Egg CCP PPI Court Claim Mrs P

[phatram]

What my findings are after investigating it

• You originally opted in to having card repayment protection when you

applied for your Egg Card Account on the 16 July 2002. I have enclosed a

copy of the data which is transferred from your online application. This data

cannot be adjusted or manipulated by Egg personnel. I have blanked out

some of the more sensitive information for security reasons. At the end of

your application online, you would have been presented with a screen with

two boxes, one says 'Yes' next to it and one says 'No'. Neither of these

boxes were pre-selected.

 

 

But you failed to tell me I could get this cover elsewhere and a darn sight cheaper, so you mis-sold it to me !

Part acceptance letter and LBA will soon be on its way.

 

Should I inform them this is the reason for me making this claim or should I save it for court ?

[phatram]

bump

[phatram]

Should I inform them this is the reason for me making this claim or should I save it for court ?

 

 

 

Anyone please.

[phatram]

This POC will be used in my claim against Egg for repayment of missold credit card repayment protector / CCRP/(PPI).

My main argument is that they didn't tell me I could get this insurance elsewhere or that I would end up paying interest on it.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant had a credit agreement, credit card number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around July 2002.

 

2. At the time of opening the account the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

 

3. The Claimant contends that:

a) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained, nor alternatives from other suppliers suggested.

b) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments

ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit

iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit

iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.

 

 

4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

 

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £1641.91 by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

 

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £1641.91 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances.

 

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £1641.91 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £1641.91

 

d) Court costs;

 

e) The Claimant claims

 

i)Compound interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of

22.9 %. This is the rate applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

 

The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

 

The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold, not advising the Claimant that alternative products were available elsewhere.

 

ii) In the alternative to e i), if the Court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to the contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the Claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the Claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 22.9 % per annum.

 

iii) In the alternative to e i) and ii), if the Court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

iv)Schedule showing interest calculated at the rate quoted at I is attached to these particulars of claim, as follows:

 

Schedule A - Compound Contractual Interest calculated at 22.9%.

[phatram]

Notice of Issue has arrived from court.

[janewilks]

Hi

 

I am also looking to claim my PPI back from egg, They have sent me the details I need, may I ask if you used a template to initialise your claim as I havent a clue what to put.

 

Many Thanks

 

Jane:)

[phatram]

Hi Jane,

start your own thread and we will be along to help.

Mr P

[janewilks]

Hi Have started my thread thx jane

[alanalana]

Hello Phatram,

 

I thought you should see this re your POC.

 

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £1641.91 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £1641.91

 

and this is from zootscoot Moderator this is the thread......PPI Claims - Further Information

 

For the avoidance of doubt claims for mis-selling of PPI can not be founded on the Fraud Act 2006. This Act is concerned with criminal liability and is therefore only applicable in the criminal courts.

 

Neither are damages available under the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Hope this helps out

 

aa

 

 

[phatram]

Thanks

I'll have to wait and see what they say.

[alanalana]

Hello phatram.

 

I hope it works out ok for you anyway good luck.

 

aa

[phatram]

Eggs defence has arrived.

Any thoughts on it would we welcomed.

Thanks

[phatram]

IN THE DERBY COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

 

ME

 

 

Claimant

 

 

and

 

 

EGG BANKING PLC

 

 

Defendant

 

 

DEFENCE

 

1. It is admitted that the Claimant entered into an a Credit Card Agreement with

the Defendant on 16 July 2002 ("Agreement"). The Agreement is regulated by

the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

2. Upon the Claimant's Application for the Agreement he requested Credit

Repayment Protection ("CRP"). The Insurance was optional and was not a

condition or requirement of the Agreement.

3. The Claimant cancelled the CRP on 10 June 2004. The Claimant is put to strict

proof that a refund should have been paid at the time of cancellation.

4. By signing the Agreement, the Claimant confirmed that he had read and

understood the terms of the Agreement and the Egg CRP Documents supplied to

him.

5. The Claimant was able to access and manage his account online via a secure

website.

6. On 23 September 2004, the Claimant requested balance transfers of other credit

card balances onto his Egg credit card. These transfers were completed online,

by the Claimant and he selected CRP cover in respect of the balances

transferred. At the time of making applications online for balance transfers the

option for CRP was already pre-selected, but could have been de-selected as

part of the application process. The Claimant had the option to de-select the

option for CRP at the time of making the balance transfers but he did not do so.

7. The Defendant denies that:

7.1 The CRP was negligently mis-represented to the Claimant under S2 of the

Misrepresentation Act 1967. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the CRP was

mis-represented.

7.2 It was under a duty to the Claimant to explain the terms of the CRP and to make

the Claimant aware that alternative suppliers of CRP existed. The CRP was

optional and it was for the Claimant to review the policy being offered by the

Defendant against other similar products being offered by alternative suppliers

and to confirm he wished to purchase the policy.

7.3 The CRP was applied incorrectly, and that the Agreement was not executed in

accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA"). The amount of credit is

stated on the Agreement and the CRP was optional.

7.4 They did not inform the Claimant that the Insurance was optional.

 

8. In the premises, the Claimant is put to strict proof of his losses as a result of his

allegation.

9. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the interest claimed or at all.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement on its behalf

[phatram]

Can any one explain in ordinary English please?

I find 7.2 interesting, I thought they had to inform me I could get this elsewhere?

What does strict proof mean and how can I effectively counter that argument?

Edited June 3, 2008 by phatram

[phatram]

bump

[phatram]

bump

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Phatram,

 

I unfortuneately am not an expert on defences, but I thought under the misrepresentation act that the onus was on them to prove that they did not mis-sell it.

 

An extract from one of your previous posts:grin: Their response

 

You completed two balance transfers online on the 3 September 2004.

Once you had entered this information you were again presented with the

two boxes asking if you would like to have the protection applied. This time

the 'Yes' box was pre-selected. We have taken a business decision to

refund the premium charged to you because of this pre-selected box.

They did not mention that one on their defence:lol: So evidence for your court bundle:-D The ppi was not optional

I don't think there is anything to get worried about regarding their defence, and the proof of your hardship, is the statements and the amount of money they took. It was not just a few pence

Maybe pm one of the mods for a quick look

best wishes:grin:

[phatram]

Thanks h.

[phatram]

Today I have received an allocation questionaire which I have to return by 27th June and pay £35 for the priviledge. S'pose its another of their spoiling tactics?

Still don't get the "strict proof" bit !

[phatram]

Help please

Got a lot happening and my brain hurts!

I haven't a clue how to fill this AQ in.

[phatram]

Bump

[phatram]

Its form N150.

Should it be form N149 as the amount is only for £1500?

[bathgatebuyer]

Is the burden of proof not with Egg to prove that they did not mis-sell the PPI cover under the Sale of Good Act? I'm not 100% confident on PPI legislation or issues so feel free to correct me, but I thought that the SoGA effectively placed the onus on the provider to show that the product sold is / was 'fit for purpose'.

 

Were you ever asked to fill out a needs and benefits questionnaire? I know that a number of firms use these to assess whether or not someone would benefit from the cover or not. I intend checking the Good Practice Guidelines of the Association of British Insurers to assess whether this is part of their deemed 'good practice'. A typical questionnaire is simply just a checklist of "1 Have you ever suffered from back pain................................2 Have you ever suffered from Asthma..........................3 Have you ever suffered from cancer....................." and goes on to list any number of illnesses to assess suitability. This will be part of my own claim in that the Bank never sought to assess suitability instead saying that terms and conditions would be supplied after the point of sale. There was no active assessment of suitability.

[phatram]

Thanks

[phatram]

On the AQ,

Section F - Proposed directions

 

What on earth, if anything goes here?

Thanks