Egg credit card agreement terminated

[diddydicky]

Agreed, I thought that this was the generally accepted interpretation (s98 does not apply to CCs).

 

and as i see it the creditor cannot terminate only part of an agreement

 

he cant say the agreement is terminated except the provision for you to pay 5% of the outstanding balance per month

 

the agreement once terminated cannot then be enforced if their is an outstanding balance on it

 

as i understand it you would then have a situation where there is a debt which is a credit card debt so has to be regulated under the consumer credit act but if the debtor refuses to agree to an agreement how can the creditor enforce the debt

[diddydicky]

I am very sorry to have to do this, as I hope to have some legal argument that can win the case too.

 

However, s67 - 73 is about cancellation of the agreement within the "cooling period" only. I.e, usually so many days after entering into the contract. It is not applicable in our case, as far as I am aware.

 

Termination of the agreement is bringing it to an end/cancelling it. s87-89 is for accounts that are in default only. This section is not applicable whatsoever unless one has defaulted on their account.

 

Which leaves us which s98 - non-defaulted credit agreements. This isn't applicable to credit cards.

 

The act IS silent regarding termination of credit cards that are not in default.

 

I am not confident in your belief that, as you say "credit agreements which are not in default are not, indeed cannot, be terminated by the creditor". I am sorry but this has to be untrue!

 

If this was the case, a creditor would not be able to bring an agreement to an end if there was a serious breach of an agreement (criminal activity, third party usage etc etc) but there was no default. As I stated earlier, they would then be "locked in" to the agreement with no escape route and I really cannot see that the law would have intended this.

 

Most credit agreements state that the bank may cancel/end/terminate the agreement subject to the service of any notice required by law. If the credit card is not in default, then there is no requirement under CCA 1974 to provide notice?

 

Therefore, it looks like, though unfair it definitely is to the consumer, banks can cancel agreements without notice.

 

Where does this leave us? In my mind...and it is late and I'm tired and getting confused by it all ... we are left not with an agreement but with an outstanding balance that must be repaid. I agree that we surely cannot be bound by the contract and I would love to think that this meant the outstanding balance could no longer be pursued. But unfortunately, I don't think this is the case.

 

Here is where I am sure, as a property lawyer, when a mortgage company repossessed a house and sells it...if they don't reclaim all of the monies from the sale of the house and there is an outstanding balance owed - the mortgage agreements is no longer in place BUT they COULD pursue the individual for the outstanding debt. However, this is rarely done in practice because people who have been repossessed are highly unlikely to have any money/assets that can be used to repay the further debt. So the companies usually write it off.

 

Similarly with our case, lets say the banks could cancel our agreement - the outstanding balance becomes a personal debt that they could pursue us with and take to court etc?

 

I hope you're following me.

 

I hate realising that they might be right. SOMEBODY PLEASE restore my faith and tell me something that makes me realise they are wrong again.

 

We have used the money, think of it as a loan - we get the money, don't get any more money...but repay it over time.

 

I think the repayment facility at the end of the credit card agreement is more like a way of us paying off the "loan" now...rather than paying off our credit but being able to take further credit.

 

Ah! It's late and I'm blabbing on. Someone please tell me they realise/understand what I'm saying... i.e, after all this...are we wrong?

 

so when the agreement is terminated then the old method of repayment is gone the creditor says pay 10% per month the debtor says no ill offer 0.007% per month

 

neither agree- would a court place at a disadvatage and innocent borrower who had had the safety net of the CCA (which is an act to PROTECT the consumer from an unscrupulous lender) i think not!

[diddydicky]

I didn't say we were going to launch a class action.

We have a group who have stopepd paying and contested that there is no contract in place.

 

Egg have gone very quiet.

We have since found that the majority of Egg's CCAs are unenforceable, and furthermore that Egg know this (Citi did an analysis as part of their due diligence).

 

And yes, our media contact is documenting as we go along.

 

It does appear that the CCA route is the best route as opposed to the contact route. Not necessarily that there is no merit in the contract route. Rather that the CCA route is proven and easier.

 

Hope that answers your questions.

 

surely what you need is one of the 160,000 customers that is not a home owner, has no assets and is thinking maybe of personal bankruptcy to take these shiesters on with the help of everyone on here to put his case together

 

 

he can represent himself in the high court- if he wins he wins and if he loses (doubtful) he still wins because the other sides costs can be 10 million - they wont get F**k all

[diddydicky]

yep

[diddydicky]

could you quote s.98 please? Thanks!

 

type consumer credit act 1974 into your browser and then you can download and refer to any section in it when you need to

[diddydicky]

Thank you all; how does this read?

 

" Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your letter dated 14th July requesting that I telephone Egg to discuss an overdue account.

Firstly, I do not acknowledge any debt to Egg Banking plc and dispute any account with Egg Banking plc for the following reasons:

1. On the 20th April 2009 I sent a letter by ‘Special Delivery’ exercising my rights under the Consumer Credit Act requesting a copy of the executed Consumer Credit Agreement. This letter was received by Egg on the 21st April 2009. So far Egg has chosen to ignore this legitimate request.

2. On the 18th May 2009 I sent Egg, again by ‘Special Delivery’, a letter stating that I disputed the account and that Egg had committed an offence and that on the advice of the Financial Ombudsman, I requested a final decision in this matter from Egg. I also stated that should Egg’s decision not meet with my satisfaction, and then I reserved the right to pursue the matter through both/either the Courts and Ombudsman. The maximum timescale for Egg to give a final response to my complaint was eight (8) weeks. This time ran out 8 weeks from the date of my original complaint, in this case that was my request for a true copy of the credit agreement. Therefore, I requested that Egg must provide me with a final response in this matter, including any proposed actions for this account, no later than Wednesday 15th June 2009. This time has also elapsed.

3. In March 2008 Egg Banking plc sent me a letter cancelling my account, which was not in default, I believe that this action by Egg plc was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states very clearly; "Section 87 of the 1974 Act requires a creditor or owner to give the debtor or hirer a default notice in the prescribed form if he wishes to terminate the agreement". And that Egg had no desire to enforce an agreement that was not in default and was voluntarily ended by Egg plc.

Since I dispute this account and any debt allegedly owed by me to Egg Banking plc, Egg are committing further offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section (78)(6) which clearly states:

“If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore, while we remain in dispute:

• You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

• You may not add any further interest or charges to this account.

• You may not pass this account to any third party.

• You may not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies.

• You may not issue a default notice related to this account.”

 

 

Please note that I will not enter into any telephone discussions with you or Egg plc on this matter and that all communications must be in writing, and should Egg continue to demonstrate clear breaches of the Consumer Credit Act I will be making a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman.

Yours Sincerely,

"

 

why do you not acknowledge any debt to egg? and then say that you dispute it?

[diddydicky]

I am disputing the existance of the account and therefore do not acknowledge any debt.

 

if you dispute the existence of the account, how can you "excercise" a right to obtain a copy of an agreement you claim does not exist!

 

you then list actions thatnthey may not pursue (while we remain in dispute) which infers that you DO accept that there is an account in existence but it is in dispute

 

(i'm just trying to help by being devils advocate)

[diddydicky]

This is the reason for my original post on how to respond to this since I have requested the CCA and not received it but also gone down the road of Egg voluntarily terminating the agreement when not in default.

Do I respond one way or the other as it is clearly difficult to do both

 

personally speaking i would not deny any existence of a debt if i had in fact borrowed an spend money on a credit card- it would be a nonsence to expect any same person to believe that

 

the whole point of challenges to dodgy agreements is not to deny the debt (athough you can accept a a debt exists and dispute the amount) but to allege due to the failings of the cca (pre 07) that it is enforceable

 

the end result being that yes you owe them money but no they cannot legally make you pay it

 

THEN you can sit down and try to negotiate or just tell them to bugger off for 6 years

 

i havnt read all of your thread to be honest so it might be different if they have previoulsy cancelled the debt

 

my comments were that you were defeating your own arguments in that letter

 

if you a a LIP just say it as it is and dont try to be a lawyer more than a LIP or you will trip yourself up

[diddydicky]

So remove the "do not acknowledge and debt" and just concentrate on the "disputed" bits and the rest is OK?

 

sorry because there are so many posts i have not had time to read the lot

 

can you just give me a precis of what has happened and what you ar e no trying to acheive

 

thanks

 

dick

[diddydicky]

 

toymaker is obviously more clued up on these egg aggreements so i will defer to his advice

 

the only thing i would add is that if it were me i would FIRST SAR egg so that they cant be "economical"" with their files later on when you send this letter

[diddydicky]

thanks ive got that same term in my co op agreement-it's b**locks

[diddydicky]

this is from the banking obudsman's office

 

 

banking: firms' right of 'set off'

 

It is not unusual for a customer to have a current account, a savings account and a credit card account – all with the same bank or building society. The same customer might also have a loan, an ISA and a mortgage with that firm. And some of those accounts might be held jointly with someone else, usually a spouse or business partner.

 

In this article we look at what the firm can (or should) do where a customer does not have enough money in a particular account to make payments due from that account, but does have sufficient funds in one of their other accounts with the firm.

 

For example, when an overdraft facility on a current account runs out and the customer fails to pay the amount owed, can the firm take money from the customer’s savings account to reduce or clear the debt? Or, if a customer fails to make credit card or mortgage payments, should the firm use available funds from that customer’s current or savings account to make the missing payments, thereby helping the customer to avoid extra interest or charges?

 

The basic position is that a firm has a right – but not a duty – to look at a customer’s overall position and to ‘combine’ the accounts held by that customer. This is sometimes called a right of ‘set off’ or a right to ‘combine’ accounts. A firm has this as a general right, whether or not it mentions the right in the account terms. So, in the examples above, the firm can transfer money from an account that is in credit in order to make payments due on another account. But it does not have to do this.

 

Certain conditions must be met before the firm can exercise its right of ‘set off’.

 

 

The account from which the firm transfers funds must be held by the customer who owes the firm money.

 

The account from which the firm transfers the money – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held with the same firm.

 

The account from which the firm transfers funds – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held in the same capacity by the customer concerned. So, for example, if Mrs C holds a savings account in her capacity as treasurer of a local society, the firm cannot take money from that account to pay Mrs C’s personal credit card bill that she normally pays from the current account she holds in a personal capacity.

 

The debt must be due and payable. For example, if a customer misses making a loan payment, then (at least until it calls in the loan) the firm can take only the missed payment – not the balance of the loan.

We would not usually expect a firm to warn customers before it exercises its right of ‘set off’. A warning might prompt customers to move their money to an account with a different firm. But we think that it is usually good practice for a firm to tell a customer as soon as possible after it has made a transfer.

 

We would not generally expect a firm to use ‘set off’ before giving the customer a reasonable opportunity to pay the debt. However, what is ‘reasonable’ might depend on the customer and the history of the account.

 

The general position can be modified by agreement between the firm and its customer. This might include:

 

 

an agreement that ‘set off’ be available to a firm’s mortgage arm, where it is a separate legal entity;

 

an agreement to regularly ‘sweep’ any money over a certain balance out of a current account and into a savings account;

 

an agreement that money held by a customer in one capacity can be used to pay debts owed by the same customer in a different capacity.

[diddydicky]

I'm not sure what you are drawing our attention to. You have set out the basis upon which, as is standard banking practice, banks and other creditors have a right of set off. That's correct, Banks etc have a right of set off. I cant clearly see the connection to termination of credit cards.

Perhaps you could say a bit more.

 

regards.

 

it is underlined

 

the banks right of set off extends only to funds that are available in the account from which the money is being taken

 

there is NO RIGHT for the bank to create an overdraft on an account in order to repay another loan (and thereby creating a new loan)

 

in this case the bank "created" an overdraft on a dormant account from which to pay off the credit card debt

[diddydicky]

Furthermore, the implications for the bank should this poster wish to make this available to the national press, would be devasting for public confidence in the bank concerned

 

my bet is that if he gets a national press or lawyer involved the bank will back down like a shot

[diddydicky]

I understand now, I did not realise that the bank "created" an overdraft in one of your accounts so that it could set off the money owed by you.

Sounds very strange thing for bank to do. As you say, they are clearly acting unlawfully if that is what they did.

 

not me

[diddydicky]

Good evening to you all.

Over the past few days, I have read all the quotes and replys and my head is now spinning.

I am one of the 161,000 who had their Credit Cards terminated, however payments are up to date, although I will be dead before the balance, if ever, is paid off.

So, as I understand it, my first task is to request a copy of the Original CCA.

If this is correct, can someone supply the first template for me to use.

I had considered using The Claims Warehouse, but I now understand that they are a waste of space.

To get results one must do this yourself.

 

look for the letter templates at the start of the debt section and you ll find it

 

also you should read the intro (which will also guide you to it)

[diddydicky]

Definately pre 2004. I read 8% as an interest rate used so that's what I'll use too? Basically I'll have to CCA and SAR as a next step once sent, Post the mess of a divorce last year I have NONE of the paperwork (including the temination letter sent in January and posted up here) so it'll be a long haul. But I'm sick of these jokers "threatening" me so fancy turning the tables. I know they'll ignore it but it'll make me feel better and once I have the results of the CCA and SAR then I will seek legal advice. Figure I've gotta give it a go. And re having a house to loose - I'm in negative equity to the tune of £30-£40k and the mortgage company have refused me permission to sell...(anyone know if this is a breach of human rights? I've offered to pay the shortfall back over 7 years) so I sort of have nothing to loose. Already in a payment plan for £60k...!!!

 

don't know about abuse of human rights but id be interested to know by what legal basis they can prevent you selling your home!

 

If they have given you that in writing it would be very useful if you then handed the keys back and walked away at a later date

[diddydicky]

Hi DD - not what this forum is about I know, but just found the following: "If your lender refuses to let you sell the house it is possible to apply to the county court for an order for sale under the Trusts of Land & Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. The court can order a sale on whatever terms it thinks are reasonable, even if your lender objects.

In the Halifax v Barrett case the court let the borrowers sell their house for the “best possible price” even though the Halifax refused permission for the sale. The borrowers were also allowed to take the sale costs out of the sale proceeds before the money went to the lender...

 

ive had a dozen mortgages, i was a mortgage broker at one time and i have NEVER heard of a mortagagor being able tp prevent the mortgagee from selling his house

 

have you got some specialised mortgage

 

if house prices keep going down and you have lost buyers at a good price they would be in deep doo doo if it was later sold at far less than you could have got!

[diddydicky]

I've gone down the "illegal termination" of account route with Egg. I'm now at the point where the have sent the default notice. Does the default notice required a response? if so what response it recommended?

Many Thanks

 

can u post it up first (minus personal details)

[diddydicky]

Hi, apologies to reapeat what I've put on another thread. Egg have defaulted me on a loan and CC after recording one month of missed payments. They do not acknowledge my debt management plan, run by an appointed 3rd party (all other creditors have) and have not recorded any of the 6 payments (3 to each) so far received. The money is being accepted but going into a black hole. My 3rd party is looking into it. Does the DN mean that the accounts will be sold on to a DCA and anyone know what happens with the monies paid, received by Egg but not recorded against the accounts?????

 

have they sent you a default notice or a notice of default?

[diddydicky]

Will do whenever I can get to a urrgh damn scanner!! I've had a look at the other ones earlier in the thread and think it the same/similar to those! Dont expect Egg would treat me in a special way:D

 

about 10 quid on e bay or less (but dont use your egg credit card (smirk)

[diddydicky]

write back and say thank you for your letter in which you advise me that you may take legal proceedings

 

Please be advised that i may defend and counterclaim

 

yours sincereley

[diddydicky]

shove your letter up your a**e springs to mind but probably best not to!

[diddydicky]

Thank you for your letter in which you advise me that you may take legal proceedings

 

Please be advised that i may defend and counterclaim as EGG illegally terminated the contract in 2008.

 

yours sincereley

 

Or should it be will defend?

 

the whole point was that we MAY take proceedings is a load of B*llsh*t

 

all you are doing is showing them that you know it is B*shi*t and that you can B*llsh*t as well as the next guy

 

they May, you May

 

they Will you will

 

i would change illegal to unlawful

[diddydicky]

 

more bullsh*t