Just like UK and Irish house prices which rose like a rocket then fell like a meteor, credit card companies which indiscriminately granted credit now live to regret it, so many debts being now in default with repayment questionable. Within the past year quite a few cases were reported here of DNs being issued after only one monthly payment being missed. It could be that Egg now strapped for cash, given any excuse will try to pull the plug asap and get back the entire balance where it can, not wait for 5% minimum monthly payment ad inifinitum. If a DN was completely unjustified, e.g. default triggered by Egg IT/clerical foul-up or delay inside Egg pipeline, then the chances of DN rollback would be excellent. As for rolling back a justified DN on the grounds of procedural irregularity, no proof of sending or of receiving DN, well in 3 years I have never heard of any such attempt, let alone a success. Several have tried to roll back DN on the grounds that the account would never have fallen into overlimit but for penalty charges which cardholders allege to be unlawful and which Egg never want to refute in court. Yasmin spent 18 months doing this with numerous visits to several different courts, with Egg eventually beaten by a legal technicality not by Yasmin's legal argument. Another lady rolled back a DN issued after only one missed payment, ultimately successful when Egg lost appetite for the fight after 30 months heroic tussle . Phew . Sticky: " Egg DNs successfully rolled back " Mr McGuffey tried to roll back a DN in court on the grounds that RBS did not comply within the 12-day deadline for delivering a copy of his CCA. By the time this reached the Mercantile Court last month as a Test Case RBS had managed to find the agreement which they then produced in court. Not only was this ruled legally enforceable, not only did Mr McGuffey fail to roll back the DN, but the defeat for the cardholder has now set a precedent ruling binding on county courts. CAG Legal-Issues Forum posters were not at all amused.

Full SAR compliance by Egg will comprise of a one-inch-high pile of paper costing possibly £50-worth of labour, in return for £10 SAR fee. For years now Egg has offered 2 slimline alternatives in reply to SAR request: All past statements, for £5. or just a list of all penalty charges with dates and amounts, for £5. Not sure if you consented to receive the £5 option. If you opted for a full print of all monthly statements and are not getting all of them, by all means write back demanding the rest as is your right. It is now November 2009, and the 6-year statute of limitations cuts off in November 2003. Some people say it is possible to claim back more than 6 years, I shall refrain from comment. When you have the full list of overlimit and late payment penalty charges, reclaiming them should not be difficult, as Egg only puts up a half-hearted struggle of 2 or 3 computer-generated letters. After that they give in and pay up -- if you know the levers to push. Numerous CAGgers have reported they were DN'ed by Egg without notice through the post. Egg maintained they did send it out, and there is no legal requirement to use recorded post. Egg need only send you the material they have on file, and they would not be obliged to keep a copy of every DN notice sent out -- unless anyone knows different. Unlike on reclaim of penalty charges, Egg fights every attempt to roll back DN like their lives depend on it. One person managed it after 18 months struggle, another managed it after 30 months.

FOS adjudicates on the existence of financial disputes, not the mechanics of debt collection. Boundaries defined against the action of debt collectors are imposed by the DCA licensor, namely the OFT. Their annual licensing office in West London can be found by googling. If a complaint is made to the OFT, it would have to pinpoint which OFT guideline was breached. Other forums discuss such matters at length.

This is the computer-generated Egg letter to bamboozle the uninitiated, previously posted here verbatim many times by many CAGgers. Whatever anybody writes to Egg, they will try their luck and go through sending their set sequence of 2 or 3 template letters. They have nothing to lose by trotting out their busted argument, not known to be busted by newcomers. If you sent them a copy of the Magna Carta they would still respond with the same template letters, two or three times. You can respond in kind, completely ignoring their letter, and to reiterate your readiness to confront their £1000-per-day barrister in court. Once they realise bamboozle does not work this time they will pay up in full. Their past form is to voluntarily add 8% per annum on top of the full refund to match Statutory (compensatory) Interest. If you want more interest than 8% it is up to you, but going on past form it looks inadvisable unless you are hot barrister class.

There is no time limit laid down by regulators for the refund of penalty charges which claimants allege to be unlawful for being exhorbitant and profit-making instead of lawfully just compensating for loss. The drill is that the claimant asks by template letter for refund of Overlimit and Late Payment charges in full, based on an accurate itemised list of past charges. Egg to either pay or confront the claimant in Small Claims Court. Quick refund depends on pressing the right levers. Egg managers know the CAG template letter by heart, and after giving in 111 times is not going to stop now. They do not want to face you in court, not when you know what to say. The thread page below shows how-to, the most recent few entries will do, plus the moc1982 template letter dated 30APR2007, a letter delivering as effectively today as on the day it was first sent to Egg 2.5 years ago. Good luck. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html

It is evident the nasty cow is also a nasty bully, pushing for as much as possible on spec, making empty threats and causing distress to no purpose until the inheritance materialises. Such debt chasers are set targets, some with bonuses, and some chasers get over-zealous and overstep the line in the sand drawn by the OFT. There are other Forum rooms here specialising in such situation. The worst a DCA can do is to take you to court for a CCJ. Living on benefit you will not be assigned a repayment scheme steeper than what you are on now. If this did go to court, if your inheritance turns out to be a surprise windfall, and if the judge demanded full disclosure of said windfall, then partial repayment terms for full settlement could be imposed upon you. So a court appearance could cut both ways. It is unfortunate that the bully in her imagination has fixated on this bone. If her foaming at the mouth cannot be contained, go to www.companieshouse.gov.uk. For a price of maximum £5 you can search for her company and obtain the full name and private address of the Company Secretary legally answerable to the law. It may be possible with a little digging to find the phone number of said C.S. If the bully will not listen to reason, you could contact the C.S. direct by letter and phone, to demonstrate that two can play this game. It would be very unlikely the C.S. will be equally foolhardy jeopardising the DCA's licence renewable annually by the OFT. Once you have the name of the C.S., simply mentioning this name and your intended next step may be enough to turn a mad cow sane. Good luck.

The second thread comprehensively focused on the recent Test Case ruling, that even if a debt has not been proven enforceable in court, the creditor may still pursue repayment via DCA, DN, black marks etc, i.e. any activity outside of court goes, with OFT anti-harassment regulations separately covering the limits on DCA action. In the words of the Test Case judge, that debt has not been proven irredeemably unenforceable. This even applies to cases where the creditor has not produced the original agreement to date, but has not definitively owned up they cannot ever produce same. The general consensus is that, if a creditor sees he cannot secure legal enforcement in court he will not try and risk an adverse ruling. He will instead bypass CCJ and use alternative modes of persuasion. The recent ruling does not apply to cases where an agreement has been adjudged by court to be irredeemably unenforceable. Another Test Case will have to rule on the consequences. It is a vast thread, for anyone interested in reading same. To follow the ongoing Test Cases, read Legal-Issues forum.

A test case verdict in the Commercial Court 3 weeks ago ruled that the creditor can pursue repayment in every other way except enforcement through the court where the agreement has not been proven enforceable or looks likely to be unenforceable, i.e. with DN, black marks, debt collectors. Hard luck that your employment situation has gone sour as it has for millions. Egg knew from the start that to lend money is to incur risk of default, they made a calculated gamble to earn profit and it has backfired. Reading many threads it seems extremely unlikely Egg will settle for a fraction of your balance. Most likely Egg will pass sell your debt onto DLC to see how much they can squeeze out of you. If you own a house then they will come after that. Doubtful if your template letters will stop Egg's activities. As you have no hope of paying, then your priority would be to minimise pain. On no account give Egg or DLC your phone number. Any callers dropping by, tell them you have a howling hungry dog indoors not averse to human meat. If they want the money they can see you in court, where the judge will decide what you can afford to repay monthly. Good luck, and chin up!

You can retrospectively claim full refund of unlawful penalty charges back to October 2003. You received a CCJ so default at the time was proven. If you say "Had unlawful charges not been levied then overlimit breach then DN would not have been triggered", well overturniing DN requires a county court lawsuit not Small Claims Court, separate from penalty charges reclaim. You are welcome to try, but one person took 18 months and lost weight doing it, another took 30 months. It is easier to get blood out of Count Dracula than a DN withdrawal from Egg. If you are stuck with a CCJ, why worry about a DN? Egg DNs successfully rolled back

When you received PPI refund did you sign for Full and Final Settlement? If so, hard to see how a court will allow reopening a settled issue.

The law goes back to the days of quill pens and clerk transcribers. The "copy" needs to be truthful in reflecting the agreement, but not exact like in the days of photocopiers. The real original only needs to be produced in court. It is up to you to expend time reading up on this if you wish.

But in the latter position would the same judge have said the creditor may not DN and blacken the debtor's credit rating? Could it be there are 3 scenarios, not 2? (1) The creditor does not present sufficient documents. The judge does not enforce or rule out repayment, but as last week he does not forbid DN and CRA blackening. (2) The creditor presents flawed documents. The judge declines to enforce payment - a negative, passive conclusion resulting in the lack of legal action. However if the obiter dicta last week were to be interpreted as the judge continuing to hold the view that a technically flawed agreement continues in existence outside a law court, then the inference could be that particular judge would still not have prohibited DN and blackening? In the first two situations the judge's stance was passive, refusing to side with either creditor or debtor. (3) The creditor comes to court seeking repayment enforcement. Because of gross PPI mis-selling a judge last week proactively quashed the entire debt outstanding and in addition compelled repayment of PPI instalments (not passively drew back from enforcing repayment). If the judge actively expunged the very existence of the debt as unlawful and unfair, little chance he would have permitted even a suggestion of DN and blackening.

A mixture of recent verdicts over at Forum/Legal-Issues including the second link, tried as a Test Case in the Mercantile Court. Court opinion seems to be edging towards the cardholder on PPI disputes now. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/179069-stebiz-cabot-appeal-5.html#post2469499 Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice What A Day In Court-help Help Why aren't more people using the CCA2006 Unfair Relationships Provisions? Am I missing something?

the granting of a charging order, attachment of earnings and authorising bailiffs is an enforcement of the judgement of the court- in accordance with the legal agreement, not in defiance of the legal agreement.

Obiter dicta

Legal contracts invariably start with a definition of terms, but in this situation there is appalling loose use of language, with one word "enforcement" hijacked to denote two different actions. Only the court has powers to "enforce payment". In the absence of which it can grant charge orders, impose attachment on earnings, and authorise bailiffs etc. Creditors have no such legal powers and so no possibility to "enforce compliance". Regrettably I believe creditors sometimes use "enforce" to signal they mean to seek "enforcement by court". Legal enforcement outside of the court is by definition impossible, unless the creditor is one Al Capone carrying a violin case. Perhaps the quote would be less ambiguous if edited with qualifications in parentheses: I.e. Extra-legal measures to encourage payment continued irrespective of legal enforcement -- I think.

Looks to me a deal of confusion has arisen with adverse consequences due to the casual use of the word "unenforceable" (not by Readalot), covering two situations: 1. Unenforced to date - the agreement looks defective according to the Act, or the creditor cannot or will not supply the agreement yet (as in the recent case). This does not rule out the possibility of enforcement ordered by the court at a future date. It is not yet unenforceable for all time due to it being eligible for enforcement by a judge at a future date. 2. Unenforceable - enforcement in court has been attempted by the creditor in court but quashed. Unless there is an appeal against this verdict this agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. Looks like it is the judge's perorgative to say what is "....able".

Challenging a DN triggered by failure to pay allegedly unlawful charges is not quite the same thing as challenging a DN backed by an agreement allegedly defective in its construction. The judge in the aforementioned case saw card penalty charges same as bank "service fees" a la the OFT Test Case, which was surprising given that DJ Cooke clearly stated that his view on "bank charges" were very different from his view on card charges, granted though DJ Cooke ruled on Kevin-v-Lloyds in a lower court. Enforcement by law amounts a compulsion to repay a certain sum of money in the future. Issuing a DN and recording a failure-to-pay blackmark with CRA publicizes events in the past and stops with this publication, in itself not legally pressing for repayment. Issuance of a DN neither legally compels the creditor to proceed to court, nor legally compels the debtor to repay. DN opens the door to future legal compulsion but does not itself go through it. It is possible to question if, in the eyes of the judge, publicly recording past events constitutes legal compulsion towards future action backed by the court. Many debtors simply ignore DN and blackballing. Where there is no attempt to seek legal compulsion to repay, the judge may not recognise the existence of legal compulsion. If the debtor wished to file for libel that would be a different case. In connection with agreements enforceable only by court ruling, and in connection with agreements irredeemably unenforceable, from the latest case it looks like two different standards of proof are adopted -- a higher standard required to enforce debt repayment, and a lower one to sanction reporting to CRA.

I believe the defeated claimant wanted the ruling: CRA black mark is unlawful until a disputed agreement is proven enforceable. Instead the judge made the ruling: CRA black mark is lawful until a disputed agreement is proven irredeemably unenforceable. In a position of unproven eventuality the judge gave the card issuer the benefit of the doubt. As to why car2403 has now run out of adversaries, I believe they all took one look and decided car2403 is such a natural lawyer they preferred easier fights and pickings elsewhere. A really interesting legal point would be raised, if a claimant received a DN, then paid off the entire debt. Afterwards he comes to court to point out retrospectively that the agreement was inadmissible or lost. There is no longer any debt for the court to enforce, there is only a dispute on the enforcement of non-debt rights and obligations, i.e. the rescinding of the DN and black mark. Will the judge limit himself only to the monetary enforcement of outstanding debt?

The judge said it was not irredeemably unenforceable, rather potentially enforceable at a future date. The judgement too long to read -- probably true he never did say the agreement was enforceable on the day of hearing. A grey position, neither enforceable nor outright unenforceable. Weak ground on which to fight for a strong decision, and not material for a Test Case as the judge pointed out.

Para 17:

But might not the other side say, their purpose in creditors passing info onto CRA was not to collect on a dubious debt, but to warn other lenders about a known bad risk. Debtors do share info about judges and institutions and barristers, naming names, for the sake of mutual advantage. Not necessarily to appeal against a foregone verdict of defeat with hopes to collect on a claim as opposed to a debt. When there is no chance of success is there no permission to share info, not even on CAG?

Were you encouraged by any posting to take this to court?

Egg ALWAYS gives in without exception and refunds penalty charges in full. Their template letters are designed to discourage the uninitiated, sent out by computer without human intervention. They will pay at the last minute before court if you file MCOL, or bypassing legal hassle you send the 30APR2007 moc1982 template letter listed in http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html When they say no, hold firm and reiterate your position. They are bluffing holding a pair of deuces -- just standard operating procedure.

(End of September)