Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Egg credit card agreement terminated


toymaker1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4791 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

I have heard nothing all year from Egg, having sent Toymakers wonderful letter templates.

Then today I was sent the following email:

 

"You'll need to Re-activate your Egg Card before you can start making the most of its features again. You can do this quickly and easily online by clicking the activation button below"

I wonder what is going on here? Anyone been sent the same after many months of no contact from Egg ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard nothing all year from Egg, having sent Toymakers wonderful letter templates.

Then today I was sent the following email:

 

"You'll need to Re-activate your Egg Card before you can start making the most of its features again. You can do this quickly and easily online by clicking the activation button below"

I wonder what is going on here? Anyone been sent the same after many months of no contact from Egg ??

 

I would never respond to an email like that. It is clearly spam. I get ones like that every day. - any message inviting you to respond in some way to an email which offers you something you had not ordered or did not ask for, should be deleted immediately.

I'm glad to hear you are still Egg free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Irrespective of how low my opinion of Egg may be, I would still advise anyone who receives these phishing emails to report it by forwarding the email to [email protected].

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reposting this because it was deleted by the consumer forum after Bard complained (obviously without the comments that got me into trouble!)

 

I note that after he complained, he effectively left the thread, which is amusing. He's said some similarly mean things about other people, which I could report him about, but I have neither the time or the inclination. I will repeat one important fact, however - he isn't a lawyer. He has no legal qualifications. Therefore take everything he says with a pinch of salt. I say nothing further on that point.

 

Anyway, here's the deleted post...

 

"I read through this thread a while ago, but i've since had a chance to sit down and have a think about my situation. Egg have now given me a default notice and I'm thinking about my next step.

 

The problem here is the statute is unclear. It didn't anticipate a situation where all of the banks would en masse start trying to get rid of their clients [like egg] or raise the rates to a silly degree [like capital one and others].

 

This is my legal opinion for what it's worth - the reason why Egg aren't suing people in their hundreds yet is because(a) it isn't financially practical for them to do so, and (b) they terminated their agreements with their customers but continued to charge interest rates. Ignore the CCA. I believe they had no right on their own terms to cancel the contract other than in the way specified in their contract - which is to demand the sum of money back owed. My guess is that Egg are a bit worried that if you cancel a contract but continue to take interest without the protection [to both parties], you are in fact acting like a loan shark. The CCA was set up to avoid dodgy companies acting outside the protection of statute, which I think is what's happened here.

 

I think that Egg don't want the bad publicity involved in this and of course a verdict that might say "you can't charge these people interest anymore", becuse a lot of people are still - like sheep - paying off the interest.

 

I've now written to egg and told them "I continued to pay back the amount following their termination for 2 years, which is the majority of the alleged 4.5k debt. I calculate I owe about 2k. I offer you 2k under pt36 of the CPR in settlement of this debt on the condition that you confirm in writing that once the 2k is paid you mark my credit file debt paid in full. If you choose to sue, the matter will fall in the small claims track and you will not get your costs. I therefore suggest you accept."

 

My guess is that they won't accept initially but once they understand that they'll need a trial to get a single penny of interest out of me, I believe they will back down. I think you can approach it the way that you're doing, by just guessing they won't have the balls to take your cases to Court, but it's a relatively dangerous game since Carey, where it was made clear that the Courts are there to support the status quo, and in particular against debtors who mount technical challenges."

 

My position is that Egg botched their cancellations, but a Defendant friendly judge might say to Egg "you didn't go through the motions of default notice in 2008, then termination, therefore the contract stands as if it wasn't properly cancelled." That's my main worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is the statute is unclear.

It isn't. Which bit do you think is unclear?

 

Ignore the CCA.

You cant. - And a judge wont.

 

they had no right on their own terms to cancel the contract other than in the way specified in their contract

Other than in the way specified in the Consumer credit Act 1974.

 

The CCA was set up to avoid dodgy companies acting outside the protection of statute,

You are correct. And that statute is CCA 1974. - That is the statute which, as you say, they cant act outside of.

 

 

 

 

once they understand that they'll need a trial to get a single penny of interest out of me, I believe they will back down.

How charmingly naive.

 

My position is that Egg botched their cancellations

I presume you mean their terminations. - Cancellation is not termination.

 

 

a Defendant friendly judge might say to Egg "you didn't go through the motions of default notice in 2008, then termination, therefore the contract stands as if it wasn't properly cancelled."

You are right,- Egg cannot terminate the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem here is the statute is unclear. It didn't anticipate a situation where all of the banks would en masse start trying to get rid of their clients [like egg] or raise the rates to a silly degree [like capital one and others]".

 

Hi.

I'm being sued by MBNA after I refused to pay them interest of 35%. What Is there in the statute that I can use against them?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?122431-Me-v-MBNA-ABBEY-AND-MBNA-VIRGIN&highlight=

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi phatram,

 

When did your interest rate go to 35%, just before termination?

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't. Which bit do you think is unclear?

 

 

You cant. - And a judge wont.

 

 

Other than in the way specified in the Consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

You are correct. And that statute is CCA 1974. - That is the statute which, as you say, they cant act outside of.

 

 

 

 

 

How charmingly naive.

 

 

I presume you mean their terminations. - Cancellation is not termination.

 

 

 

You are right,- Egg cannot terminate the contract.

 

 

Toymaker?

Cancellation is not termination?

I beg to differ and would expect a district judge to maybe form the same opinion.

 

(a) " We have Cancelled your account, you can no longer use it "

 

(b) " We have terminated your account, you can no longer use it "

 

Please feel free to elaborate on why you feel cancellation is not termination?

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi phatram,

 

When did your interest rate go to 35%, just before termination?

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

 

No, it went up after I had claimed back charges. I then CCA'd them and refused to pay and it all snowballed from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Toymaker?

Cancellation is not termination?

I beg to differ and would expect a district judge to maybe form the same opinion.

 

(a) " We have Cancelled your account, you can no longer use it "

 

(b) " We have terminated your account, you can no longer use it "

 

Please feel free to elaborate on why you feel cancellation is not termination?

 

Cheers.

 

Suppose you open a credit card account, and within a time specified in the agreement - for example, 14 days, you decide that actually you dont wish to continue with the agreement, you can say to the credit card company that you wish to cancel the account/agreement. After the specified period has passed, you do not have the right to cancel the account, but of course you can terminate it -i.e. bring it to an end, provided you pay to the credit card company all the money you have so far borrowed. - and that is the end of the account i.e it is terminated.

 

Hope that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toymaker?

Cancellation is not termination?

I beg to differ and would expect a district judge to maybe form the same opinion.

 

(a) " We have Cancelled your account, you can no longer use it "

 

(b) " We have terminated your account, you can no longer use it "

 

Please feel free to elaborate on why you feel cancellation is not termination?

 

Cheers.

 

Suppose you open a credit card account, and within a time specified in the agreement - for example, 14 days, you decide that actually you dont wish to continue with the agreement, you can say to the credit card company that you wish to cancel the account/agreement. After the specified period has passed, you do not have the right to cancel the account, but of course you can terminate it -i.e. bring it to an end, provided you pay to the credit card company all the money you have so far borrowed. - and that is the end of the account i.e it is terminated.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Cancellation and Termination are still in effect the same thing.

In both cases the customer cannot use the facilities of the account in question.

Now, if having gone past the specified time period Egg turn around and say " Your account is Cancelled " that in effect is them " Terminating " the agreement.

I have had cancellation, termination, whatever they wish to call them letters from Egg, but to me they are all the same.

But ofcourse opinions can differ ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cancellation and Termination are still in effect the same thing.

 

 

I have had cancellation, termination, whatever they wish to call them letters from Egg, but to me they are all the same.

They might mean the same thing to you, but they do not mean the same thing so far as the law is concerned. - They are two different things.

Cancellation of credit card agreements comes under S67 to S71 of CCA.

Termination of credit card agreements comes under S87 to S89 of CCA.

I know it seems confusing, and it can seem as if they are they same thing, but they are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In laymans terms

 

Cancellation – the consumer ending the agreement before it becomes established (within 30 days or before the first payment becomes due - IIRC)

 

Termination – either party (usually the creditor) ending the agreement whilst it is extant.

 

There is a difference – both in terms of who is liable for what and in the timing of the ‘ending’ event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to basics and trying to explore any avenues.

 

Egg 'ended' our agreements. Only they didn't. All they really ended or wished to end was the debtors entitlement to draw down further credit. They still wished to rely on the clauses applying interest and the repayment schedule. Now the legality of continuing to charge interest when the agreement is ended is yet another area needing investigation (someone mentioned this earlier).

 

Surely one argument will be if that is all they wanted to do they should have simply set the credit limit as the outstanding balance. They had the unalienable right to do that. Doesn't that suggest that to 'end' the agreement (rather than just restrict the credit) makes it look as if that is what was intended?

 

In any event is 'ending' the agreement but still charging interest and demanding repayments a little unfair and contrary to both the Act and the UTCCR. Can banks be regarded as enduring institutions providing never ending credit and therefore never allowed to get out of the agreement, whereas the debtor is a mortal entity expected to someday repay the borrowed monies and end the agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might mean the same thing to you, but they do not mean the same thing so far as the law is concerned. - They are two different things.

Cancellation of credit card agreements comes under S67 to S71 of CCA.

Termination of credit card agreements comes under S87 to S89 of CCA.

I know it seems confusing, and it can seem as if they are they same thing, but they are not.

 

Toymaker, you say that cancellation and termination are two seperate acts?

Why do I then have a letter from august 2010 informing me my egg card has been cancelled with immediate effect, and it says " your account will remain open for repayment purposes only"

Then more recently, December 2010 a letter stating " your egg card agreement has been terminated" ?

So, two different things from egg, what are they doing? if we follow that the account can be " cancelled " in the first 30 days, this is blown out the water because the account is more than 4 years old!

Egg need to make their minds up, it is either cancelled or terminated.

To them they would say " its the same thing, you havent been making the correct monthly payment we can use what words we like "

Any wonder people end up in the s*** when Egg decide to muddy the waters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toymaker, you say that cancellation and termination are two seperate acts?

Why do I then have a letter from august 2010 informing me my egg card has been cancelled with immediate effect, and it says " your account will remain open for repayment purposes only"

Then more recently, December 2010 a letter stating " your egg card agreement has been terminated" ?

So, two different things from egg, what are they doing?

It is very simple. Egg do not understand the CCA 1974.

 

Egg need to make their minds up, it is either cancelled or terminated.

To them they would say " its the same thing, you havent been making the correct monthly payment we can use what words we like "

 

Egg cannot use what words it likes. It can only use words which have the same meaning as the words in CCA.

Look up CCA 1974 on the internet, and you will discover that, as I said in my earlier post, termination and cancellation are two different things.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly you can cancel a credit card as in making it not usable for transactions, but that is not the same as terminating the agreement or closing an account.

 

The card, the account and the agreement are three separate entities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been called a great deal of things in my life, toymaker, but charmingly naive is a new one. I've seen so many people destroyed at court over the years, either through overconfidence or a belief that the law is so certain that it defies intepretation, that I've come to the conclusion that being a lawyer is more to do with risk - assessment than legal nous. I daresay that nobody believes that Carey is an accurate statement of statute, but it has now become - by dint of the way in which the County Court system works - the dominant precedent on CCA construction.

 

I stand by what I said - if a company fails to go through the proper legal procedure, then it's open to the judge to say that the cancellation and / or termination was not properly executed. It would be a brave man to guess what the consequence of such a failure might be. My guess is that Egg aren't brave enough to test the waters and hopefully no-one will push the case into Court a la the Rankins. One thing I can express with absolute certainty about the County Court system is that it operates on the level of realpolitik. You can argue your case, but don't expect your judge to be a CC expert or take a great deal of time with your case. I'm not sure also that you understand the level of discretion that the CPR has given judges. If it gets kicked up to the COA, then you can expect a better level of judge, but by that time your legal costs risk is more than enough to bankrupt most people. That's the real problem. You have an arguable case, but how far do you want to risk your livelihood?

 

I hope you're right, toymaker, as I'm one of the many people who have Egg - shaped debts. Genuinely hope you're right, and I'll leave it at that, as I think this thread has exhausted all possible interpretations of the statute in question.

 

Good luck, all,

 

GL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been called a great deal of things in my life, toymaker, but charmingly naive is a new one. I've seen so many people destroyed at court over the years, either through overconfidence or a belief that the law is so certain that it defies intepretation, that I've come to the conclusion that being a lawyer is more to do with risk - assessment than legal nous. I daresay that nobody believes that Carey is an accurate statement of statute, but it has now become - by dint of the way in which the County Court system works - the dominant precedent on CCA construction.

 

I stand by what I said - if a company fails to go through the proper legal procedure, then it's open to the judge to say that the cancellation and / or termination was not properly executed. It would be a brave man to guess what the consequence of such a failure might be. My guess is that Egg aren't brave enough to test the waters and hopefully no-one will push the case into Court a la the Rankins. One thing I can express with absolute certainty about the County Court system is that it operates on the level of realpolitik. You can argue your case, but don't expect your judge to be a CC expert or take a great deal of time with your case. I'm not sure also that you understand the level of discretion that the CPR has given judges. If it gets kicked up to the COA, then you can expect a better level of judge, but by that time your legal costs risk is more than enough to bankrupt most people. That's the real problem. You have an arguable case, but how far do you want to risk your livelihood?

 

I hope you're right, toymaker, as I'm one of the many people who have Egg - shaped debts. Genuinely hope you're right, and I'll leave it at that, as I think this thread has exhausted all possible interpretations of the statute in question.

 

Good luck, all,

 

GL

 

Really can't argue agianst such a graceful reply.

I think your point about risk-assessment is the absolute key to this.

 

This is why my advice - not legally qualified, I may add - is to not take the initiative, but to let Egg take the action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4791 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...