Egg credit card agreement terminated

[toymaker1]

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

 

I think we might be at cross purposes here. My comment was not related to Carey or rankin or any other specific case.

The reason I said you were charmingly naive was that you appeared to say that once Egg realised that in order to get a single penny of interest from you they would have to issue a Claim against you, you believed that Egg would at that point back down, that is to say, they would not issue a claim against you once they understood they needed a trial to get any interest from you.

If that is what you intended to say, then I am afraid it is a very naive view. There is no way that Egg will back down in the example you appeared to provide. - They will go ahead with the court action, which will be decided by a judge. It is water off a duck's back to egg.

If that is not what you intended to say, then I apologise for misunderstanding you.

 

Regards.

Edited December 12, 2010 by toymaker1
spelling

[twodogs]

I've been away from this thread for a while now. I seem to recall that someone mentioned that solicitor's need to put some registration number on all their correspondence. Does anyone remember this? I ask because a solicitor has sent me a letter and there is no number on it anywhere (this is in relation to a different battle).

Thanks and Merry Christmas.

[chelsealove]

It's the solicitor's code of conduct and it's here. Although in theory only a client or another solicitor is able to complain about solicitors breaching it, the SRA [now the legal ombudsman] are supposed to be there to stop abuses in general.

 

If you go to rule 7 on Solicitors Code of Conduct on the Solicitors Regulation Authority website, it's there. I've only posted 17 times so i'm not allowed to put a link in!

 

They've obviously not putting the number on there because they don't want complaints.

 

G

 

PS: Toy - no, it's not naive. Debts under 5k fall within the small claims regime. Egg would have to pay lawyers to run all of the claims under 5k because you don't get costs in small claims. Most of Egg's debtors fall into this category and unless they get someone in house to do it en masse, it's not cost - effective to sue on these debts, especially if the debtor moves house a lot and isn't a guarentee target.

 

The people with over 5k debts are most at risk. Those with debts underneath are more likely to get a heavily discounted settlement... i've negotiated a number of similar debts for clients in the past.

[toymaker1]

It's the solicitor's code of conduct and it's here. Although in theory only a client or another solicitor is able to complain about solicitors breaching it, the SRA [now the legal ombudsman] are supposed to be there to stop abuses in general.

 

If you go to rule 7 on Solicitors Code of Conduct on the Solicitors Regulation Authority website, it's there. I've only posted 17 times so i'm not allowed to put a link in!

 

They've obviously not putting the number on there because they don't want complaints.

 

G

 

PS: Toy - no, it's not naive. Debts under 5k fall within the small claims regime. Egg would have to pay lawyers to run all of the claims under 5k because you don't get costs in small claims. Most of Egg's debtors fall into this category and unless they get someone in house to do it en masse, it's not cost - effective to sue on these debts, especially if the debtor moves house a lot and isn't a guarentee target.

 

The people with over 5k debts are most at risk. Those with debts underneath are more likely to get a heavily discounted settlement... i've negotiated a number of similar debts for clients in the past.

I take your point.

Perhaps I'm too cyncical about debt collectors.

[toymaker1]

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.

 

Thanks for explaining the difference between cancellation and termination Steve.

I think that wil be very useful to lots of people.

 

One thing I would like to know, if you or another Cagger can tell us, is what is the prescribed form a creditor has to comply with if he wishes to terminate a credit card agreement in non-default cases.?

There are numerous statements in CCA 1974 saying that a notice is ineffective if it is not in the prescribed form.

 

Any legal experts out there who can post that info?

Edited December 29, 2010 by toymaker1
spelling

[mills1]

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.

 

Basa, I read what you say, but as Steve stated, the account is usually " cancelled " within the first month or so.

Egg have clearly made a bloomer issuing me both " termination " and " cancellation " letters some 6 years into the account being opened.

And also in issuing a DN not in the prescribed terms.

 

Cheers.

[toymaker1]

Egg have clearly made a bloomer issuing me both " termination " and " cancellation " letters some 6 years into the account being opened.

And also in issuing a DN not in the prescribed terms.

Cheers.

 

What are the prescribed terms if Egg wishes to terminate an account which is not in default?

Does anyone know?

[SteveH2508]

What are the prescribed terms if Egg wishes to terminate an account which is not in default?

Does anyone know?

 

There aren't any. Not every communication between creditor and debtor is covered by the Act (e.g. statements; threat-o-matic letters etc..) Only certain communications in certain circumstances have prescribed form and content by Regulation (e.g. Default Notices; Cancellation Notices).

 

I am NOT addressing the argument had elsewhere as to the validity or otherwise of Egg's 'letter to the 161,000' (of which I was one) - that has been more than adequately dissected on other threads. I took my revenge on Egg in my own way (c£1,000 in charges refunded after two letters)

[toymaker1]

Only certain communications in certain circumstances have prescribed form and content by Regulation (e.g. Default Notices; Cancellation Notices).

 

Do you know if, in addition to Default Notices and Cancellation Notices, there is a prescribed form for Termination Notices?

[SteveH2508]

Do you know if, in addition to Default Notices and Cancellation Notices, there is a prescribed form for Termination Notices?

 

Under certain circumstances as required by the Act (S98 etc.as you are aware) the appropriate Regulations are:

 

1983 No 1561 Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 as amended

[basa48]

Do you know if, in addition to Default Notices and Cancellation Notices, there is a prescribed form for Termination Notices?

As SteveH says, there are no sections of the Act that cover termination of non defaulted running account credit agreements.

 

They could have restricted or deferred credit, but decided to 'end' the whole agreement instead!

 

Many feel that Egg's action in ending those 161,000 agreements was a repudiation of contract being a unilateral withdrawal of the debtors main facility with no detriment to the creditor (Egg).

 

I also feel it is contrary to s173 and the UTCCR.

[toymaker1]

As SteveH says, there are no sections of the Act that cover termination of non defaulted running account credit agreements.

 

They could have restricted or deferred credit, but decided to 'end' the whole agreement instead!

 

Many feel that Egg's action in ending those 161,000 agreements was a repudiation of contract being a unilateral withdrawal of the debtors main facility with no detriment to the creditor (Egg).

 

I also feel it is contrary to s173 and the UTCCR.

 

Well, I will soon find out. I will shortly be up against Egg in court.

[BEC01]

When and are you able to provide details of case?

[toymaker1]

When and are you able to provide details of case?

it's a very complicated case, that takes quite a lot of explaining. In any case, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to discuss it on this site. You never know who is reading stuff. Better to play safe for the time being.

[BEC01]

Understand, are you able to say if it was initiated by Egg or yourself?

[toymaker1]

The claim was not initiated by me, but right from when the issues in dispute first arose, I took a position which I was totally prepared to defend if the issues in dispute ended in court.

 

It was initiated by me in the sense that tactically I wanted the creditor to make a claim against me which I would defend, rather than me making a claim against the creditor.

I have no legal training, but my instinct is that in my case it was tactically better, and less technically difficult, and probably less stressful, to let the claimant initiate the action, then for me to defend it. Of course it needed to be based on a very clear and rational belief that the claimant has acted outside the provisions of CCA 1974.

I am also clear that the outcome of a case can never be guaranteed.

Edited December 30, 2010 by toymaker1

[basa48]

Can you even say what the issues are, i.e. enforceability, termination, default notice, something else?

[toymaker1]

Can you even say what the issues are, i.e. enforceability, termination, default notice, something else?

The chief issues will be related to termination outside the provisions of CCA 1974, and assignment of a debt whilst it is in dispute.

[basa48]

Thanks Toymaker.

 

Unfortunately we have a problem with this issue and its discussion on open forums.

 

There would be a tendency to disclose vital argument to the opposition and could also show reticence or lack of conviction in those arguments.

[Hopster]

Has anyone been pursued through the courts by Egg for non-payment of one of the 161,000 (incl.me) credit card accounts that were cancelled/terminated ? Isn't this what we all want to know ?

[basa48]

Has anyone been pursued through the courts by Egg for non-payment of one of the 161,000 (incl.me) credit card accounts that were cancelled/terminated ? Isn't this what we all want to know ?

 

Not so far as I know - yet!

 

Being pedantic (as is the Law!) Egg didn't cancel or terminate they ended the agreements.

[Sand-Dancer0191]

Cancel/Terminate/End...all mean the same thing.

 

Likewise, they can also Terminate by doing something that is not in keeping with there being a live Agreement.

[Hopster]

Really

[basa48]

Cancel/Terminate/End...all mean the same thing.

 

Er, actually - no they don't. Not in relation to contracts and the CCA. Read the whole thread.

 

Likewise, they can also Terminate by doing something that is not in keeping with there being a live Agreement.

 

Eh?? Not quite sure what you mean. They could certainly repudiate the agreement by failure to perform in some way.

[toymaker1]

Cancel/Terminate/End...all mean the same thing.

 

Likewise, they can also Terminate by doing something that is not in keeping with there being a live Agreement.

 

What do you mean?