Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BlueSquirrel]

It seems strange why I have not been terminated.Opened the card in 1999. I have never missed a payment but only pay the min. They have ramped up my monthly interest.

 

Is there any pattern to whom gets terminated?

 

Ive CCA'd them last week and the clock is now ticking (I am still paying them at the mo), lets see if this prompts a termination.

 

Maybe they just had a "quota" of unprofitable accounts to get rid of and it was just the luck of the draw whether you were terminated or not.

 

Or with my cynical hat on - did they try and terminate all the accounts that had this "approved limit" boggle so they could reduce any further borrowing on unenforceable accounts?

[Mistermind]

It seems strange why I have not been terminated.Opened the card in 1999. I have never missed a payment but only pay the min. They have ramped up my monthly interest.

 

Is there any pattern to whom gets terminated?

 

Ive CCA'd them last week and the clock is now ticking (I am still paying them at the mo), lets see if this prompts a termination.

 

In January 2008 161,000 cards were terminated (7% out of 2 million cards). It appears both the high-risk bad payers and too-good payers were terminated.

 

If you pay the minimum each month Egg would earn good interest on you, and you are safe. Even cardholders who pay off all they purchase within the month (incurring no debit interest) could be good for Egg. If you put a £1,000 purchase on plastic, Egg would earn around £50 from the vendor shop. Cardholders who spend very little and pay very little interest would not be good for Egg to keep.

 

This alleged pattern is anecdotal only. Maybe Egg tossed a coin.

[toxicdebt]

I am surprised to hear that they have ramped up your interest rate, toxicdebt, as I thought they selectively did this for the account holders they were just about to terminate.

Hmm interesting. Like you, ive never been late with payments, but I have paid a lot of interest over the years by only paying the minimum.

 

MBNA have also ramped up my APR from 12% to 37% during 2008. However unlike Egg they also reduced my limit to a fiver above what I owed.

 

I just thought they were all doing it in an attempt to get us to default so they could sell on for a fast buck lump sum as I am not clearing my balance each month. Instead (like others) it has led me to research and embark on a defence by way of exercising my rights under the CCA1974.

 

Can they really be that stupid to think we wont suss something fishy is going on?

 

The only spanner in the works is the defaults they will inevitably add to my credit reference with experian and the likes. I am trying to find out if I can get the reference agencies to stop processing any data about me and remove me.

 

I'll post up my CCA when (if) it arrives. I bet it has the same discrepancies as the others on the egg forum. If they dont terminate me first.

[toxicdebt]

If you pay the minimum each month Egg would earn good interest on you, and you are safe.

 

This alleged pattern is anecdotal only. Maybe Egg tossed a coin.

 

Ah, thats the bracket I fall into. Question answered thanks.

 

However now I've CCA'd them they may decide on 'best out of three' tosses

[BEC01]

In January 2008 161,000 cards were terminated (7% out of 2 million cards). It appears both the high-risk bad payers and too-good payers were terminated.

 

If you pay the minimum each month Egg would earn good interest on you, and you are safe. Even cardholders who pay off all they purchase within the month (incurring no debit interest) could be good for Egg. If you put a £1,000 purchase on plastic, Egg would earn around £50 from the vendor shop. Cardholders who spend very little and pay very little interest would not be good for Egg to keep.

 

This alleged pattern is anecdotal only. Maybe Egg tossed a coin.

 

Mistermind, you put a couple of very good posts up questioning my point of view with regard to termination. I hope my replies were not taken as being argumentative - as they were not intended to be.

 

Have you any further thoughts on this?

[Mistermind]

Has your bullish lawyer read post #37 on this thread?

[BEC01]

Has your bullish lawyer read post #37 on this thread?

Yes, but they don't think it will hold up in court.

If an agreement is ended immediately, or within a specified period, then it cannot have any further conditions. You cannot partially end an agreement.

 

They would have been perfectly tidy with their notice if they had specified the period until the balance was cleared. However, it appears that this was not the case, by imposing a time limit without a demand for full payment within that time period.

 

They are of the opinion that they have been very sloppy and left a barn door open. We might find that a judge doesn't see it that way, but there is only one way to find out.

 

Edit:

They agree with your interpretation that it is ambiguous at best.

As you say has it been ended or not? Can't be part ended surely?

 

Posts aren't intended to be bullish - just beyond belief that this has been allowed to go unchallenged.

[BEC01]

The lending agreement is terminated.

The repayment agreement is ongoing.

Egg cannot bear plain English.

 

It would be fine if they actually said that though; and it is reasonable to guess that that is what they were trying to say.

 

But they didn't actually say that, and they know it.

 

We very subtly tested them to try and gauge how confident they are of their wording.

I can tell you that they have no confidence in it at all.

 

They have tried to be too clever, and they haven't considered at the time that anyone might challenge it. Or at least that is what we think.

 

It has to be challenged, particularly for all the people who are in difficulties through no fault of their own and are being bullied when they are most vulnerable.

 

I'm not saying that we will win - but we will be throwing plenty at it.

[phatram]

Hi,

May I repeat,

Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the Termination notice for my Egg card(thats the one you sent me to terminate my card account) and also would you please send me a copy of the credit agreement for the account.

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77−79) I am entitled to receive a copy of the credit agreement on request. I authorise you to take the £1 fee from our savings account which represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act.

I understand a copy of our credit agreement should be supplied within 12 working days.

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with a request for a copy of the agreement under these sections of the Act.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Mrs P

 

EGGS reply,

 

Unfortunately, I'm unable to arrange for the notification for the termination of your Egg Card account to be reissued.

 

However, the information provided in the letter would have been as follows:

 

'Following our acquisition by Citi, we've undertaken an extensive review of the risk profile of all of our card customers at Egg. As part of this review we've considered your account history and card usage activity together with a check on your overall situation with credit reference agencies.

 

Following this review we've decided to end your Credit agreement with us. I'm sorry if this has caused you disappointment.

Your credit rating won't be negatively affected providing you continue to maintain your minimum contractual payents.'

 

Thanks for your message.

 

Regards

[lollipop73]

Have you made a subject access request? This demands the copy of the notice of termination.

 

It sounds like they have dodged the request, from my (admittedly) limited understanding, it sounds like you asked them for a favour ( in their eyes), an SAR doesn`t ask-it demands by law.

[phatram]

No, not really bothered. I was just testing them to see what their answer was.

[BEC01]

No, not really bothered. I was just testing them to see what their answer was.

 

Yes it gives a clue to how they are feeling about it.

We tested them further.

 

They know that this will not stand up.

[lollipop73]

I sincerely hope this is successful for you, not just because I also have a problem with egg but because I would love to see Egg and those responsible for this current financial crisis having their chickens coming home to roost.

 

I am sorry for the very dreadful pun.

[BEC01]

I sincerely hope this is successful for you, not just because I also have a problem with egg but because I would love to see Egg and those responsible for this current financial crisis having their chickens coming home to roost.

 

I am sorry for the very dreadful pun.

 

There are a lot of professionals who were previously on the banks' "side", and have now had their sectors destroyed by their greed.

 

They now want to see some form of justice. Therefore, they are now on our "side".

 

Fun ahead!

[lollipop73]

Of course some solicitors will also be struggling with their own personal financial situation. It doesn`t do to wind the wrong sort of person up.

[BEC01]

Of course some solicitors will also be struggling with their own personal financial situation. It doesn`t do to wind the wrong sort of person up.

 

Yep, a lot of very competent firms have had their business disappear through no fault of their own.

 

Helping people out of debt, and helping people reclaim against the banks is becoming a good "cause", if you like.

 

Some of them are extremely angry about the way the banks have destroyed to economy through sheer greed and are really out to get them.

 

This termination be Egg is seen as one of the very best opportunities.

 

They set a precedent here, Egg could be hit quite hard.

They could become hard boiled, if you like!

[bathgatebuyer]

EGGS reply,

 

Unfortunately, I'm unable to arrange for the notification for the termination of your Egg Card account to be reissued.

 

However, the information provided in the letter would have been as follows:

 

'Following our acquisition by Citi, we've undertaken an extensive review of the risk profile of all of our card customers at Egg. As part of this review we've considered your account history and card usage activity together with a check on your overall situation with credit reference agencies.

 

Following this review we've decided to end your Credit agreement with us. I'm sorry if this has caused you disappointment.

Your credit rating won't be negatively affected providing you continue to maintain your minimum contractual payents.'

 

Thanks for your message.

 

Regards

 

Interesting that they continue to refer to the processing of data to third parties - wonder what right they think they have to do that after an agreement has been terminated?!

[BEC01]

Interesting that they continue to refer to the processing of data to third parties - wonder what right they think they have to do that after an agreement has been terminated?!

 

The answer, as you know, is none!

[militantconsumer]

The answer, as you know, is none!

 

How is this any different to the "legitimate" situation where a customer defaults and Egg terminate the agreement for this reason?

 

They continue to inform the credit refence agencies of the amount oustanding or when it is "satisfied".

 

Am I missing something?

[BEC01]

How is this any different to the "legitimate" situation where a customer defaults and Egg terminate the agreement for this reason?

 

They continue to inform the credit refence agencies of the amount oustanding or when it is "satisfied".

 

Am I missing something?

 

Two reasons;

 

1. It was the consumer/customer/client that broke the contract.

2. It was ended by a breach of the terms of the contract.

 

Itis a very different situation from that of the supplier withdrawing their service.

 

Good point though.

[Mistermind]

Yes, but they don't think it will hold up in court.

If an agreement is ended immediately, or within a specified period, then it cannot have any further conditions. You cannot partially end an agreement.

 

They would have been perfectly tidy with their notice if they had specified the period until the balance was cleared. However, it appears that this was not the case, by imposing a time limit without a demand for full payment within that time period.

 

They are of the opinion that they have been very sloppy and left a barn door open. We might find that a judge doesn't see it that way, but there is only one way to find out.

 

Edit:

They agree with your interpretation that it is ambiguous at best.

As you say has it been ended or not? Can't be part ended surely?

 

 

In April 2007 a District Judge Cooke handed down the sensational first dismissal of a bank charges claim, for Lloyds, against Kevin. In July 2007 the Test Case was mooted and most cases were stayed. It is questionable if the House of Lords or European Court will rule on the banks' final appeal before 2011. Tom Brennan mounted a case against NatWest with great courage. In court he faced 7 NatWest barristers plus a hostile judge who made no allowance for 7 against 1.

 

Where regulations and indeed the statute book itself is ambiguous, a judge is empowered to put his own interpretation on the wording. Judge Cooke said he was loathe to read an interpretation into an ambiguous contract unless such clarification was absolutely indispensable to the workings of the contract, i.e. without such interpretation the contract would make no sense.

 

In the case of Egg v 161000, the T&C to which cardholders signed agreement from the start specified explicitly that upon termination of account the obligation for the debt continues. The letter in January 2008 did not reiterate same, but neither did it override same. Egg's lawyers may argue that T&C agreed by both parties and not overridden, will continue to apply.

 

Was a lending arrangement terminated?

Was a debtor agreement terminated?

The ambiguities were such that Egg deserve to be sent to remedial English class for 7 years of hard labour.

 

The T&C above having been in place for umpteen(?) years, there will be demonstrable instances of Egg accounts being closed but debt remaining. With the T&C in front of hiim I find it hard to see how someone like Judge Cooke would consent to read an invisible intention into one Egg letter in flat contradiction to the mutually signed T&C. He will be conscious of principle and precedent, E.G.

 

 

Employee: "I no longer wish to work for your firm, I am resigning today. I wish to terminate our contract of employment now, as allowed by our contract."

 

Employer: "You give me no choice, our contract of employment is now terminated by your choice."

 

Employee: "I have not been paid since last monthend. Pay me my last 3 weeks' wages."

 

Employer: "Hard luck. Our contract of employment has been terminated by your choice. So has my former agreement to pay your outstanding wages, so said Judge Cooke. Good bye."

Edited February 3, 2009 by Mistermind
typo

[toymaker1]

It is not clear to me what point is being made by mistermind.

Is he saying that Egg's position regarding termination of agreements is likely to be upheld in court,

or is he saying that Egg's position is not likely to upheld in court?

 

Regards

[Mistermind]

I am saying Egg lawyers are likely to point to the mutually signed T&C explicitly detailing the position of debts after the cancellation of credit card facilities.

 

And what the opposing party will say in reply.

How any judge will rule only time will tell.

[BEC01]

It is not clear to me what point is being made by mistermind.

Is he saying that Egg's position regarding termination of agreements is likely to be upheld in court,

or is he saying that Egg's position is not likely to upheld in court?

 

Regards

 

I think he is pointing out that it is not as clear cut as I am saying, and he is right.

 

However, it is a unique case, and although confident we have a strong case, we're certainly not over-confident. I should point that out. And nobody should be thinking they can write off their debt because of what I am posting here.

 

Also, in reply to Mistermind's previous post. Egg's original terms are not clear either. They have basically tried to write that they can do as they please. Now, the consumer should be protected against this type of behaviour. T & C's should be clear and fair - Egg's were far from clear at least. I have also seen companies hammered in the courts for what were innocent mistakes in their contract terms, but which had a big impact when trying to enforce the terms. I can also give an example of a well executed contract not holding up based on the Judges interpretation.

 

We understand the risks we face and we have a strong, experienced team to back it up.

 

The big blame for the economic collapse is poor regulation of the banks. This is a prime example of one of the reasons. They just threw credit about, without proper controls in place. It is worth challenging at least.

 

Toymaker's route of letting them take the court action may be more sensible - and less risky - than ours.

 

Time will tell.

[Mistermind]

 

The big blame for the economic collapse is poor regulation of the banks. This is a prime example of one of the reasons. They just threw credit about, without proper controls in place. It is worth challenging at least.

 

 

That is previous form, excluded from court as evidence. The courts uphold the law. Upholding poetic justice is more for the court of public opinion.