Egg credit card agreement terminated

[Hopster]

0% and they can have that tomorrow - but - I have been warned that if they accept a payment (reduced) in settlement that you can find legal fees on top ? Heard that one ?

[basa48]

Well, if it is contractual, then they have terminated your agreement. Therefore, no need to re-instate your direct debit.

I can't believe how stupid Egg are.

 

OK It is clear the Regs don't cover what Egg have done. But a judge can then say clause 20.2 is operative.

 

But if we successfully argue 20.2 is unfair the judge nullifies it. Egg get a second bite and restricts interest whilst demanding regular payments.

 

Have I said this before?

[BEC01]

I think it just needs one side to have the nerve to go to court.

You are quite right in pointing out that there are potentially some very serious offences committed by Egg.

[basa48]

I think it just needs one side to have the nerve to go to court.

You are quite right in pointing out that there are potentially some very serious offences committed by Egg.

 

OK was that in reply to me Eddie? If so I don't understand.

[BEC01]

OK was that in reply to me Eddie? If so I don't understand.

No, not at all Basa.

Just a general comment on the situation.

 

All of our debate on here is meaningless until either Egg, or a consumer takes it to court.

[LOVETHEBANKS]

No, not at all Basa.

Just a general comment on the situation.

 

All of our debate on here is meaningless until either Egg, or a consumer takes it to court.

 

I don't think that constructive debate is ever meaningless. When its taken into context and used with the facts in hand it can help to create strong arguments that can be used in any litigation.

 

For a litigant to act as a pursuer is always (i.m.o) going to be harder than defending a case, where you often only have to show your ability and willingness to put up a fight, before they back down and pick on someone else.

[basa48]

No, not at all Basa.

Just a general comment on the situation.

 

All of our debate on here is meaningless until either Egg, or a consumer takes it to court.

 

As I understood it at the beginning of this thread, your 'action' group had developed some very strong arguments regarding Egg's 'termination'. Unfortunately we have yet to hear any of those arguments, not even guidance as to what legislation it was proposed to cite.

 

As yet no one has been able to discuss my comments above with any conviction.

 

This worries me!

[Rom]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?274330-Urgent-help-needed-with-County-court-defence&p=3101153

 

Can you help, have seen what you have done.

[basa48]

OK so I don't seem to be getting any answer to my concerns about Egg's termination letter.

 

People keep saying that Egg cannot answer the question "What in CCA74 permits you to terminate the agreement in the manner of the letter of 2008"?

 

I don't think they even need to answer that question (which is perhaps why to date they haven't) because I do not see that the Act prevents them from termination in the manner of the letter.

 

In fact the quoted clause 20.2 gives them the right.

 

Now we have judge Denyer reinforcing that view in Amex v Brandon (see para 39 - 41).

[Guest HeftyHippo]

that account was in default

[toymaker1]

OK so I don't seem to be getting any answer to my concerns about Egg's termination letter.

 

People keep saying that Egg cannot answer the question "What in CCA74 permits you to terminate the agreement in the manner of the letter of 2008"?

 

I don't think they even need to answer that question (which is perhaps why to date they haven't) because I do not see that the Act prevents them from termination in the manner of the letter.

 

In fact the quoted clause 20.2 gives them the right.

 

Now we have judge Denyer reinforcing that view in Amex v Brandon (see para 39 - 41).

So far as I can see, the defendant in this case didn't have a leg to stand on. From what I have read, he was - as heftyhippo has noted - in default and made no effort to put the account back into good order by the due date specified in the default notice.

In such a circumstance he was clearly going to be terminated.

Edited August 29, 2010 by toymaker1
tidying up

[trout]

Hi Toymaker 1,

 

Good to see you're back,

 

Any chance of your thoughts on post 1465 ?

 

On the matter at hand, on the 2nd to last para point 40, the judge refers that Section 10 ( 2 ) provides

that the claimants were entitled to terminate the agreement and that the Act ( CCA 1974 ) does not

prevent them from so doing ? ( my point is why does he quote their T & C 's which are outside the provisions of cca'74) ?

 

He also deems an illegal termination to be ok ? ( ie on the back of an invalid DN ). In law wrong,

to the Judge Lawful.

 

IMHO, I agree with your take on the legalities of CCA 74, but as many have said on here it seems to be

a Court lottery !

Edited August 29, 2010 by trout

[toymaker1]

Hi Toymaker 1,

 

Good to see you're back,

 

Any chance of your thoughts on post 1465 ?

 

 

Egg has repeated your question, showing they fully understand it.

They then go on to totally disregard what you said.

Egg states that the decision to terminate your agreement "was based on information that we received from the Credit reference agencies"

and the right to terminate "is a contractual one and not dependant upon the CCA.

Complete and utter tosh.

I would love to hear them put that argument to a judge.

They are just digging a deeper hole.

[toymaker1]

Hi Toymaker 1,

 

Good to see you're back,

 

Any chance of your thoughts on post 1465 ?

 

On the matter at hand, on the 2nd to last para point 40, the judge refers that Section 10 ( 2 ) provides

that the claimants were entitled to terminate the agreement and that the Act ( CCA 1974 ) does not

prevent them from so doing ? ( my point is why does he quote their T & C 's which are outside the provisions of cca'74) ?

 

He also deems an illegal termination to be ok ? ( ie on the back of an invalid DN ). In law wrong,

to the Judge Lawful.

 

IMHO, I agree with your take on the legalities of CCA 74, but as many have said on here it seems to be

a Court lottery !

The judge's language is very convaluted, but my reading of it, when you strip away all the complications, is that the judge is saying to the defendant, look, whatever argument you are putting to the court, the fact remains that you owe money to the claimant, and you have made no effort to bring the account back into credit in accordance with the requirements of CCA 1974, and in accordance with the default notice which was served on you. Yet you expect the court to write off your debt because of some technical points you are making. - It is not the court's job to help debtor's evade their liabilities. - you agree that you clearly owed the money.

My interpretation of what the judge means by agreeing that Amex could end the agreement "at any time" is that "at any time" they can terminate an agreement which is in default. For example, they dont need to give the notice specified in S98, as it is not an agreement with a fixed term.

Hee feels it would not be just to let the defendant get out of his debt he owes to Amex on a technicality.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

all courts are lotteries, criminal court, civil court, family court. Much depends on how the judge feels that day and if there is any bias on his part.

 

In terms of the agreement and the clause Amex replied upon, they can put whatever they like in their agreement, it doesn't make it lawful. If for example, they had a clause which said if you were Asian, Oriental or African, , or had relatives from those regions, your crddit limit would be limited to £xxx, whilst if you were white, British middle class, your minimum credit limit would be £xx+50% it would not ne upheld in court because it is discriminatory, The fact that it is in their conditions doesn't make it legal. The same applies to them saying the clause is a contractual one and not dependent on the CCA - at all times the CCA governs the agreement, and anything contrary to the aims of the CCA is not allowed, they can argue that it is a contractual clause, but its not, as the CCA governs the agreement and hence any contract. What theyre actually saying when they say that is that they wont abide by the CCA, they will fill their agreements with their own clauses regardless of how they impact on the CCA, ie, they will put in the parts the CCA specifies, but contradict them with their own clauses where they wish.

[BEC01]

BASA, to give you some replies.

 

1. To people who did default and were then terminated. Nothing they can do, Egg were within their right to terminate.

2. I also agree that there is nothing in CCA that says Egg cannot terminate.

 

Therefore, Egg did terminate the (non-default) agreements. Fine.

No agreement, no further credit available, no debt remaining.

 

Neither side can have their cake and eat it.

 

Egg have clearly made a boo-boo with this, that they have since rectified. Evidence of this is that they have now changed the way in which they stop the further credit line.

 

There really is nothing that changes the fact that Egg choose to end the agreements of however many customers.

It was their choice.

 

How many businesses pay for services that have been withdrawn by the service providers choice?

[alisindebt]

Basa, I am not sure if I fully understand. I have an egg credit card that was stopped by them because I always paid off the card in full or at the end of various interest periods, and so they saw me as an unprofitable customer. I never paid anything further on the card since 2005, although i get the occasional letter asking for payment. are you saying that because they cancelled without a default, the Contract is null and void and nothing has to be paid by me?

[basa48]

Basa, I am not sure if I fully understand. I have an egg credit card that was stopped by them because I always paid off the card in full or at the end of various interest periods, and so they saw me as an unprofitable customer. I never paid anything further on the card since 2005, although i get the occasional letter asking for payment. are you saying that because they cancelled without a default, the Contract is null and void and nothing has to be paid by me?

 

If they wrote to you (it was early 2008 ) like 160,000 others saying the are "Ending" (important word) your agreement, then yes they wrote off the debt in effect (it wasn't deliberate they c*cked up!!!).

[basa48]

BASA, to give you some replies.

 

1. To people who did default and were then terminated. Nothing they can do, Egg were within their right to terminate.

2. I also agree that there is nothing in CCA that says Egg cannot terminate.

 

Therefore, Egg did terminate the (non-default) agreements. Fine.

No agreement, no further credit available, no debt remaining.

 

Neither side can have their cake and eat it.

 

Egg have clearly made a boo-boo with this, that they have since rectified. Evidence of this is that they have now changed the way in which they stop the further credit line.

 

There really is nothing that changes the fact that Egg choose to end the agreements of however many customers.

It was their choice.

 

How many businesses pay for services that have been withdrawn by the service providers choice?

 

Thanks for the re-assurance eddie. I was getting a little nervous after the Slater case. I would have liked more than one egg in my basket !! (pun sorta intended!).

[BEC01]

Our small group had never considered unenforceability, primarily as they were not looking at avoiding any debt.

It remains the assertion, like you have mentioned, that Egg voluntarily ended agreements which were being honoured by the consumers.

 

Fair enough, their choice, agreement ended: no credit facility, no debt.

What is not fair, thereafter, is to attempt to then collect monies under the threat of punitive action.

 

Imagine an office cleaning contractor cancelling their contract with their client: withdrawing their service.

Then continuing to invoice, and demand payment for those services which have ceased.

No chance.

 

As a credit card facility is not a fixed product, but a running service, then Egg either decided to write-off any balances, or got it wrong.

 

What they can do, is keep the credit facility, but restrict it in a manner that restricts or halts new credit.

For example, do not renew the card, but keep the facility until the balance is reduced to zero.

This way they would still be providing the service, but a service that is altered within the contractual agreement.

 

But they just decided to call it quits with however many customers.

[basa48]

I think the whole thing is weird! I know what Egg did, why they did it and how they did it.

 

That is a good argument that they must have been aware of the correct way to do this, i.e. restrict the credit limit. I can only think they made one humdinger of a cockup or it was deliberate.

 

I keep wondering how long before this gets in front of a judge. I just hope it isn't because some dumbass CMC decides to make a name for itself and ballses it up for everyone with poor legal argument. Like seems to be happening a lot just recently !

[BEC01]

I think the whole thing is weird! I know what Egg did, why they did it and how they did it.

 

That is a good argument that they must have been aware of the correct way to do this, i.e. restrict the credit limit. I can only think they made one humdinger of a cockup or it was deliberate.

 

I keep wondering how long before this gets in front of a judge. I just hope it isn't because some dumbass CMC decides to make a name for itself and ballses it up for everyone with poor legal argument. Like seems to be happening a lot just recently !

 

I agree, we were advised to let Egg make the claim first, then defend on this basis.

The legal team are long established, and wouldn't normally do this type of work.

However, one has personal contacts.

I was told initially that they would look it over, but to expect that they would not touch it.

 

However, after looking at the termination letter, it suddenly became very interesting to them.

Like you say, it could have been deliberate. A disgruntled senior employee who was not happy with the purchase, just as a hypothetical example. Otherwise, it was the textbook schoolboy error.

 

With Egg up for sale again, two things will be revealing:

 

1. If it sells.

2. Assuming that it does, what the sale price is.

 

We should then be able to get a handle on what the write-offs are at this point, and make a guess at how hard they will take things through the court.

 

Furthermore, say a sale does go ahead, if they close down UK operations and purely run it as an Internet service from another (cheaper) location. That would suggest that they have valued the brand and the good customers and are likely to have written-off the bad stuff.

 

And let's face it, most of the people who have been going the enforceability route are more likely to be can't pay rather than won't pay. If people have fallen on hard times, then there is no money to be recovered and no point in wasting resource chasing it.

[alisindebt]

It's really interesting. in my case, they terminated my card in 2005 (was that when Citibank took over?). I had always paid in full, on time. However, because I used their special offer at that time, to spend interest free for 6 months, I did so and apparently they did not like it.

 

They cancelled the facility and expected me to pay the balance., which to this day I have never done! I guess this meets the criteria that you are discussing. So bye-bye Egg.

[twodogs]

I agree, we were advised to let Egg make the claim first, then defend on this basis.

The legal team are long established, and wouldn't normally do this type of work.

However, one has personal contacts.

I was told initially that they would look it over, but to expect that they would not touch it.

 

However, after looking at the termination letter, it suddenly became very interesting to them.

Like you say, it could have been deliberate. A disgruntled senior employee who was not happy with the purchase, just as a hypothetical example. Otherwise, it was the textbook schoolboy error.

 

With Egg up for sale again, two things will be revealing:

 

1. If it sells.

2. Assuming that it does, what the sale price is.

 

We should then be able to get a handle on what the write-offs are at this point, and make a guess at how hard they will take things through the court.

 

Furthermore, say a sale does go ahead, if they close down UK operations and purely run it as an Internet service from another (cheaper) location. That would suggest that they have valued the brand and the good customers and are likely to have written-off the bad stuff.

 

And let's face it, most of the people who have been going the enforceability route are more likely to be can't pay rather than won't pay. If people have fallen on hard times, then there is no money to be recovered and no point in wasting resource chasing it.

 

I've been doing quite a lot of research into credit cards/banks lately and the issue being debated in this thread is secondary and largely irrelevant to Egg.

They don't need to take anyone to court, they never lost any money, they never lent you or any of us any money. It is the biggest [problem] ever. You created the money when you applied, whatever your credit limit was they got that money out of thin air (your money, created by your signature) and then they convinced you that they were "lending" you your own money and charged you interst on it and demanded it back!

 

Write to them and tell them that you'll gladly pay any money you lawfully owe them on condition that they send you proof of debt (the actual accounting that shows their loss), or a signed invoice (not a statement) They can't!

 

Do your own research on "Mechanics of Money"

[toymaker1]

I know what Egg did, why they did it and how they did it.

 

That is a good argument that they must have been aware of the correct way to do this,

!

 

Just because Egg did something, what makes you think that they must have been aware of the correct way to do it?

To give an example of organisations which should be aware of the correct way to do things but actually haven't got the most basic knowledge, I refer you to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

I have had it in writing - initially from and adjudicator and subsequently from an ombudsman- that the FOS believes that the governance of credit card accounts falls under the Banking Code, not the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I am not making that up.