Egg credit card agreement terminated

[phatram]

Phone call from Moorcroft today.

Has anyone else had letters or calls from a DCA?

 

 

bump

[BEC01]

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/egg.pdf

[lollipop73]

On eslight problem with this-Egg did not take any of the remedial measures with me. Which forms part of my complaint.

[basa48]

Phone call from Moorcroft today.

Has anyone else had letters or calls from a DCA?

 

Yes, I got a letter from Crapital Collection Agencies.

 

Sent them this:

 

"I am confused as to why they say they cannot contact me – they have written several times! I have reminded them I will correspond only in writing.

 

The account to which you refer has been disputed by me since my letter to Egg of xx xxxxxx 2009 for reasons Egg well know. However I have requested that Egg enter into correspondence as to how best to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately Egg have declined to do this.

 

Until some correspondence regarding resolution is forthcoming from Egg the situation remains unchanged and they are constrained as to what enforcement and collection activities they may pursue and I am not obliged to offer payments to the account.

 

Should it be you or your 'contact company's' representatives intention to arrange a “house call”, please be advised that under Office of Fair Trading rules and Common Law, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment. As I have no wish to make an appointment with either you or your agencies, entry onto my property will be trespass."

[basa48]

Going back to the origins of this thread and BigEddieChek's actions.

 

BigEddie....are there any more developments since your team decided on it's 'no response' action. Have Egg threatened or said anything of note??

[phatram]

[phatram]

[phatram]

[phatram]

If they ended it when you were not in default that falls fould of s87 of the CCA 1974 and it is unlawfull rescission of contract

 

Could you point me in the direction of a letter to send to moorcroft please?

Mrs P

[steven4064]

I don't think there is a letter, at least not in the library. Ss 87 and 88 say

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum...

 

88.--(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify--

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

The CCA 1974 makes no other provision for the early termination of a regulated agreement.

 

Therefore, any termination that does not comply with these two sections is unlawful. As a regulated agreement is a contract, so an ulawful termination is an unlawful rescission of contract.

 

To comply with ss 87 and 88, they must issue a default notice and it must give the nature of the default. If there is no default, obviously they cannot issue a default notice or, ift hey do, it is unlawful.

 

I'm sure you can write a letter around these facts.

[phatram]

Thanks

[lollipop73]

Just so I am clear, as I am compiling yet another letter to Egg, the letter I received in December of last year 2008 says

 

 

"following a review we have decided not to issue a replacement when your current card expires and to end your credit card facility."

 

 

 

This is "unlawful rescision of contract"?

 

 

or is it something else-like unfair changes or something or other?

 

 

Sorry for going on and on, just want to be crystal clear. I was not in default at the time.

[BEC01]

Going back to the origins of this thread and BigEddieChek's actions.

 

BigEddie....are there any more developments since your team decided on it's 'no response' action. Have Egg threatened or said anything of note??

 

There is a remarkable absence of any reporting to CRAs by Egg in a number of cases where one would expect them to.

 

Can't say any more I'm afraid

[BEC01]

I don't think there is a letter, at least not in the library. Ss 87 and 88 sayThe CCA 1974 makes no other provision for the early termination of a regulated agreement.

 

Therefore, any termination that does not comply with these two sections is unlawful. As a regulated agreement is a contract, so an ulawful termination is an unlawful rescission of contract.

 

To comply with ss 87 and 88, they must issue a default notice and it must give the nature of the default. If there is no default, obviously they cannot issue a default notice or, ift hey do, it is unlawful.

 

I'm sure you can write a letter around these facts.

 

Very concisely put, and it is one of many costly mistakes made by Egg.

[willeewonker]

Hi folks ,

 

I too am 1 of EGG's cancelled foot soldiers without going AWOL first . Out of interest have any of you logged online into your accounts since being terminated and subsequently defaulted ??

 

My account appears to be unaffected except with the a prompt indicating that i/ve made no payment since last year ( I stopped my D/D's after termination ) . This seams a little surreal given the fact they've now sent their dogs after me ( Bryan Carter ) , although with the exception of browsing the monthly statements i havn't actually attempted to do anything .

 

Has anyone else experienced this as it seems a litte strange ??

[BEC01]

Hi folks ,

 

I too am 1 of EGG's cancelled foot soldiers without going AWOL first . Out of interest have any of you logged online into your accounts since being terminated and subsequently defaulted ??

 

My account appears to be unaffected except with the a prompt indicating that i/ve made no payment since last year ( I stopped my D/D's after termination ) . This seams a little surreal given the fact they've now sent their dogs after me ( Bryan Carter ) , although with the exception of browsing the monthly statements i havn't actually attempted to do anything .

 

Has anyone else experienced this as it seems a litte strange ??

 

There's not much they can do.

They know your agreement was unenforceable.

[phatram]

Hows this?

 

 

I acknowledge no debt to your company

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

]Thank you for your letter dated 04/06/09.

 

 

 

May I remind you that I have no account with Egg or yourselves. The account was unlawfully teminated by Egg over a year ago.

 

 

 

 

 

The CCA 1974 clearly states the following,

 

 

 

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement

(a) to terminate the agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum...

1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify--(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the alledged account was not in default, Egg acted unlawfully and are aware of this and should not have processed my data with a third party. I have of course reported this to the I.C.O, and the F.O.S who are now investigating my complaint. I will not be contacting you by telephone to discuss this. Until some correspondence regarding resolution is forthcoming from Egg the situation remains unchanged and they are constrained as to what enforcement and collection activities they may pursue and I am not obliged to offer payments to the alledged account.

 

Should it be you or your 'contact company's' representatives intention to arrange a “house call”, please be advised that under Office of Fair Trading rules and Common Law, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment. As I have no wish to make an appointment with either you or your agencies, entry onto my property will be trespass."

Edited June 9, 2009 by phatram

[steven4064]

Letter seems OK. You can elaborate if the deign to reply

 

THe other thing is that, if they terminatd your contract unlawfully, ie were in vbreach of contract, then you could be due compensation. There is case law - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 - Held - A person who was not a trader could recover substantial rather than nominal damages in contract for loss of credit or business reputation resulting from a cheque being wrongly dishonoured by his bank. In your cases, you could argue that having had a credit card cancelled (effectively refused) you have suffered damage to your creditworthiness.

Edited June 9, 2009 by steven4064

[phatram]

Dear Sir,

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 04/06/09.

 

 

May I remind you that I have no account with Egg or yourselves. The account was unlawfully terminated by Egg over a year ago.

 

 

The CCA 1974 clearly states the following

 

 

 

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

 

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum...

 

88.--(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify--

a) the nature of the alleged breach;

 

 

 

As the account was not in default, Egg acted unlawfully and are aware of this, and should not have processed my data with a third party. I have of course reported this to the I.C.O, and the F.O.S who are now investigating my complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing is that, as they terminated my contract unlawfully, ie they were in breach of contract, then I could be due compensation. If this is the case, I will be seeking compensation from the guilty parties.

 

 

There is case law - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 - Held - A person who was not a trader could recover substantial rather than nominal damages in contract for loss of credit or business reputation resulting from a cheque being wrongly dishonoured by his bank. In my case, I could argue that having had a credit card cancelled (effectively refused) I have suffered damage to my creditworthiness.

 

 

 

I will not be contacting you by telephone to discuss this. Until some correspondence regarding resolution is forthcoming from Egg the situation remains unchanged and they are constrained as to what enforcement and collection activities they may pursue, and I am not obliged to offer payments to the alleged account.

Should it be you or your 'contact company's' representative’s intention to arrange a “house call”, please be advised that under Office of Fair Trading rules and Common Law, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment. As I have no wish to make an appointment with either you or your agencies, entry onto my property will be trespass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Edited June 9, 2009 by phatram

[steven4064]

I think I would put something like

As Egg have unlawfully terminated my account they are in breach of contract and I intend to claim damages for this and for damage to my creditworthiness by Egg's action. I refer to the authority of Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119

instead of

There is case law - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 - Held - A person who was not a trader could recover substantial rather than nominal damages in contract for loss of credit or business reputation resulting from a cheque being wrongly dishonoured by his bank. In my case, I could argue that having had a credit card cancelled (effectively refused) I have suffered damage to my creditworthiness.

[ftd]

I've had an interesting reply from egg regarding my terminated agreement, I can't scan at present but i'll quote a couple of 'choice' parts.

 

"We confirm the account does not need to be in default in order for us to terminate your agreement"

 

"the agreement will not be ended until such time as the outstanding balance on the account is cleared"

 

"As the agreement is not yet at an end we retain our rights to use and disclose personal information"

 

"the term of the agreement is cleear and you were given the requested 30 days notice of our intention to end the agreement"

 

 

FTD

[basa48]

"We confirm the account does not need to be in default in order for us to terminate your agreement"

Er.. YES it does, even s98 doesn't allow it. Where in CCA1974 does it allow it?

 

"the agreement will not be ended until such time as the outstanding balance on the account is cleared"

They ended it .. account cleared

 

"As the agreement is not yet at an end we retain our rights to use and disclose personal information"

Again ...... you ended it f**kwits!!

 

"the term of the agreement is clear and you were given the requested 30 days notice of our intention to end the agreement"

 

OK but just because your dumbass clause 20.2 (or whatever) says you can give 30 days DOESN'T mean it's lawful.

 

RTFM Egg!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ooooo......I wish they'd send me a letter like that :grin:

[willeewonker]

Well ftd , in less someone tells me different your letter appears to be the first time EGG have even acknowledged these 2 key points of termination and default ??

 

Unfortunately there arrogant response suggests i may need to help Egg's employees with some basic English lessons . I am considering sending them a copy of the English Dictionary with the word TERMINATED high-lighted :

 

Terminated -

–verb (used with object) 1.to bring to an end; put an end to: to terminate a contract. 2.to occur at or form the conclusion of: The countess's soliloquy terminates the play. 3.to bound or limit spatially; form or be situated at the extremity of.4.to dismiss from a job; fire: to terminate employees during a recession.

 

 

[BEC01]

It is their standard response.

I have seen exactly the same letter.

 

CCA route is definitely the easiest route, but the termination of contract has a lot of further possibilities as Steven has pointed out.

 

EGG seem not to be reporting our non-payers to the CRAs!!!

 

I wonder why...

[samanthasquig]

Er.. YES it does, even s98 doesn't allow it. Where in CCA1974 does it allow it?

 

 

They ended it .. account cleared

 

 

Again ...... you ended it f**kwits!!

 

 

 

OK but just because your dumbass clause 20.2 (or whatever) says you can give 30 days DOESN'T mean it's lawful.

 

RTFM Egg!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ooooo......I wish they'd send me a letter like that :grin:

 

HI

 

Sorry but it seems to me that secton 98 gives either party the right to terminate whenever they like they just cant pursue you through the court until they have issued a section 87 default.

I think yhis was confirmed in one of the rankine cases.