Egg credit card agreement terminated

[basa48]

sometimes pays to concede a point so that others are not left confused

 

I don't want anyone diving into to court saying Egg can't terminate 'cos s76, 87, 98 don't permit it and the lender or judge saying - those sections don't apply because this is a non defaulted running credit account so they can terminate.

 

I still say forget the 1974 Act - use UTCCR and contract law.

[toymaker1]

I don't want anyone diving into to court saying Egg can't terminate 'cos s76, 87, 98 don't permit it and the lender or judge saying - those sections don't apply because this is a non defaulted running credit account so they can terminate.

 

I still say forget the 1974 Act - use UTCCR and contract law.

 

I dont wish to offend you, but what you have just posted is - in my opinion- totally wrong, and could harm debtors who follow your advice.

For example,

 

Section 4(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states that UTCCR 1999 does not apply to contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions.

 

CCA 1974 is such a mandatory statutory regulatory provision, and credit card T&C's reflect the mandatory statury and regulatory provisions of CCA 1974.

 

i.e It is totally clear and beyond any doubt that UTCCR does not apply to the terms of credit card agreements.

 

Regards

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I still say forget the 1974 Act - use UTCCR and contract law.

 

you can't 'forget' the 1974 Act - it is THE regulator of Credit terms and is directly applicable.

[basa48]

I dont wish to offend you, but what you have just posted is - in my opinion- totally wrong, and could harm debtors who follow your advice.

For example,

 

Section 4(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states that UTCCR 1999 does not apply to contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions.

 

CCA 1974 is such a mandatory statutory regulatory provision, and credit card T&C's reflect the mandatory statury and regulatory provisions of CCA 1974.

 

i.e It is totally clear and beyond any doubt that UTCCR does not apply to the terms of credit card agreements.

 

Regards

 

Section 140A of the 2006 Act not only introduces Unfair Terms legislation; intended to be applied retrospectively (Hon J Flaux in McGuffick v RBS considers 140A in relation to an agreement dated 2005), but it is generally accepted that the provisions of the UTCCR 1999 will be considered in this respect.

[basa48]

you can't 'forget' the 1974 Act - it is THE regulator of Credit terms and is directly applicable.

 

The overall Act is of course applicable and I didn't mean it doesn't apply to the Egg agreement, but as everyone keeps banging on about - show me where CCA 1974 either allows or disallows the termination by Egg.

 

I don't think you can because the writer of the Act never anticipated a lender terminating without a debtor default and there is nothing in the Act that covers it - IMO.

 

We therefore have to look to other legislation to see if this is permissable - and IMO it isn't as it is unfair.

[toymaker1]

Section 140A of the 2006 Act not only introduces Unfair Terms legislation; intended to be applied retrospectively (Hon J Flaux in McGuffick v RBS considers 140A in relation to an agreement dated 2005), but it is generally accepted that the provisions of the UTCCR 1999 will be considered in this respect.

But S140 relates to unfair terms in agreements which are regulated by CCA1974.

It is intended to protect against unfair terms in contracts which fall within CCA 1974.

For example, Term 20 of Egg agreement

" we can end this agreement at any time"

would be just such a term.

i.e it is both an unfair term and applies to a contractual agreement which is governed by CCA 1974 (NOT UTTCR), consequently it falls exactly within the provisions of S140 of CCA2006 amendment.

[Hopster]

So - Once And For All - Egg Terminated My Agreement When I Was Not In Arrears - With 160,000 Other Customers - Did They Breach The Agreement And Render By Debt Unenforceable ? Yes Or No ? Answers Please - Yes......or................no.

[toymaker1]

So - Once And For All - Egg Terminated My Agreement When I Was Not In Arrears - With 160,000 Other Customers - Did They Breach The Agreement And Render By Debt Unenforceable ? Yes Or No ? Answers Please - Yes......or................no.

 

Yes

[basa48]

So - Once And For All - Egg Terminated My Agreement When I Was Not In Arrears - With 160,000 Other Customers - Did They Breach The Agreement And Render By Debt Unenforceable ? Yes Or No ? Answers Please - Yes......or................no.

 

I believe yes and no !!! :grin:

 

They have not rendered it unenforceable, they went one better and ended the agreement entirely.

 

The only way s140 (2006 Act) can be brought into operation is to show clause 20 Egg used to terminate is unfair according to UTCCR 1999.

 

The clause is declared non binding. Egg have then terminated with no clause in the T&Cs permitting it; nor any clauses in CCA 1974 permitting it.

 

That is common law actual and fundamental breach of contract in that they have unilaterally and unequivocally stated they will no longer honour the agreement.

[toymaker1]

I believe yes and no !!! :grin:

 

They have not rendered it unenforceable, they went one better and ended the agreement entirely.

 

The only way s140 (2006 Act) can be brought into operation is to show clause 20 Egg used to terminate is unfair according to UTCCR 1999.

 

The clause is declared non binding. Egg have then terminated with no clause in the T&Cs permitting it; nor any clauses in CCA 1974 permitting it.

 

That is common law actual and fundamental breach of contract in that they have unilaterally and unequivocally stated they will no longer honour the agreement.

 

What planet are you from?

[basa48]

What planet are you from?

 

[basa48]

But S140 relates to unfair terms in agreements which are regulated by CCA1974.

It is intended to protect against unfair terms in contracts which fall within CCA 1974.

For example, Term 20 of Egg agreement

" we can end this agreement at any time"

would be just such a term.

i.e it is both an unfair term and applies to a contractual agreement which is governed by CCA 1974 (NOT UTTCR), consequently it falls exactly within the provisions of S140 of CCA2006 amendment.

 

You're arguing what I'm arguing, except the defining authority for 'unfair'.

 

Where in s140 does it define 'unfair'? How are you going to demonstrate 'unfair'? By using UTCCR 1999 that's how.

[toymaker1]

Where in s140 does it define 'unfair'? How are you going to demonstrate 'unfair'?

S140B states that:

 

if the debtor alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

 

An example might be Term 20 of Egg card conditions.

If an Egg credit card holder alleged to to the court that for Egg to say that Egg can end the agreement at any time was unfair, it would be open to Egg to prove to the contrary.

They would have an uphill struggle, bearing in mind that if Egg could end the agreement at any time, it would make CCA 1974 totally pointless. I hope you can see. that.

[cab1ne]

deleted "appologies"

 

cab

Edited March 10, 2010 by cab1ne

[cab1ne]

deleted "appologies"

 

cab

Edited March 10, 2010 by cab1ne

[diddydicky]

i dont think the deposit screws up the finance

 

the total deal for the car was 19,748.11 the customer paid 500 cash deposit and the balance left to finance was 19,248.11

 

where is the problem?

 

the agreement is merely showing how the purchase price has been arrived at

 

no interest has been charged on the 500 quid

 

bloody expensive car tax though !!

[cab1ne]

deleted "appologies"

 

cab

Edited March 10, 2010 by cab1ne

[diddydicky]

quite clearly says amount of credit is 19,248.11

 

with respect i think you are misunderstanding the agreement

 

the bottom boxes are merely reconciling how the total price of 19,748.11 has been paid

 

500 cash and 19248.11 by way of credit

 

+++++++++++

 

you will make one payment of 633.08 followed by 49 payments of 433.08 which is 25,551.72 therefore your total payments are 26,184.80

 

the loan amount is 19,248.11 and the interest is 6936.69 which = 26,184.79

 

 

 

1 penny out is within acceptable tolerances

 

the one thing i cannot check is if the interest has been worked out on 19248.11 or 19748.11 however i am 99.9% certain that it has not been worked out on 19748.11

Edited March 10, 2010 by diddydicky

[cab1ne]

deleted "appologies"

 

cab

Edited March 10, 2010 by cab1ne

[cab1ne]

deleted "appologies"

 

cab

Edited March 10, 2010 by cab1ne

[toymaker1]

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see

The total price is 19,748.11, of which you have paid £500 deposit, leaving £19,248.11. You have borrowed £19,248.11 + £200. What's wrong with that?

The only thing I would say is you should have paid the £200 cash, otherwise it is a very expensive deposit - you are paying 10.36 % each year over 5 years for £200.

[cosalt]

I cant see anything wrong with that agreement, all figures appear to be correct, however I dont know if the APR is right or not.

 

One thing is puzzling me though, what has this got to do with the termination of an egg credit card ?

[Guest HeftyHippo]

with utmost respect to all of the distinguished posters immediately above, can I point out that the title of this thread is " Termination of Egg credit card agreement"?

 

As this car agreement does not involve an agreement with Egg, it is somewhat out of place, and is likely to get much more relevant interest in a more appropriate thread, or in one of its own. After all, if you want to give advice on Lombard Car finance problems, you don't look for one in threads about Egg credit cards do you?

Edited March 10, 2010 by HeftyHippo

[cosalt]

As I pointed out in post 1218.

[diddydicky]

my apologies- it seemed clear cut and i expected my answer would have quickly disposed of the matter