in 2005 his victory came in the shape of favourable settlement out of court, and the public at large knew little about it. It was not until the OFT pronouncement on 5th April 2006 warning credit cards to cap their penalty charges at £12 or else, that the trickle of charge reclaims turned into a flood then a tidal wave. The principal precedent was Dunlop-v-Garage 1911, where Dunlop was forced by the court to refund to the garage an excessive penalty charge levied to make a profit rather than as proportionate compensation for breach of contract. Credit cards and banks did not have appetite to risk an adverse ruling so settled before court after making it as difficult as possible for claimants. A turning point One year later, on 17th April 2007 came a judgement in county court in the case of Kevin-v-LloydsTSB. Kevin claimed refund of charges and higher-rate overdraft interest on the grounds they were profit-making penalties as in Dunlop-v-Garage. District Judge Cooke disallowed Kevin's claim, ruling that Kevin had failed to prove breach of contract in view of contraditory T&C, and basically concluded that with no contract breach proven as trigger, the charges were fees not penalties, being part of a bundle of bank (optional) lending services. Judge Cooke was careful to say in a concluding paragraph he viewed the credit card charges situation as very different. Following this cause celebre success Lloyds TSB stiffened their stance. They sent out a letter to their ongoing claimants, saying they will fight in court tooth and nail against reclaim of all charges levied for cheques honoured while exceeding overdraft limit. This letter was deafening in its silence about fighting against reclaim of charges made for bouncing cheques and DDs. In bouncing a bad cheque the bank incurred no risk of bad debt, just an inconvenience for branch managers and automated IT systems. They should be entitled to recoup the cost of said inconvenience variously estimated between 50 pence and £3 per bounce. In Ireland banks did charge £3, but in England it was up to £39, the same vertiginous sum across the border in Northern Ireland where banks were owned by English banks. Following the 3-year nationwide outcry some banks have now broken rank and reduced their bounce charges. In June 2007 in CAG Lloyds Forum, poster A posed the question -- he was pursuing Lloyds charges reclaim of £10,000, 95% of which was made up of Type 1 charges (for bouncing only), plus 5% for Type 2 (for honouring bad cheques breaching overdraft limit). Lloyds lawyers were refusing refund of his Type 2 reclaim but not Type 1. Poster A wanted to know what to do? Poster B explained the background pointing out the obvious strategy change by Lloyds, suggesting that Poster A take the 95% bird in hand offer before something goes wrong. Prestigious Poster C then dived in, ridiculing and abusing Poster B saying Kevin-v-Lloyds verdict was an unintentional accident and a blip ruling, that Poster B's reasoning was flawed, that there was no such difference as Type 1 or Type 2, that Poster A should carry on reclaiming 100% slowly and methodically in the way Poster C had been directing the forum. Poster A believed Poster C. Poster B withdrew from posting further on this subject. A few weeks later the curtain came down without warning. On 31st July 2007, immediately after the defeat of Brennan-v-NatWest, the OFT announced their Test Case against the banks, and the courts under direction from the Master of Rolls stayed claims cases nationwide awaiting the Test Case. In the 28 months since, Poster A has not seen one penny refund. Poster C also stopped posting. Penalty charge or service fee Penalty charges on credit cards are fundamentally different from charges levied by banks, in that cards have never had flexible arrangments allowing cardholders to go overdrawn. There is a rigid card limit. When this is breached, authorisation in the shops will decline the transaction. When the card limit is breached due to lack of monthly payment this triggers a monthly Overlimit Charge explicitly announced in the T&C as a penalty for contract breach. Dunlop-v-Garage refund precedent therefore remains applicable until the courts rule otherwise. Banks' justification for the bounce charge Banks act as discretionary flexible money lenders allowing scope for manager intervention and overdraft breach. A bounced cheque or DD, in theory, could also have been honoured. Manager time, in theory, could have been spent mulling over the decision to bounce or not bounce. What 3 courts agreed The banks make out that maintaining an account, either bouncing bad cheques or honouring same, for a fee, are all part of the same bundle of services, with rights and obligations on both sides agreed beforehand. The charge for bouncing, they contend, is not tit for tat, item for item, but part of the whole and priced as a bundle. True, this pricing favours those who do not go overdrawn and enjoy free banking thanks to those who bounce cheques and exceed limits thereby incurring steep fees and how. In Ireland with low bounce fees, all customers do pay a quarterly charge although there are concessions to encourage the best customers. In the real world when going unintentionally 50p overdrawn and unable to pay the penalty chage of £39, it is possible for that account to attract £200 further charges per month, eventually ending in CCJ, house sale, all for 50 pence. This is not fantasy as real life instances are ten a penny. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court having all agreed that bank charges are service fees not penalty charges it seems unlikely to me county or small claims courts will now find for the customer based on Dunlop-v-Garage penalty charge precedent, for bounce charges as much as for overdraft breach charges. Whereas there is the Dunlop precedent for challenging penalty charge, there is no legal precedent yet that I know of for challenging steep service fees. Except for one special situation Lloyds TSB operate Islamic Accounts. Clearly spelt out in T&C, these accounts do not allow for overdrafts and attendant debit interest ever, as lending/borrowing money with interest is against strict shariah law. For these accounts according to the T&C the last time I looked, apparently bad cheques will still be bounced when presented, incurring the usual charge. But as there is no possibility of honouring bad cheques and no possibility of lending money with attendant risk of bad debt, the bounce would seem to be a penalty pure and simple, needing to be commensurate with the inconvenience according to Dunlop. In the case of Islamic accounts or similar accounts Lloyds acts as custodian and bookkeeper not as lender. The lending service package/bundle therefore does not exist. The bounce charge would appear to stand on its own as a penalty and ought to be subject to the Dunlop precedent. Defeat on Regulation (6)(2) The OFT never tried to challenge over-steep bank charges based on the Dunlop precedent. They wanted to arbitrate a fair level for "bank service fees". However, unlike the two lower courts the Supreme Court ruled that UTCCR 1999 Regulation (6)(2) imported without change from European Directive 1993 specifically ruled out intervention on price. The law lords also pointed out an alternative route for OFT intervention -- UTCCR Regulation (5) relating to an unequal relationship between trader and consumer. If that is taken up it would be another struggle, a long one, no doubt again with appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. If any claims cases for year 2000 charges which have been waiting for 3 years are now discontinued or dismissed, then if a new claim were lodged in year 2011 following a new Test Case launched by the OFT, that new claim can only go back to 2005 charges unless you believe the 6-year Statute of Limitations does not apply. WHY NO STATE INTERVENTION? More than one law lord as good as interpreted the European Directive to say, price intervention is not for the state, price setting is for market forces. This is fine if there were a free market and vigorous competition for UK banks. In practice since WW2 small high street banks in the UK have been swallowed by big banks until we now have a near monopoly of dominant banks. Irish banks do charge less, but it is hardly practical to live in England but bank in Ireland or France. It would be libelous to say UK banks operate a price-fixing cartel, so I shall be careful not to say UK banks operate a price-fixing cartel. Has anybody heard me say UK banks operate a price-fixing cartel? No, I would not dream of saying UK banks operate a price-fixing cartel, perish the thought. In the real world the Westminster government is now the major shareholder with a matching voice in the high street bank boardrooms. If in between claiming parliamentary expenses they find some time to influence bank policy they could tackle the human tragedies of 50 pence overdrawn leading to a fresh debt of £200 per month, every month. The last word goes to one of the Law Lords -- Lady Hale:

Hi Isiris, I take it from the above Egg obtained a CCJ against you when you boycotted the court hearing -- not the case that you did not receive the summons or you were abroad and unaware. Under these circumstance it would be very difficult to request the court to set aside the CCJ imposed on the day you chose not to attend court? If the CCJ stands then hard to reject the charging order. However there may be a chance to reduce your adjudicated liability and thereby the amount of the Charging Order. The courts have recently turned big time against lenders who missold PPIs, now giving the consumer the benefit of the doubt and forcing refunds. In the most extreme case the judge deemed that the lender grossly missold PPI and misled the consumer. Not only did he order a full refund of all PPI instalment payments but for good measure he ruled the entire outstanding balance owed to be wiped clean. Have to say that was the only instance I have read about, not the standard outcome of PPI court cases. That the trend of PPI fights swaying towards the consumer can be seen from the following threads, including recently where Egg promptly gave up the fight before it began. Refund of PPI and penalty charges would reduce your outstanding balance not obliterate it. If you believe there is mileage in a CCA fight over legal enforceability, well your case has already gone to court and been enforced. It is like when the vicar said at the wedding "Speak now or forever hold your peace." For CCJ, charging orders, etc the better Egg forum to read and ask questions would be Legal-Issues. Chin up, and good luck! If it makes you any happier Egg's owning bank is in much worse trouble than you. 10 PPI battles won, 1 lost: 34 weeks - 25 APR 2007 - won PPI before court - Annalh v Egg/DLA/Eversheds ** Judgement given by court ** 16 weeks - 19 JUN 2007 - won PPI in court - Empire strikes back v Egg Card Repayment Insurance. 08 weeks - 01 AUG 2007 - won PPI before court - Wednesday 1867 poss vs Egg ( 12) 49 weeks - 22 AUG 2007 - JULI99 - lost PPI in court - Scrambled Egg ( 12) 35 weeks - 07 JAN 2008 - phatram - won PPI, case stayed, stay lifted, Egg settled in full before court (was self-employed and never eligible) - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/87077-egg-credit-card-ppi-3.html#post1314773 72 weeks - 07 FEB 2009 - oggy1 – PPI refunded by Egg before court because CCA shows no evidence of cardholder consent - ppi against egg --wont repay!! 01 weeks - 01 AUG 2009 - PPI refunded with interest - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/212600-shedsounds-egg-quick-win.html ?? weeks - 06 AUG 2009 - alsindebt - PPI refunded - Thanks to CAG 08 weeks - 02 SEP 2009 - fireyjack - PPI refunded - Successful Claims 113 weeks - 13 NOV 2009 - e_inspired - PPI satisfactory settlement with DN rolled back Egg - DLC final straits 01 week - 19 NOV2009 - Militant Consumer's Friend v Egg Loans

Were you mis-sold any PPI?

Reply to Angry Cat, plus BBC story and Times Q&A added to post.

The Law Lords said no, but pointed to alternatives, namely whether UK laws specifically drafted for UK conditions the way "some other member states" did for themselves (How? If anyone knows, do tell us) to better protect consumers than the EC directive bodily transposed into UK Regulations, the literal wording of which defeated the OFT. The new Supreme Court has been specifically created to put clear blue water between itself and the legislative House of Lords. Perhaps thanks to this separation it was better able to comment on the legislature, dropping a hint to the House of Commons.

Hi Angry Cat, all best wishes to you. The five Law Lords unanimously agreed that the letter of that Regulation as it stands excludes the "value for money" criterion -- the law as it stands specifically does not wish to arbitrate pricing levels for commercial fees and packages between two consenting parties. The press release did not go into the reasons why reference to the European Court of Justice was deemed unnecessary. If you read through the full judgement do let us know. I believe Tom Brennan in court referred to bank charges in other countries. I do not recall him citing precedents of charge capping by state intervention in other EC countries. Whether the spirit of the law and natural justice says otherwise is another question. It would be truly horrendous if going overdrawn 50 pence will again incur a bank charge of £39, then this charge when unable to be paid snowballing into maximum monthly charges totaling as high as £200 -- all because of 50 pence overdrawn. :eek: Francovich principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From October 2009, the new Supreme Court of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, entirely separate from the legislature and replacing the old House of Lords Court of Appeal, outside of the remit of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/234717-supreme-court-verdict-utccr.html#post2603577

The new Supreme Court

Every verdict setback for consumers gives the other side encouragement and makes them more intransigent and less conciliatory all along the front. Be assured this very minute Egg are concocting a new computerised template letter, making misleading claims on how today's verdict supports what they have been saying, and how adamant they are now about not refunding claims. Not to believe it. There's many a slip between the cup and the lip, so all who have not reclaimed credit card penalty charges would do well to reclaim same. Bank charges claimants who did it slowly and leisurely in July 2007 about claiming, or about settling for 90% refund bird in the hand, found their claims suddenly halted overnight without forewarning. 28 months later they have not seen one penny refunded, and if the worst came to the worst never will.

Supreme Court verdict - UTCCR inapplicable to bank charges

Following an appeal by the banks, hours ago the Supreme Court returned a surprise verdict that: Unfair Terms for Consumer Credit Regulations legislation cited by the OFT is inapplicable to the level of bank charges. The bank charges struggle was catapulted to prominence in April 2006 by a tidal wave of customers challenging them as excessive and therefore unlawful. A High Court Test Case in January 2008 brought by the OFT against 8 banks led to a ruling in April 2008 that the charges were service fees not penalty charges but subject to oversight by the OFT under the terms of the UTCCR. This was appealed by the banks to the Court of Appeal which ruled against them. In June 2009 the banks appealed against this verdict to the new Supreme Court of the UK (open for business from October 2009, with 12 Law Lords presiding who do not participate in the legislative House of Lords), and this morning the verdict came. The Law Lords said reference to the European Court was unnecessary. The Supreme Court did not give the OFT leave to appeal to the European Court. There may be other avenues for tackling the banks, but for the 28-month 15-billionpound lawsuit which started in July 2007 this is the final verdict, there is no appeal. Consumer group leaders are studying the judgment, but some have conceded that this morning's ruling is a significant setback. The latest ruling explicitly says that the OFT continues to have an overseer's role to assess the level of bank charges, but on other grounds yet to be spelt out, not under the clauses of the UTCCR which the OFT previously cited. This ruling does not apply to credit card overlimit and late payment charges such as from Egg where to date lenders have made no attempt to reclassify penalty charges as service fees. The 1911 Dunlop-v-Garage ruling against penalty charges levied for profit rather than tit-for-tat compensation continues to apply as a precedent ruling until the courts rule otherwise. LATEST ADVICE ON BANK CHARGES CLAIMS - 26th November 2009 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=170&a=169 - by Bankfodder http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6931039.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6932522.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6932637.ece http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091125/tts-uk-banks-overdraft-ca02f96.html Bank charges verdict due Video: Bank charge test case ruling due - ITN NEWS Historic bank charges case decision nears - moneyfacts.co.uk UK Banks Win Appeal, Safeguarding Account Charges CompareAndSave.com Money Saving Expert Bank charges ruling marks black day for consumers http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_ps.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV3.pdf -- 45-page full judgment .

As you have written a few letters evidently you will not rest without a result. Two options come to mind: (1) WRITE not phone, addressing the letter to The Company Secretary, Egg HQ office, marking the envelope "PRIVATE & PERSONAL". This will get through to the eyes of the person in Egg answerable to the law. To obtain results you will obviously need to present a clear case enclosing evidence. (2) Write to Experian etc formally lodging a complaint against the inaccurate and misleading data which they publish about you. The CRAs are answerable to the law, and they will challenge Egg pronto, to either amend or confirm the validity of the data originating from Egg. The CRAs themselves will not amend what they publish, but a challenge from the CRA to Egg will receive far more attention than a customer complaint letter going round and round the jungle of Egg office and IT, at every new stage starting again from the bottom of the in-tray. Good luck.

Egg remains liable for retrospective reclaim of alleded unlawful penalty charges, not Apex. If Egg remains intransigent the legal claim will be against Egg not Apex. If after "a good few years" your ageny company has only managed to trigger the first Egg template letter which CAGgers get within the first week, not much chance of future performance from said agent, if they even have record of your case. If you have penalty charges older than 6 years, then with the delay and elapse of the past 3 years you would already have lost entitlement to reclaim your oldest charges. So no time to waste. As suggested earlier, by all means request the SAR yourself. The fullblown version can take 6 weeks at a cost of $10. The slimline version of all statements only, or a listiing of all Overlimit and Late Charges cost only £5, and could reach you within a week -- if you trust Egg. Refund is in full, generally accompanied by Egg offering 8% interest per annum on the charges. Egg does not fight hard in resistance, their bamboozle letters are run indiscriminately off the computer to impress the innocent. After an exchange of two or three letters they give in.

Hi Lisa, Unless your CCJ was unjustified (very unlikely that penalty charges alleged to be unlawful can support a CCJ setaside) there is no way I know of to wipe it off the credit registers. CCJ relates to past history, in which lenders have a legitimate reason to be interested. 6 years after the judgment the CCJ will automatically fall off your credit file. As you have now fully repaid what you owed there is every reason to be happy. I understand that upon your request lenders have an obligation to inform CRAs that you have now repaid in full, and this footnote when published next to your CCJ will mitigate your one-time black mark. The best people have been known to come a cropper through having the courage to try, and unavoidably sometimes to fail. After your setback you did recover brilliantly with honour, and the past is now water under the bridge. As for a nervous breakdown Egg is having one right now, being overlent with outlook dire, and with their parent company Citigroup surviving only thanks to government (taxpayer) bailout. Some of their staff are no doubt headed for the P45. In the Court of Public Opinion perhaps Egg too have earned a CCJ, so there. Best wishes,

Without paper evidence it would be hard to back up your version of events. If you can obtain your bank statement from 2007 to pinpoint the date your £287 cheque reached your bank account. Armed with the exact date write to the head honcho at Lewis Debit Recovery to point out you paid them as full and final satisfaction. The fact that for 2 years Lewis made no more contact with you affirms that they were satisfied. Unless Lewis specifically want to eat their cake and have it, they will confirm your story, if not to confirm F & F satisfaction, then that your debt was £300+ and you did pay £287 in 2007. If you can obtain a photocopy or original of your cleared £287 cheque naming Lewis as payee that would strengthen your demand for confirmation from Lewis. 2 years on it is not certain whether your bank has shredded your cheque, but they might be able to retrieve it from microfiche archives, but it could cost you £20(?) and 4 weeks wait? If you do all these positive things and demonstrate thoroughness, the party harassing you on spec will think twice, whether you will fight them or bring in the regulator with the same thoroughness and persistence. It would not be worth their while to press for blood from the stone when they can squeeze blood from some other passive weakling elsewhere. But do get every confirmation on paper. If they say good morning, say please can I have it on paper? Good luck! I am sure you would not have to pay twice, not when you can reproduce evidence of your payment by cheque.

Reading between the lines you have a loan account which has never been in arrears do Egg cannot touch you in any way. You appear also to have a credit card on which no arrears situation has been mentioned. So long as you keep in front of minimum payments there Egg cannot issue DN or demand full repayment on either loan or card. By "agreement cancelled" I take it Egg wrote to say they no longer wish to make fresh lendings, but as per their T&C in black and white they will continue to honour legal obligation to accept no more than minimum monthly payment but expect you to pay no less. Is there any letter to say Egg's "cancellation" refers to obliteration of past obligations on both sides instead of withholding of future lendings from Egg's side? There does not seem any legal way they can pass your account to DCAs and demand higher monthly payments, regardless of your legal challenge on missold PPI.

There has been a sea change in the attitude of regulators and courts on the issue of PPI. If there is evidence that PPI was an unjustified or unwanted addition flogged using pressure salesmanship, if the PPI was never claimable any way, then in case of doubt the regulators and courts tend to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt, whereas before they didn't. so long as you stay in front of your legal obligations they cannot call in the DCAs. But even if you fall behind, Egg strapped for cash will need to consider the pros and cons of passing/selling your account to DCAs. They will lose a hefty percentage, whereas your debt looks as if it will be repaid by you in full, albeit slowlyly. Not sure about the terms of your loan account, but credit card holders have faced horrendous interest rate hikes from Egg, this regardless of whether or not the consumer makes waves reclaiming this and that. It is to your credit that you intend to honour repayment, but you are not honour-bound to repay PPI if it is proveable as missold. Reading posts in this forum there does seem to be a pattern of tit-for-tat reprisals by Egg to discourage others with the same idea, that if you make waves they will issue DN after even one month missed payment, then call in the dogs of war. But in so doing they also lose, so if you point out the realities in your case with evidence presented, my guess is that they will not cut off their nose to spite their face. Hard to be sure. Good luck. ;-)

Cabot is old hat. For fresh info on iQor, click SEARCH on the page top blue bar, then click ADVANCED SEARCH Then input iQor to search in title only, then click SEARCH at the bottom