Egg credit card agreement terminated

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I wrote them a letter asking for clarification of why they were ending the agreement and of their right to do so as I did not have a copy of the latest agreement. I didn't receive a response. I stopped paying them shortly after that.

[diddydicky]

"As long as we have sent you any notice required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

so the term that they refer to is clearly not appropriate since this relates to terminating in a default situation and following a DN

 

i understand your reluctance with regard to your own case but i note you are saying that clause xx refers to this in the latest agreement

 

but if they are referring to clause xx in the ORIGINAL agreement, or the varied agreement at the time they notified termination, what does THART clause say

 

what i am getting at- is - were they trying to act on a clause which gave them the right to RESTRICT the use of the account

 

in other words as i said before- did they wrongly (for whatever reason) use the TERMINATION when they appear to have intended RESTRICTION

[Guest HeftyHippo]

clause 20.2 doesn't exist in the original agreement. It is in the latest agreement sent with my CCA request.

 

Thing is, we don't know when that clause was introduced. It might have referred to something else when they wrote the letter, I can only quote the latest and the original agreement, not the full history.

 

Maybe others have had different letters or different clauses? What does your letter say Toymaker?

[diddydicky]

toymaker- with respect i think you need to at least make an attempt to read through the CCA 1974 (as amended) and make some sort of fist of understanding the overall effect of the legislation

 

I am all for debate but you clearly are posting (IMO) on stuff you have only half read and are getting confused with using guidance notes on the legislation as overriding the legislation itself.

[toymaker1]

Point 20.2 is the clause they rely on in the termination letter to justify closure of the account.

 

"...under condition 20.2 of your Egg Card agreement, we are giving you formal notice that your agreement will end 35 days after the date of this letter."

I really dont understand.

I fail to see how Point 20.2 is the clause they rely on in the termination letter to justify closure of the account. What you posted as term/Point/clause 20.2 was this:

 

"As long as we have sent you any notice required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, we can ask you to pay the full amount which you owe us under this agreement if you:

seriously or repeatedly fail to comply with your obligations under this agreement;

die; or

become bankrupt, sequestrated, or if a proposal is made for a voluntary or other arrangement with all or any of your creditors."

There is nothing at all in there which appears to relate to termination of the agreement. In particular, there is nothing in there which relates to termination if you are not in default.

So as far as I understand it, Egg cannot be using the Term 20.2 you posted to rely on to terminate your account.

[twodogs]

toymaker- with respect i think you need to at least make an attempt to read through the CCA 1974 (as amended) and make some sort of fist of understanding the overall effect of the legislation

 

I am all for debate but you clearly are posting (IMO) on stuff you have only half read and are getting confused with using guidance notes on the legislation as overriding the legislation itself.

 

I think toymaker is very clear on this matter and if you read the whole thread he is far from confused. It's a very simple matter that doesn't need much more clarification.

 

The Egg agreement is governed by the CCA 1974 or it isn't, and Egg, by terminating agreements not in default stepped outside of it. The law is very clear on this I believe.

[toymaker1]

I'm not sure it is inconsistent.

 

In my case the term 20.2 says

 

"As long as we have sent you any notice required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, we can ask you to pay the full amount which you owe us under this agreement if you:

 

 

• seriously or repeatedly fail to comply with your obligations under this agreement;
  
• die; or
  
• become bankrupt, sequestrated, or if a proposal is made for a voluntary or other arrangement with all or any of your creditors."
  

 

So far as I can see the term 20.2 you have posted seems to be saying that in certain circumstances, Egg, provided they have sent a notice as required under a particular provision of CCA, would be entitled to ask you to repay all the money you have borrowed.

You have said that Egg did not send you any notice, therefore in itself Egg seems to be merely drawing your attention to a hypothetical situation which has not arisen. It is hypothetical because, as you say Egg have in fact not sent you a notice of the sort they refer in 20.2 as being a prelude to the actions outlined in 20.2.

[toymaker1]

I think toymaker is very clear on this matter and if you read the whole thread he is far from confused. It's a very simple matter that doesn't need much more clarification.

 

The Egg agreement is governed by the CCA 1974 or it isn't, and Egg, by terminating agreements not in default stepped outside of it. The law is very clear on this I believe.

 

It is relevant to read the opening words of CCA1974, namely that it is an Act intended for the protection of consumers and the control of credit providers.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

youre right TM. egg referred to a clause that didn't apply (as the ac was not in default) and which didn't give them the right to terminate anyway, unless asking for the full amount to be repaid is considered the same as termination and that proviso only applies if the account fell under bullet point 1 "seriously and repeatedly fail to comply with" my obligations (as I hadn't died or been bankrupted, sequestrated etc). As I hadn't had a DN at that point, any transgressions I had made couldn't have been that serious, and I don't remember any repeated violations.

Edited March 11, 2010 by HeftyHippo

[Guest HeftyHippo]

The Egg agreement is governed by the CCA 1974 or it isn't, and Egg, by terminating agreements not in default stepped outside of it. The law is very clear on this I believe.

 

Twodogs, with respect, I think you should read the whole thread. The issue is far from clear, otherwise a discussion of it would not run this far without a consensus.

[diddydicky]

i have come to the conclusion that some people on here are arguing simply for aguing's sake therefore i take my leave from the thread

[toymaker1]

. egg referred to a clause that didn't apply unless asking for the full amount to be repaid is considered the same as termination

 

Asking for the full amount to be repaid is not at all the same as termination.

It would be a separate matter to be dealt with according to the relevant parts of CCA and the specific circumstances of the case.

[BEC01]

Sorry to join in the argument here, but I would say that Toymaker is not in the slightest bit confused.

 

Something no-one has mentioned recently is that people may have felt intimidated into continuing to pay, even though they felt that the agreement did no longer exist. Let's face it, the threat of CCJ, or doorstep collection is very frightening to most people.

 

That is one of the many aspects that makes Egg's actions rather serious...

[cosalt]

Sorry to join in the argument here, but I would say that Toymaker is not in the slightest bit confused.

 

Something no-one has mentioned recently is that people may have felt intimidated into continuing to pay, even though they felt that the agreement did no longer exist. Let's face it, the threat of CCJ, or doorstep collection is very frightening to most people.

 

That is one of the many aspects that makes Egg's actions rather serious...

 

 

I have to agree, back in the old days ( pre cag !!) I did think it wasnt right that egg had terminated my agreement, but I was frightened and continued to pay even though I could not afford it.

[basa48]

Will the real clause 20 please stand up.

 

What HH wrote about the contents of his clause 20.2 is nothing like what is in the T&Cs Egg sent me with my copy agreement. In fact mine doesn't even have a clause 20. The relevant clause in my copy T&Cs states:

 

"We can end this agreement by giving you not less than 30 days notice by post or email. If there are exceptional circumstances we can end it without advance notice. You can end it at any time by telling us to do so by post or email. In both cases the agreement will continue until you have repaid all amounts you owe us"

[basa48]

Sorry to join in the argument here, but I would say that Toymaker is not in the slightest bit confused.

 

Something no-one has mentioned recently is that people may have felt intimidated into continuing to pay, even though they felt that the agreement did no longer exist. Let's face it, the threat of CCJ, or doorstep collection is very frightening to most people.

 

That is one of the many aspects that makes Egg's actions rather serious...

 

Quite right, that is a vital observation. One aspect of repudiation is that the innocent party should (if they wish to) accept the repudiation without undue delay. But a delay can be acceptable if there is a good reason.

 

That idea will go into my notes.

[toymaker1]

Quite right, that is a vital observation. One aspect of repudiation is that the innocent party should (if they wish to) accept the repudiation without undue delay. But a delay can be acceptable if there is a good reason.

 

That idea will go into my notes.

 

It really has to be said that this comment sounds as if it could have been made by Egg's representative in court.

And I would hope that in that imaginary scenario the judge would say to Egg that repudiatory breach of contract is a very technical aspect of law, well outside the parameters of CCA, which ordinary credit card holders could not be expected to understand or be familiar with, and for Egg to put it in this manner could only be considered as unfair treatment of the creditor within the terms of S140 of CCA - in addition to it being a breach of CCA by Egg, and that it wasn't for Egg to try to avoid their liabilities under CCA by trying to persuade the court that what they had done to a non defaulting debtor fell within non CCA contract law.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I think we would do better to approach this in a more logical structured way.

 

I have one letter with one way of ending the agreement. My clause 20.2 (the justification/permission for ending) says one thing.

 

Do others have different letters or different wordings to the relevant clauses? It could be that there are several approaches needed.

 

It seems clear that in my case, Egg quote a clause that they claim gives them the right to terminate at any time, but the wording of the clause doesn't claim to do that, so in my case Egg just broke the agreement, they have no 'method' or justification of doing so in their agreement. Even if they did make a claim that non-default termination was possible under CCA, the part of the agreement they quote doesn't apply so it appears to be simply a case of them repudiation the agreement.

[toymaker1]

in my case, Egg quote a clause that they claim gives them the right to terminate at any time, but the wording of the clause doesn't claim to do that, so in my case Egg just broke the agreement, they have no 'method' or justification of doing so in their agreement.

 

It is not legally possible to breach a term of a contract which is itself not within the provisions of the law.

For example, in the case you have quoted, by terminating your agreement by claiming that clause 20 gives them the right to do so, when the wording of the clause doesn't claim to do that, Egg have not breached clause 20, because if clause 20 says they can end the agreement at any time it is a void clause and therefore has no legal enforceability.

What they have breached is CCA.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

toymaker, I think diddydickey was right. You seem to want to pick holes in everything everyone says without moving the argument forwards. I never said anything about Egg breaching clause 20.2 (NOT clause 20) I simply said in my case it seems to be a straight forward case of them breaching and thus repudiating the agreement. IMO they haven't breached the CCA because NOWHERE in the Act does it address the termination of a non-default account. Whether they have the right to close an account at any time has NOT been established in a court. That was the whole purpose of this thread I thought. Just because you don't think they have the right does not mean they don't. A judge will decide that.

 

why don't YOU start adding something new? Such as wtf does your letter say, what reasons does it give for terminating, what method does it use - a clause in the agreement? what does the clause say? Instead of arguing and disagreeing with everyone, why not try working WITH them. If you start listening to what others say, you might learn something, it might help you win, at the very least it might stop you looking a complete idiot who picks out of a document the parts he wants to believe and recites it as fact.

 

You didn't respond to my challenges earlier to explain how a creditor can fabricate an agreement, chase you for payment, hire debt collectors, share your info with them, mark your credit file, and rely on it all the way to court when the CCA states they need an executed agreement to do just that. Could it be that you can't explain why a court says they are allowed to do that, when your understanding of the CCA says they can't?

 

If you want to argue for the sake of it, just be honest. If you actually want to make a case against Egg and want the input of others, start acting like it and accept that others might be right and you might be wrong. That way, weakness in your argument migt be addressed, and you might learn how to counter potential arguments from Egg.

[toymaker1]

IMO they haven't breached the CCA because NOWHERE in the Act does it address the termination of a non-default account.

I am baffled as to why so many caggers still keep saying that CCA does not address termination of non-default cases. it has been posted many times, but caggers wont believe it. Just read CCA.

S98 addresses the termination of non default account (i.e. it is the part of CCA, and the only part, which addresses the termination of all regulated credit agreements which are not in default, which includes all credit card agreements which are not in default.) and S98 makes it very clear that only non-default agreements which have a fixed duration can be terminated under S98.

Therefore it is very clear that, as credit card agreements do not have a fixed duration, non-default credt card agreements cannot be terminated under S98.

It's no good looking for some other section of CCA which might offer alternative provisions for the termination of non-default agreements. - there isn''t one. It doesn't exist.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

it may be clear in your head TM, lets hope something else isn't clear in the judge's head eh?

 

I notice you didn't actually respond to the rest of my post above - you simply picked out the bit you wanted to talk about and ignored everything else.

 

You can't explain how a court reached the conclusion that a fabricated agreement is sufficient to allow a debt to be chased so you ignore it. Perhaps the thought that courts reach decisions we don't consider logical is uncomfortable because it might happen to you?

 

You also didn't post any details of how your account was terminated, what the letter said, what right they claimed to have etc.

 

Its clear to me that you don't want to interact with others in a normal fashion. You simply want to carry on banging on about YOUR interpretation of things and won't allow other possible interpretations to get in the way. Good luck with that.

 

Unless you're prepared to interact with me in a normal fashion, I have other things to do. simply posting here for you to selectively disagree with the things that don't fit your argument, without entering into meaningful debate or contributing to the wider argument isn't on my list of priorities. I'm here to solve problems for myself and if I can, others. Deluding myself that 'wishing it makes it so' won't help me. Facts not fantasy are what's needed.

 

Be careful of how you conduct yourself in court. Sidestepping the judge or opposing counsel could well get you in trouble for Contempt, or, if you get a judge who particularly doesn't like being messed about, could get you detained for psychiatric evaluation.

[toymaker1]

 

You didn't respond to my challenges earlier to explain how a creditor can fabricate an agreement, chase you for payment, hire debt collectors, share your info with them, mark your credit file, and rely on it all the way to court when the CCA states they need an executed agreement to do just that. Could it be that you can't explain why a court says they are allowed to do that, when your understanding of the CCA says they can't?

I did not respond because it is not possible to comment upon a specific case that you have no knowledge of.

In principle, the activities you quoted are all either unlawful or breach the provisions of guidelines issued by Government or professional bodies, for example

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Data Protection Act 1998

OFT Debt Collection Guidance 2006

Consumer Credit Act 1974

The Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007

The Credit Services Association Code of Practice

The pre-action protocols which have been approved by the Head of Civil Justice

[toymaker1]

it may be clear in your head TM,

 

It's clear in CCA 1974 and the Explanatory Notes to CCA 2006

[toymaker1]

You can't explain how a court reached the conclusion that a fabricated agreement is sufficient to allow a debt to be chased so you ignore it. Perhaps the thought that courts reach decisions we don't consider logical is uncomfortable because it might happen to you?

It is not possible for anyone to explain how a court reached it's conclusion if they do not know anything about the specific case, were not in court, and have not carefully studied the documents.