Egg credit card agreement terminated

[twodogs]

I had the expected letter from Trevor Munn after a couple of letters and replies from ARC Europe. I have used Toymaker's (slightly reworded) template to respond to T Munn. Has anyone had any further from T Munn yet?

 

I'll keep you posted on the outcome

[pumpytums]

Very interesting DD,

I always thought it was the "Approved limit" that basically scuppered egg I had forgotten about them withdrawing the card. Its a bit like a ship that won't dock for 6 years.

 

You can tell by the level of DCA's they seem to appoint i.e bogcroft level that they hold little hope success.

 

 

Pumpytums

[diddydicky]

Very interesting DD,

I always thought it was the "Approved limit" that basically scuppered egg I had forgotten about them withdrawing the card. Its a bit like a ship that won't dock for 6 years.

 

You can tell by the level of DCA's they seem to appoint i.e bogcroft level that they hold little hope success.

 

 

Pumpytums

 

withdrawing the card or reducing the credit limit is not termination and most credit agreements allow for this

 

I think what the posters of egg agreements are referring to is a letter from egg actually terminating agreements that were not in arrears of any kind

 

the second argument i believe is over the form of wording in the credit limit

[Hopster]

Other way round here. Trevor Munn to me threatening court action, me to Trevor Munn asking for copies of everything that they have - I mean everything - ARC back to me asking for money to get the info - me to them saying Bollox. Them to me saying account now on hold awaiting instructions from "our client". nothing since. There may be over 100,000 Egg exclients wondering what is going on since they terminated the accounts and I think that there may be a tester coming up in court in march.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

[Peterbard]

HI

 

Creit accounts of no fixed period can be terminated without notice,

 

OFT 1002 Post contractual information

"6.8 Under section 98 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to

terminate a regulated agreement (in non-default cases) unless he

provides the debtor with a notice of his intention to terminate at least

seven days before taking such action.

6.9 Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration

So there is no specified form for a temination they can call it terminating or anything they like, doesnt make any differnce.

 

Which also means they can temiate as many times as they like. it is not like a section87 termiunation.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Other way round here. Trevor Munn to me threatening court action, me to Trevor Munn asking for copies of everything that they have - I mean everything - ARC back to me asking for money to get the info - me to them saying Bollox. Them to me saying account now on hold awaiting instructions from "our client". nothing since. There may be over 100,000 Egg exclients wondering what is going on since they terminated the accounts and I think that there may be a tester coming up in court in march.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

 

,Hi

　

Our resident solicitor PT257 has a case coming up in the Cardiff Mercantile against Egg,, using the approved limit argument.

This will be “Precedent setting “ according to him.

I am sure we all wait the result with breath baited.

I have no reason to doubt this and I am sure it will be well recorded mercantile court hearings usually are so we shall all beable to wee for ourselves the outcome,.

I believe the court listings for March come out at the end of this month so we should be able to find out when the case actually is being heard, I stand to be corrected on this but it is usual procedure.

Since the ramifications of a victory in this would be very wide raging I would extract quite a lot of media coverage.

I wonder if it is an open hearing since It is a mercantile hearing, not sure of the procedure but would certainly like to be there

 

Peter

[BEC01]

HI

 

Creit accounts of no fixed period can be terminated without notice,

 

OFT 1002 Post contractual information

"6.8 Under section 98 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to

terminate a regulated agreement (in non-default cases) unless he

provides the debtor with a notice of his intention to terminate at least

seven days before taking such action.

6.9 Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration

So there is no specified form for a temination they can call it terminating or anything they like, doesnt make any differnce.

 

Which also means they can temiate as many times as they like. it is not like a section87 termiunation.

Peter

 

Indeed they can Peter.

Furthermore, where there is any outstanding balance, that is then no longer standing as there is no agreement to govern it.

 

Egg messed-up big time with this.

 

[basa48]

HI

 

Creit accounts of no fixed period can be terminated without notice,

 

OFT 1002 Post contractual information

"6.8 Under section 98 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to

terminate a regulated agreement (in non-default cases) unless he

provides the debtor with a notice of his intention to terminate at least

seven days before taking such action.

6.9 Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration

So there is no specified form for a temination they can call it terminating or anything they like, doesnt make any differnce.

 

Which also means they can temiate as many times as they like. it is not like a section87 termiunation.

Peter

 

I always thought the Act trumped OFT Guidance?

 

Anyway the guidance was issued July 2008, 6 months after Egg issued the letter (to me at least)!

[BEC01]

I always thought the Act trumped OFT Guidance?

 

Anyway the guidance was issued July 2008, 6 months after Egg issued the letter (to me at least)!

 

There has been a lot of scrambling about with this.

BASA, if you received the original termination, stand your ground.

 

Egg are scuppered with this one.

 

[Peterbard]

Indeed they can Peter.

Furthermore, where there is any outstanding balance, that is then no longer standing as there is no agreement to govern it.

 

Egg messed-up big time with this.

 

 

Hi so you are saying that because egg have terminated the agreement they have lost any rights under that agreement.

I do not agree, firsly the court will say that the debt is still there secondly i do not agree that the creditor has lost any rights under the agreement the terminaationi s entirely of the creditors making it can be a termination of just the right for thre debter to draw from the account if he likes there is no prescribed form for this type of termination as you admitted.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

I always thought the Act trumped OFT Guidance?

 

Anyway the guidance was issued July 2008, 6 months after Egg issued the letter (to me at least)!

 

 

The guidance only reflect what it says in the cca if you read it properly.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Indeed they can Peter.

Furthermore, where there is any outstanding balance, that is then no longer standing as there is no agreement to govern it.

 

Egg messed-up big time with this.

 

 

Hi

This is so woing it deserves anseiring twicr

 

You say ther the ballance would just dissapear,this is absolutely not the case even if the agreement wher unenforceable it would not and it isnt,

 

A credit casrd can be terminated at any time by anyone ,thnk about it if it couldnt it would go on for ever it is open ended.

 

Someone at sometime has to end it or terminate it there can be no legilation to say when it has to be the choice of the parties involved that is why ther is no requirement for a seven day period in sectio 98 because none is neede it can be terminated at any time in any way.

 

When the agreement is terminated it is not void it still exists. The money is still owed other wise you or i could just terminate our agreements when we liked.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hello

 

Someone might be interested in my experience with Egg, who terminated my agreement without sending me a default notice (my account was not in default).

 

I have asked Egg to indicate to me the specific part of the 1974 Consumer credit Act which provides Entitlement to Egg to terminate my agreement when my account is not in default.

 

I have also asked Egg to indicate to me the specific part of the 1974 Consumer Credit act which provides entitlement to Egg to include in the Egg credit card agreement a term stating that Egg can terminate the agreement at any time.

 

I have told Egg that I consider Egg to be in breach of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act, and that if the matter goes to court I will, additionally, ask the court to use it's powers under sections 19/20 of the 2006 consumer credit act.

 

Regards

 

toymaker1

 

Gosh this has been going on a long time hasnt it

 

In answer to thhis i would say that the sections you need to look at sections 76 and 98. Thes give a requirement for 7 days notice on agreements of a fixed duration why you might add just a fixed diration BECAUSE NONE ARE REQUIRED ON AN AGREEMNT OF INDETRMINATE LENGTH,

 

The reason is obvvious so obvious to the draghtsmant that they did not mention it it is because someone is going to always want to terminate the ageement sooner or later ,since it has no finishing date, so why have a warning period.

 

THis goes not mean that the debt just dissapears when this is terminated the agreement still exists it is not voided and even if it was the hargain would have to be reset and the orriginal money would have to go back to the creditor,

 

THe creditor is perfectly within his rights to terminate you ability to draw on the account if he wishes there is no law which says he must lend you money.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Ok Lets talk about law and contracts. Firstly there is no reason why a creditor cannot terminate an agreement for running account credit any time he wants.

He can terminate it in total in part reinstate it terminate it again why cant he.

The notion that because it doesn’t say he can in the act he cannot terminate is absurd,

The act does not work like that, in fact no act works like that. Law doesn’t work like that.

Legislation isn’t a list of things that you can do, it is a list of things you cannot.

The reason section 98 is significant is because it states that the creditor has to give notice prior to termination under certain conditions.

This then acknowledges that the creditor can terminate under all other conditions.

If there was a law saying you can’t walk your dog on Saturdays, wouldn’t it be sensible to assume that it was safe to walk it on the other days of the week.

To difficult

The OFT don’t seem to think so.

Peter

[BEC01]

Peter, you are missing some crucial points in terms of contracts as agreed governance over certain conditions.

 

Discuss...

[BEC01]

Peter, if anything governed by a mutually agreed contract exists beyond termination of the agreement, then what is the point of the agreement?

 

I, partially, agree that a contract can be terminated.

However, should an agreement that governed a service be removed, then the services are also deemed to have been removed.

 

Your above posts make no sense.

[diddydicky]

Peter, if anything governed by a mutually agreed contract exists beyond termination of the agreement, then what is the point of the agreement?

 

I, partially, agree that a contract can be terminated.

However, should an agreement that governed a service be removed, then the services are also deemed to have been removed.

 

Your above posts make no sense.

 

as does a lot of what he says, i fear

[Peterbard]

as does a lot of what he says, i fear

 

 

Hi

Ok lets keep it nice and simple no big words.

 

Which bit of the act prohibits the creditor from terminating a contract at any time?

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Peter, if anything governed by a mutually agreed contract exists beyond termination of the agreement, then what is the point of the agreement?

 

I, partially, agree that a contract can be terminated.

However, should an agreement that governed a service be removed, then the services are also deemed to have been removed.

 

Your above posts make no sense.

 

Hi

 

No i will answer this becausei can see where you have the problem ,i have the same uneasyness with this.

 

In rankine the judge held that a section 78 request could not be made because it had been terminated and therefore was not under an agreement.

 

This judgement was challenged by Proff Goode in his paper following the case who said that the termintion was simply the trermination of the function of the agreemnt not the agreement itself.

The is in essance the the anolgy i used earlier that your friend found so amusing. THe solicitor that i got it from has some 29 years experiance as a solicitor in contract law so yes he does know a little on the subject.

 

But as i said erlier i have never been entirely comfortable with this.

 

Peter

 

Peter

[Hopster]

Watching and waiting to add to this.......................I have a solicitor - no - a barrister looking into this at the moment and expect to hear from the solicitor who has instructed him(or her) soon.

[Peterbard]

Peter, if anything governed by a mutually agreed contract exists beyond termination of the agreement, then what is the point of the agreement?

 

I, partially, agree that a contract can be terminated.

However, should an agreement that governed a service be removed, then the services are also deemed to have been removed.

 

Your above posts make no sense.

 

Hi

 

GIven that the above makes sense then what is it that the court enforces,since most contracts have already been terminated at the default stage.

 

Peter

[BEC01]

Hi

 

No i will answer this becausei can see where you have the problem ,i have the same uneasyness with this.

 

In rankine the judge held that a section 78 request could not be made because it had been terminated and therefore was not under an agreement.

 

This judgement was challenged by Proff Goode in his paper following the case who said that the termintion was simply the trermination of the function of the agreemnt not the agreement itself.

The is in essance the the anolgy i used earlier that your friend found so amusing. THe solicitor that i got it from has some 29 years experiance as a solicitor in contract law so yes he does know a little on the subject.

 

But as i said erlier i have never been entirely comfortable with this.

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

I agree.

However, where the agreement has been explicitly terminated, there can be no confusion.

 

If, as you say, certain parts of the services had been terminated, then it would have been perfectly lawful too. Probably within their terms and conditions.

 

Egg just got their language in their letter fatally wrong, in my solicitors' opinions.

 

It is proving very difficult to get Egg to take anyone to court where this is the dispute.

 

I suspect it is a much more secure route than the enforceability route, although that appears to have a certain amount of merit too.

 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss Peter.

[diddydicky]

Hi

Ok lets keep it nice and simple no big words.

 

Which bit of the act prohibits the creditor from terminating a contract at any time?

 

Peter

 

all of it and none of it

 

the creditor does NOT need anything in the contract or the CCA to prevent him from terminating the contract he (as can the debtor) can simply stick two fingers up at any time and say this contract is terminated however if it is not a lawful termination- then he has not in fact terminated he has merely stated his intent not to continue to perform his obligations

 

the ONLY way his unlawful attempt to terminate can result in termination is if the inured (performing ) party agrees to his unlawful act

 

My disagreement was with your suggestion that he could not UNLAWFULLY terminate.

Edited February 16, 2010 by diddydicky

[Guest HeftyHippo]

 

the ONLY way his unlawful attempt to terminate can result in termination is if the inured (performing ) party agrees to his unlawful act

 

That's correct. It is not the breach of the contract that ends it, it is the acceptance of it

 

Lord Bingham, Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha

 

"The repudiation of a contract by one party ("the repudiator"), if accepted by the other ("the injured party"), brings the contract to an end and releases both parties from their primary obligations under the contract."

[BEC01]

Let's not give too much away here guys...