Egg credit card agreement terminated

[lollipop73]

Report them-but who to? Who would listen?

[toymaker1]

If you believe it is quite straightforward,

if you know what the court will do,

what is your advice for Eddie about to go to court?

 

Hi Mistermind,

 

I have never said that taking Egg to court would be quite straightforward. In fact in my posts 279 and 281, in reply to cosalt's wish to take Egg to court I said:

 

"My guidance would be, dont rush into taking Egg to court. That

would be an extremely difficult and scary thing to do, which would occupy all your waking hours for several months."

 

I have never said that I know what the court will do, - no one can be sure what the court will do.

But that doesn't altar the fact that the law regarding termination is very clear, and in that sense, is straightforward.

 

If Egg terminated an agreement which was not in default simply by informing the debtor that Egg was terminating the agreement, then that is clearly outside the provisions set out in CCA 1974.

In light of that, it is also conceivable that Egg would be liable for damages to the debtor, for breaching the contract between Egg and the creditor.

I have not given any advice to Eddie. It sounds to me as if he is taking a lot of advice from people far more qualified than me.

Regards

Peter

[BEC01]

Anybody mounting a lawsuit for a group of 10 is launching class action, i.e. it will be transparently obvious to the judge, his verdict will become at worst encouragement and at best a precedent for 161,000 others in the same boat. Purely hypothetically, if the judge found himself leaning towards the verdict "cardholder no longer liable for his debt after agreement termination", he will be acutely aware his verdict will deprive Egg of 161,000 outstanding debts -- say at average £2,000 per account, then a total of £320 million. A county judge will most likely withhold a verdict triggering transfer of £320 million deeminig it more appropriate to the High Court after exhaustic examination, and if he did Egg will be certain to appeal all the way up at ruinous legal expense to all parties. Tom Brennan tried in court to take on the banks as the battering ram for millions of common folk. The judge would have none of it, ruling that battle was for the OFT-v-banks in the Test Case.

 

And if the Egg cardholder loses his lawsuit in county court? Quite likely some or all of Egg's costs will be awarded against the losing party.

 

We are fully aware of the potential implications - this is one of the reasons why we are not going to be rushing in to this.

 

We have to decide what risks are going to be acceptable to us, and also what outcome we are looking for.

 

I have never said that we would take action for a group of 10. We are just using 10 routes to Egg to glean as much information from them as we can.

 

This is potentially very big, and - as you mentioned in previous posts - it is not for a Judge to provide poetic justice, it is for them to make a judgement based on applicable law.

 

The evidence that we are gathering is really wide-ranging: some of it very serious, other just plain contempt for the consumer. We need to consider what - if any - presents a good case.

 

It is interesting times though, as we see more controversy from HBoS. I was told by an employee in August 2008 that they had begun a takeover process with Lloyds, and our Government tell us they had to react quickly!

 

Of course they didn't know about the takeover that had already been in motion for - in all likelihood - the best part of the year.

 

Our country is broke - well and truly - all the politicians are trying to do is soften the blow. We're going to see massive unemployment, lots of anger, crime through the roof, high emigration, a complete re-shaping of our economy, and probably a lot worse than we can ever imagine.

 

I'm nice and cheery today

[basa48]

I can't imagine any court ordering a creditor return all payments made against a terminated account. Even if we won. I would think it would just close all the accounts. After all how many of us have not repaid the amounts spent many times over in interest.

[basa48]

Food for thought?

 

Breach of Contract

 

(b)Termination for Breach

 

An innocent party may terminate a contract for breach either where they are expressly entitled to do so under the terms of the contract or where the breach is so serious that it is repudiatory.

 

A breach is considered to be repudiatory where there has been failure by the other party to fulfil an obligation going “to the heart” of the contract. Whether a breach reaches this test is a question of fact, and quite a high threshold to meet. It can be quite difficult to identify in all but the most obvious cases. In respect of less serious failures, the innocent party’s rights will be limited to suing for financial compensation.

 

The circumstances in which a breach will give rise to rights of termination will vary from case to case. By way of example, in a sponsorship contract, an isolated incident of the sponsor inadvertently failing to include the trade mark designation of the rights holder on a promotional poster would be very unlikely to give grounds for termination. On the other hand, applying the rights holder’s logo to products outside of the authorised product category, especially if known to conflict with other sponsorship rights, may well do so where the contract provides for rights to terminate on the grounds of a material breach.

[BEC01]

You are on the right trail.

As Toymaker quite rightly points out, Egg's termination is not within the CCA.

So, the situation requires are different approach...

All I can say without giving too much away to the spies.

 

[toymaker1]

Food for thought?

 

There is indeed much food for thought in your post.

As you correctly point out, a breach is considered repudiatory where there has been failure by the other party to fulfil an obligation going "to the heart" of the contract.

By terminating a credit card agreement which is not in default, Egg would be failing to fulfil it's contractual obligation to provide credit to the debtor. Such a failure by Egg would certainly appear to go the heart of the contract between Egg and the Egg card holder.

 

That is what I was referring to in my post 330 in reply to Mistermind, when I suggested that it is conceivable that Egg would be liable for damages to the debtor, for breaching the contract between Egg and and debtor.

 

Regards

[BEC01]

Both posts are generally correct.

There is further law that strengthens the case , but I am not going to give it away at the moment.

 

It will be made available at the appropriate time, theough.

Or you might figure it out!

[basa48]

Both posts are generally correct.

There is further law that strengthens the case , but I am not going to give it away at the moment.

 

It will be made available at the appropriate time, theough.

Or you might figure it out!

 

I'm intrigued as to when the 'appropriate time' might be ?

 

If it's any help I can provide any info you wish regarding my own situation.

 

Egg card agreement dated 2002, account not in default, 'termination' type letter Jan 2008.

 

I have CCA'd Egg and dependant upon their reply will either place in dispute or SAR them ... depends on my nerve !!!

[BEC01]

I'm intrigued as to when the 'appropriate time' might be ?

 

If it's any help I can provide any info you wish regarding my own situation.

 

Egg card agreement dated 2002, account not in default, 'termination' type letter Jan 2008.

 

I have CCA'd Egg and dependant upon their reply will either place in dispute or SAR them ... depends on my nerve !!!

 

Appropriate time is once we are happy it is useful information.

[r_007]

Hi,

 

I am new to the thread and have read almost every post with great interest beginning to end!

 

I am a trainee lawyer - however, please don't let that suggest I have any expertise in the Consumre Credit Act! I don't deal with Financial Law so I know just as much as the rest of you!

 

However, in January HSBC cancelled my credit card with immediate effect WITHOUT NOTICE and I was not in default and kept up minimum repayments etc etc. All very similar.

 

The only difference being, Egg gave consumers 35 days notice whereas I received none.

 

I have been in correspondence with HSBC who claim that they dealt with the matter within their Credit Agreement Terms.

 

They stated that the "Variation" to Terms section helped defend them - however, I am going to write back and argue that point. How can they be claiming a variation when they have "ended the agreement". There is a completely separate section in the Credit Agreement terms for "Restricting Use or Cancelling the Card". Nowhere in my credit agreement doest it say they may cancel without notice or at any time.

 

I am concerned that the s86 CCA 74 etc that are being quoted are being misquoted. These seem to only apply where an account is in default! Unless your account is in default, they can't be applicable?

 

s98 on the other hand deals with the termination of accounts that are not in default. This requires the creditor to provide minimum of 7 days' notice. HOWEVER, only applicable where the credit agreement has a specified "duration". On first appearances, credit card agreements do not come under this section.

 

This leaves me feeling uncertain as to our position. Has anybody considered that the "expiry date" of the credit card could be deemed as being the fixed duration of our credit agreement?

 

Alternatively, because the Act is silent on cancellation of credit card agreements does this mean they are well within their rights to cancel the agreement without notice. OR, as some of you seem to be claiming, can they simply not cancel a credit card agreement that isn't in default?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the law would make banks enter into lock-in agreements with no means of escape if the consumer never defaulted.

 

My main argument is that they should have given my notice...not that they weren't entitled to end my agreement? However, I am beginning to doubt even that.

 

My next argument is, however, that once the agreement has ended - does this mean no contract and therefore they cannot pursue me for the outstanding balance?

 

I am going to write to HSBC again and draft my complaint to the financial ombudsman.

 

Cheers.

[r_007]

Hi,

 

I am new to the thread and have read almost every post with great interest beginning to end!

 

I am a trainee lawyer - however, please don't let that suggest I have any expertise in the Consumre Credit Act! I don't deal with Financial Law so I know just as much as the rest of you!

 

However, in January HSBC cancelled my credit card with immediate effect WITHOUT NOTICE and I was not in default and kept up minimum repayments etc etc. All very similar.

 

The only difference being, Egg gave consumers 35 days notice whereas I received none.

 

I have been in correspondence with HSBC who claim that they dealt with the matter within their Credit Agreement Terms.

 

They stated that the "Variation" to Terms section helped defend them - however, I am going to write back and argue that point. How can they be claiming a variation when they have "ended the agreement". There is a completely separate section in the Credit Agreement terms for "Restricting Use or Cancelling the Card". Nowhere in my credit agreement doest it say they may cancel without notice or at any time.

 

I am concerned that the s86 CCA 74 etc that are being quoted are being misquoted. These seem to only apply where an account is in default! Unless your account is in default, they can't be applicable?

 

s98 on the other hand deals with the termination of accounts that are not in default. This requires the creditor to provide minimum of 7 days' notice. HOWEVER, only applicable where the credit agreement has a specified "duration". On first appearances, credit card agreements do not come under this section.

 

This leaves me feeling uncertain as to our position. Has anybody considered that the "expiry date" of the credit card could be deemed as being the fixed duration of our credit agreement?

 

Alternatively, because the Act is silent on cancellation of credit card agreements does this mean they are well within their rights to cancel the agreement without notice. OR, as some of you seem to be claiming, can they simply not cancel a credit card agreement that isn't in default?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the law would make banks enter into lock-in agreements with no means of escape if the consumer never defaulted.

 

My main argument is that they should have given my notice...not that they weren't entitled to end my agreement? However, I am beginning to doubt even that.

 

My next argument is, however, that once the agreement has ended - does this mean no contract and therefore they cannot pursue me for the outstanding balance?

 

I am going to write to HSBC again and draft my complaint to the financial ombudsman.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S Mistermind does have a point with some of things he has said in this post.

 

If it is not covered by the act, I am unsure where that leaves us. But I am positive that the law did not intend it to be that banks are stuck in a contract (where no "duration" is expressed in the agreement) until there is a default. It simply wouldn't make sense. There has to be a way of getting out for both parties.

 

The fact that many of you have got 35 days' notice is really all I wanted from my bank - not the fact that they cancelled it. My argument is based on no notice being given and that, possibly, being a breach of contract.

[Mistermind]

What did HSBC say about your outstanding card balance after blocking its further use? Some will vehemently disagree, but credit card T&Cs look to me to have 2 distinct components:

 

(1) A variable option to lend or to borrow. The card company can raise or lower their limit at will. Conforming to the principle of mutuality and reciprocity the cardholder can stop borrowing and cancelling his account at will (all in the T&Cs).

 

(2) A fixed obligation to repay the outstanding balance, i.e. minimum monthly payment. Unless monthly payments are defaulted, the card company cannot demand the outstanding balance at will (again in the T&Cs).

 

With two parts to this agreement, seems to me any card company is simply looking for trouble from litigants when it says in black and white it is "terminating the agreement". For goodness sake, terminating which of the TWO parts of the agreement? It's up to the judge.

[cds]

Don't know whether this is relevant but just found this:

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Post-contract information

requirements

July 2008

 

6.8 Under section 98 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to

terminate a regulated agreement (in non-default cases) unless he

provides the debtor with a notice of his intention to terminate at least

seven days before taking such action.

 

6.9 Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration.

 

If it was necessary to include 6.9 in the July 2008 amendments, is that because it was not there in the original 1974 act. Surely an amendment wouldnt be needed if there is already a regulation to cover it?

 

any thoughts?

 

 

 

[basa48]

Para 98

(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),

 

This reads to me that the creditor has to give 7 days notice only for (a) an agreement of specified duration, AND (b) that period hasn't already ended.

 

But so what?, no one is really bothered about notice of termination (actually the term Egg used was 'ending'), more the legality of a unilateral ending of only a part of the agreement, i.e. the debtor no longer has a credit (sorry Approved) limit to which he can spend. That part of the agreement is now removed. It is no longer a fair agreement. The agreement is broken.

[r_007]

Para 98

 

This reads to me that the creditor has to give 7 days notice only for (a) an agreement of specified duration, AND (b) that period hasn't already ended.

 

But so what?, no one is really bothered about notice of termination (actually the term Egg used was 'ending'), more the legality of a unilateral ending of only a part of the agreement, i.e. the debtor no longer has a credit (sorry Approved) limit to which he can spend. That part of the agreement is now removed. It is no longer a fair agreement. The agreement is broken.

 

It was me that was bothered about the notice provisions. In HSBC's Credit Agreement there is no express clause allowing them to cancel an agreement without notice. My card was cancelled, for no reason, without notice. So I had tried to use it and was declined! I thought this was not legal - having read the statute, it may be...but it stinks if it is.

 

However, I am also fighting with them about being bound by their agreement now that they have cancelled it.

 

So I shall keep a look out on here to see what's going on with others. A different bank I know...but the matter is very similar. I am going to the Financial Ombudsman with it too.

[toymaker1]

Hi,

 

in January HSBC cancelled my credit card with immediate effect WITHOUT NOTICE and I was not in default and kept up minimum repayments etc etc.

The only difference being, Egg gave consumers 35 days notice whereas I received none.

 

The same law applies to HSBC as applies to Egg, and as applies to the debtor (the credit card holder). That law is CCA 1974.

Under that law HSBC cannot terminate a credit card agreement which is not in default.

Even if it is in default, HSBC cannot terminate the agreement if the debtor promptly complies with the requirements (i.e. to repay the overdue amount) within the specified period, in which case the debtor's breach will be treated as not having occurred, and the agreement cannot be terminated by the creditor.

 

 

I have been in correspondence with HSBC who claim that they dealt with the matter within their Credit Agreement Terms.

 

They stated that the "Variation" to Terms section helped defend them - however, I am going to write back and argue that point. How can they be claiming a variation when they have "ended the agreement". There is a completely separate section in the Credit Agreement terms for "Restricting Use or Cancelling the Card". Nowhere in my credit agreement doest it say they may cancel without notice or at any time.

For HSBC to tell you that their termination of your agreement falls within the "variation of agreements" section 82, is a lot of tosh. Nothing in S82 of CCA 1974 provides the creditor with entitlement to terminate an agreement.

 

Has anybody considered that the "expiry date" of the credit card could be deemed as being the fixed duration of our credit agreement?

.

The expiry date of the credit card is a matter of administrative convenience and security. The agreement itself continues to exist.

 

Alternatively, because the Act is silent on cancellation of credit card agreements does this mean they are well within their rights to cancel the agreement without notice. OR, as some of you seem to be claiming, can they simply not cancel a credit card agreement that isn't in default?

.

 

The Act is not silent on cancellation. That is covered in S67 to S73. Cancellation is nothing to do with termination.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the law would make banks enter into lock-in agreements with no means of escape if the consumer never defaulted.

 

My next argument is, however, that once the agreement has ended - does this mean no contract and therefore they cannot pursue me for the outstanding balance?

 

The law does not make banks enter into lock-in agreements. They voluntarily choose to do so, within the strict terms set out by CCA1974.

 

You have provided the answer to your own last point. i.e. if there is no contract, because the creditor has voluntarily ended it, then the creditor clearly has nothing on which to base his claim for the alleged outstanding balance.

 

Regards

Peter

[toymaker1]

Don't know whether this is relevant but just found this:

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Post-contract information

requirements

July 2008

 

6.8 Under section 98 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to

terminate a regulated agreement (in non-default cases) unless he

provides the debtor with a notice of his intention to terminate at least

seven days before taking such action.

 

6.9 Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration.

 

If it was necessary to include 6.9 in the July 2008 amendments, is that because it was not there in the original 1974 act. Surely an amendment wouldnt be needed if there is already a regulation to cover it?

 

any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

My understanding is that the section you have quoted refers to agreements which are not in default.

Therefore, a termination notice is not something that is ever needed by a creditor in relation to a credit card agreement which is not default, because credit card agreements which are not in default are not, indeed cannot, be terminated by the creditor. Termination notices for accounts in default come under a separate part of CCA1974 (that is to say, not the part you quoted). In the other example you quote, the notice served at the end of a period specified in an agreement makes a "termination" notice not neccessary. - the notice is ineffect acting as a termination notice, but in a different context.

 

I hope that makes sense!

 

regards

Peter

[r_007]

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?

[BEC01]

r_007, please post a copy of the termination notice that you received.

I am most, most interested in your situation, and some of the language that you are using.,

 

 

Can you also let us know which year of your legal degree you are in?

1st, 2nd, 3rd, postgraduate.

What training have you received?

Edited February 21, 2009 by BigEddieChek
Egg on his face?!?

[cosalt]

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?

 

 

I think you are wrong, if they terminate an agreement that is not in default they are effectively turning a credit card into a personal loan at an extortionate rate and that changes the nature of the agreement.

 

A credit card is a credit card, a personal loan is a personal loan, what in the CCA 1974 allows them to do that ?

 

Just remember there is an option in the CCA for them to restrict use, which effectively means stopping any further borrowings, they have not done this. They have specifically terminated the agreement and used that word in several items of communication with me. They chose to terminate rather than restrict.

 

Terminate means to end, cancel, finish not restrict. If they terminate there is no agreement so no terms on which to repay any balance ( lets also not forget most egg CCA's are unenforcable anyway )

 

They have messed up and they know it, if they were in the right why would they be acting strangly, avoiding letters and requests for copies ?? In some cases where they have supplied a copy of the termination letter they have changed the wording from the original !

 

Egg chose to give us the account in the first place, they did not have to. The CCA 1974 is there to mostly protect the consumer, and by not allowing them to end an agreement that is not in default it is doing just that.

 

Just imagine I had £10k on my egg card and wrote them a letter saying I was terminating my agreement, they would say no way, you can't do that. Its exactly the same in reverse.

 

Egg terminated me, so I have no current agreement with them. If they took me to court how can the judge enforce an agreement that does not exist ?? I don't need legal training to understand that.

 

There is also the point that since egg terminated my agreement they have taken over £2k from my bank account against a non existant agreement. I have not given them the money, they have removed it from my account. And in my eyes that is theft, pure and simple.

 

 

 

Cosalt

[toymaker1]

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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 think you are still confusing cancellation with termination. They are two different things.

 

Cancellation by a creditor or a debtor of a credit card agreement is covered by S67-S73

 

Termination by a creditor when a credit card account is in default is covered by S86-89.

 

Termination by a creditor when an account is not in default is covered by S98.

 

termination by a debtor when an account is not in default is covered by S103.

 

Any money owed to the creditor at the time of CANCELLATION becomes repayable (S70). (Note, cancellation is NOT termination).

[BEC01]

OK, here is one of the benefits of us having several ended customers working with us.

 

We have established a trend that Egg is now aware that we (us and everyone on here) are gearing up to challenge this.

 

Quite simply, the responses have changed quite markedly over a short period of time, and they show that they do not have a clue how to deal with it. They are just hoping that no-one will take it to the courts.

 

I am maybe not being fair to r_007 here; but if that is Egg's attempt at a defence, then we are very well armed against it! Either way it has been a useful few posts.

 

Another interesting point is that one of our advisors is a former associate director of HSBC and is not aware of any credit card agreements being terminated in this manner, although they admit that it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has experienced this with HSBC.

 

Time for us to act very soon.

[thekat1979]

lets also not forget most egg CCA's are unenforcable anyway

 

What makes you say that? I'm interested as most things I've read have said that Egg CCA's are usually air tight. I'm trying to figure out if my CCA is valid at the moment (any help gratefully appreciated in my thread about Egg Online CCA)

[toymaker1]

What makes you say that? I'm interested as most things I've read have said that Egg CCA's are usually air tight. I'm trying to figure out if my CCA is valid at the moment (any help gratefully appreciated in my thread about Egg Online CCA)

 

Egg's T/C's are not airtight.

For example, term 20.2 "we can end this Agreement at any time" is not enforceable within the provisions of the CCA 1974.

S173 of CCA 1974 clearly indicates that Egg term 20.2 is void, i.e not enforceable, because 20.2 is inconsistent with the provisions of S86 87 and 88 of CCA1974, which is intended for the protection of the debtor against the imposition of such terms as 20.2.

 

Regards