Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

Had a very clear additional opinion on this termination letter.

Without giving too much away, if you received this, Egg will not go to court if you challenge it.

 

They messed-up big time with this.

 

[Hopster]

BASA I have clause 20 and it has 7 parts including 20.2 which says "we can end this agreement by giving you not less than 30 days notice by post or email........................."

in september '09 I sent ARC a CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES letter. I am sure there is a template somewhere in here. At the beginning of October ARC wrote "please be advise this acount is currently on hold.............awaiting instructions."

 

Nothing since...........wondering what they are up to.

[basa48]

I've mentioned in several letters to Egg and ARC that I dispute the manner in which the 'termination' letter has ended the agreement and asked in what way it complies with CCA 1974.

 

I now have letters from Trevor Munn saying that papers have been 'prepared' for a claim.

[cosalt]

I've mentioned in several letters to Egg and ARC that I dispute the manner in which the 'termination' letter has ended the agreement and asked in what way it complies with CCA 1974.

 

I now have letters from Trevor Munn saying that papers have been 'prepared' for a claim.

 

 

I would not be too concerned basa, I have letters from Munn saying the same, that was over six months ago...............

[Hopster]

me too.

[pumpytums]

I've mentioned in several letters to Egg and ARC that I dispute the manner in which the 'termination' letter has ended the agreement and asked in what way it complies with CCA 1974.

 

I now have letters from Trevor Munn saying that papers have been 'prepared' for a claim.

 

 

Same as Cosalt, I'm still waiting for mine too.

Ar$e are toothless wonders to be blunt I wouldn't be concerned about them in the slightest.

You will probably get a text saying "Its Jo again. You must call me urgently to stop further action on the account blah blah blah" shame I had no credit I really wanted to speak to Jo (again).

 

 

Pumpytums

[Hopster]

Am I right in thinking that we all stopped making payments after Egg terminated the agreement ? If so we are all in the same boat. I had my agreement looked at and it was deemed improperly executed. Unenforceable ? I don't know. Are we all in the same boat re. payments to Egg ?

[cosalt]

Hi Hopster, I kept paying egg for about 6 months after termination, until I ran out of money. They then somehow managed to default me and terminate an already terminated agreement

[basa48]

I would not be too concerned basa, I have letters from Munn saying the same, that was over six months ago...............

 

Thanks guys, I have to admit the hairs on my neck were slightly raised in anticipation.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Hi all

I'm working my way through this thread, along with others about Egg.

I'm just starting off trying to determine my position with Egg.

 

They closed my account in Jan 2008 with 30 or so days notice, it wasn't in default. (if I'd have known then...)

 

I continued to pay for a while, then got into arrears. They defaulted me and then terminated the account (again! lol) in May 2009.

 

What is the present consensus of your (and my) situation? Has Egg actually done anything? Has anyone come up with an argument that saw them off?

 

In my case, the 'right for them to terminate is in clause 15 - I have the actual agreement from 2003 and the screendumps they sent as my CCA request. The letter closing the account refers to clause 22 though! I've only found that out today as I only got the CCA request at the weekend, and found my own copy at the same time.

 

I agree with the points made by Toymaker at the start - the CCA does nor facilitate the creditor ending a non-default account, and doing so is a breach. As he says, a defaulting account would have more rights and protection than a non-defaulting account if a creditor could just give 30 days notice (or 10 or even 5 if thats whats in the terms).

 

I'm also looking at the adherence to the regs of the card agreement itself, and trying to work out if the agreement is unenforceable - maybe some of you would be kind enough to pop over to the thread and make some suggestions to help me? (please - much appreciated if you can, click here)

Edited February 3, 2010 by HeftyHippo

[diddydicky]

Hi all

I'm working my way through this thread, along with others about Egg.

I'm just starting off trying to determine my position with Egg.

 

They closed my account in Jan 2008 with 30 or so days notice, it wasn't in default. (if I'd have known then...)

 

I continued to pay for a while, then got into arrears. They defaulted me and then terminated the account (again! lol) in May 2009.

 

What is the present consensus of your (and my) situation? Has Egg actually done anything? Has anyone come up with an argument that saw them off?

 

In my case, the 'right for them to terminate is in clause 15 - I have the actual agreement from 2003 and the screendumps they sent as my CCA request. The letter closing the account refers to clause 22 though! I've only found that out today as I only got the CCA request at the weekend, and found my own copy at the same time.

 

I agree with the points made by Toymaker at the start - the CCA does nor facilitate the creditor ending a non-default account, and doing so is a breach. As he says, a defaulting account would have more rights and protection than a non-defaulting account if a creditor could just give 30 days notice (or 10 or even 5 if thats whats in the terms).

 

I'm also looking at the adherence to the regs of the card agreement itself, and trying to work out if the agreement is unenforceable - maybe some of you would be kind enough to pop over to the thread and make some suggestions to help me? (please - much appreciated if you can, click here)

 

not to mention giving rise to an "unfair relationship"

 

 

let's take a situation where there is a debt outstanding of say 10,000 (10,000 credit limit)

 

the creditor says " i invoke my right to terminate the contract- give me back my 10,000"

 

he says this is fair because you TOO can cancel the contract BUT - you still have to pay me the 10,000 if you do!!

 

if that aint an unfair relationship i'll show my ar*e in burtons window

 

if that is not a case of the creditor "luring " you into running up a debt of 10,000 on your account by promising you, in a legally binding agreement that you can pay it back in monthly amounts of your choosing ( subject to a minimum) and then depriving you of that benefit of the agreement unlawfully then i dont know what would be an unfair relationship or an unlawful breach

 

the repayment of the 10,000 on demand would IMO be a source of an almighty claim for damages ........

 

The MORE so when the debtor is not in breach of and has been performing satisfactorily

[Guest HeftyHippo]

DD - you obviously have this thing about Burtons window.....

 

aside from that, the unfair relationship angle is perhaps worth considering. as you point out, we can both close the account according to their terms, all it costs them is a stamp!

 

to be fair, egg did allow monthly payment terms to continue as before, but it was still the withdrawal of a facility when the customers hadn't done anything wrong.

[cynic09]

That letter must have been written by a politician!

Completely avoids answering the questions they themselves repeated!!!!!!

Are you to assume that the banking code in some way negates the 74 Act????????????

[diddydicky]

DD - you obviously have this thing about Burtons window.....

 

aside from that, the unfair relationship angle is perhaps worth considering. as you point out, we can both close the account according to their terms, all it costs them is a stamp!

 

to be fair, egg did allow monthly payment terms to continue as before, but it was still the withdrawal of a facility when the customers hadn't done anything wrong.

 

ahhhhhhh then that is a totally different animal

 

every credit card agreement allows the creditor to withdraw or reduce the amount of credit available.

 

they only fall foul of the CCA if they then seek to demand early repayment of the outstanding balance owing at the time

 

providing they continue to allow you to repay as per the agreement then they are not in breach

 

Of course it is right that they can alter the amount of credit available for a whole multitude of reasons , some of which would have nothing to do with the customer

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes either party can terminate a running account agreement under section 98 without notice under the CCA. I think there is a misunderstanding of the term, terminate.

A terminated agreement is not void. The agreement still exists it is just the rights under the agreement which are terminated this may be just the debtors rights to draw credit, it does not effect the rights of the creditor under contract.

Cheers

Peter

[cosalt]

Hi

Yes either party can terminate a running account agreement under section 98 without notice under the CCA. I think there is a misunderstanding of the term, terminate.

A terminated agreement is not void. The agreement still exists it is just the rights under the agreement which are terminated this may be just the debtors rights to draw credit, it does not effect the rights of the creditor under contract.

Cheers

Peter

 

Are you sure ?

 

98.

Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases).

— (1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of the termination.

 

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a)

a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

 

(b)

that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1),

 

 

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

 

(3) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.

 

(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

 

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement

[toymaker1]

Hi

Yes either party can terminate a running account agreement under section 98 without notice under the CCA.

 

I think this is incorrect. S98 only applies to agreements which have a fixed duration. Credit card agreements do not have a fixed duration, therefore S98 does not apply to credit card agreements.

[diddydicky]

yep.

 

and then if you later fell behind in the payments, they issued a default notice, and then a termination notice. of course, many of us, inc me, didnt know then what we know now, about the significance of the ending of the agreement letter. I was reading recently, that the innocent party of a broken contract is entitled, on learning that the contract is broken, to consider his liability ended. I wonder if, 'on learning' could include later enlightenment to the fact that the contract was broken. ie, could we claim now that our responsibility is ended because we've only just become aware that the contract was broken. Eggs terms after all gloss over whether they are legally entitled to do that

 

whether you were "aware" at the time seems insignificant to me

 

if you default(stop ) making the payments- they would then have to issue a DN in order to claim the arrears- however a DN can only be issued against a "live agreement" therefore they would be in some difficulty i think

[diddydicky]

i think if i was writing that i would want to re word it as surely the argument is not a challenge as to whether Egg has terminated (surely you WANT them to have terminated) but that their termination was not lawful and therefore amounted to an unlawful repudiation which was accepted.

 

with respect the above letter seems to be trying to "undo the termination" or give them an opportunity to "have another go" at terminating it and the response could be "fine ok we accept we did not terminate it so here is a DN!!)

Edited February 5, 2010 by diddydicky

[toymaker1]

i think if i was writing that i would want to re word it as surely the argument is not a challenge as to whether Egg has terminated (surely you WANT them to have terminated) but that their termination was not lawful and therefore amounted to an unlawful repudiation which was accepted.

 

with respect the above letter seems to be trying to "undo the termination" or give them an opportunity to "have another go" at terminating it and the response could be "fine ok we accept we did not terminate it so here is a DN!!)

 

I think diddydicky that is a matter of taking things one logical and legal step at a time and being patient. The fact is that Egg do not have an answer to the question " which part of CCA provides you with entitlement to terminate my agreement. eventually, Egg will either be forced to concede that they have made a catastrophic mistake, from which they cannot back out ( they cannot just say "ok your agreement is not terminated - they have done the deed and must accept the legal consequences) or else, to save their embarresment they could drop the matter and accept that they must forfeit any money which the creditor owed to them at the time Egg voluntarily terminated the contractual agreement between Egg and the creditor/s who were not in default at the time. It's how you aproach it. I prefer to keep steadily on the polite but firmly legal path. That way you cant go wrong.

 

Regards.

[diddydicky]

i may have misunderstood

 

i was under the impression that after the "termination" payments were still being made- in which case if the termination was not lawful then you as the injured party have elected to consider the agreement not unlawfully terminated, in which case i would argue your opinion that the creditor could not then consider the agreement to have endured and now issue a DN

 

The creditor- if he does not follow the correct procedure cannot lawfully terminate- therefore as both you and he have agreed- if he has not complied with the regulations then his termination is also of no effect, and the agreement still endures

 

If you have therefore refused to accept his unlawful termination as shown by your actions of continuing to make payments- then the agreement clearly is an enduring one

 

in fact just after i wrote my post on here i read on another egg thread that egg, have just done exactly that- two years after previously allegedly terminating

 

the same applies- if the termination 2 years ago was an unlawful act and the debtor has carried on paying - then he will not persuade a court that the agreement was terminated at that time

 

i was not aware that i had suggested anything other than dealing with the creditor politely

[toymaker1]

 

The creditor- if he does not follow the correct procedure cannot lawfully terminate- therefore as both you and he have agreed- if he has not complied with the regulations then his termination is also of no effect, and the agreement still endures

 

If you have therefore refused to accept his unlawful termination as shown by your actions of continuing to make payments- then the agreement clearly is an enduring one

 

 

if the termination 2 years ago was an unlawful act and the debtor has carried on paying - then he will not persuade a court that the agreement was terminated at that time

 

i was not aware that i had suggested anything other than dealing with the creditor politely

 

You may well be correct. I am not a legal expert.

However, I dont follow your line of reasoning at all.

with regard to CCA 1974, I would suggest it is intended for the protection of the debtor. i.e. I believe that a court would regard the situation outined in your post a gross example of an unfair relationship within the terms of S140 of CCA. The creditor has a legal and professional obligation to have full knowledge of consumer credit law, and would not be permitted to take unfair advantage. In the situation you have outlined I suggest the debtor has carried on paying because he does not realise that can stop paying, because the debtor has terminated the outside the provisions of the Act, thereby resulting probably in a repudiatory breach of contract which could be sued for. At the least in those circumstances he could expect to forfeit any money which was owed by the undefaulting debtor at the time of "termination"(i.e.breach of contract by the creditor.

This is exactly what I did. As soon as I found out that Egg had terminated my agreement outside the provisions of the Act I stopped paying my £300 direct debit.

To date Egg has been unable to indicate to me the legal provision which entitled them to terminate my credit card agreement. I am still waiting.

 

Regards

[diddydicky]

well it's only my advice- take it or leave it i suggest you pm bill shidding- you might be enlightened!

[Peterbard]

I think this is incorrect. S98 only applies to agreements which have a fixed duration. Credit card agreements do not have a fixed duration, therefore S98 does not apply to credit card agreements.

 

 

Hi

 

No not quite the 7 day notice period does not apply to credit cards because of the section you quoted this means they do not have to give notice.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

I am affraid that any party can terminate an agrement at any time under section 98.

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate

it before the end of the period so specified.

 

This is confirmed inseveral judgements including rankine.

 

.

 

Peter