Egg credit card agreement terminated

[thekat1979]

Nobody has ben able to tell me if there are any technical points which make the ONLINE agreements unenforceable.

[ftd]

Nobody has ben able to tell me if there are any technical points which make the ONLINE agreements unenforceable.

 

The newer online agreements probably are enforceable!

[basa48]

Hi. I believe the agreement is unenforceable anyway - not for the 'approved limit' wording, but for the fact that interest and credit charges only reference balance transfers & cash advances and omit interest for purchases

 

AND (which may be important for everyone who had their rate raised)

 

Does NOT mention it is variable.

 

Is that a requirement?

 

FTD

 

I think the variable argument only applies to agreements after 2005, and is thus unenforceable only if the courts decide it so.

[thekat1979]

Mine is a 2006 (Feb) agreement.

[basa48]

Mine is a 2006 (Feb) agreement.

 

You need to compare your agreement with the requirements of Schedule 6 and schedule 1 of the 1983 regs amended 2005.

 

Lack of schedule 6 terms make it unenforceable; lack of schedule 1 terms make it enforceable only by the court if it thinks fit.

[thekat1979]

If memory serves me correctly they didn't include a 'right to cancel' bit on the online application, but someone said that they could have e-mailed it to me, but I don't recall having that e-mail. It certainly wasn't on what I signed, with my electronic signature. I believe that is the only thing missing.

[phatram]

Any help with an answer to the following please.

 

 

 

 

 

I do like the "we will terminate your credit card agreement" bit, FOOLS !

 

Anyone else had one of these?

What should I do?

[ftd]

Anyone else had one of these?

What should I do?

 

Reply along the lines of:

 

IMPORTANT YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

 

I refer to the agreement which you entered into with me. you are in breach of the CCA 1974 which requires you to supply me with a revolving credit facility, that I will make payments to, until such time as you inform me in writing that the agreement has ended between us without a default notice being served.

In light of having written notification from you that agreement has ended without receiving a default notice, and the terms and conditions plainly state that the agreement shall remain until I have repaid all amounts I owe you, you are required before the date shown below, to remedy the situation by either asking me to enter into a new agreement with you for the amounts you believe are outstanding on the account, or confirm in writing that the account has been closed,

 

Date you must act by:.................

 

or risk either:

Instructing my solicitors to begin legal procedings for breach of contract or sharing information you hold about me with third parties without my consent

 

signed......

 

 

 

 

FTD (dont sign it my name though!)

[thekat1979]

Well, I got a default notice, and I wrote to them telling them that the account was in dispute. Got an e-mail today from a company called HSL regarding my Egg account - I think lol - so looks like they have defaulted and sold on.

 

NOT a happy bunny.

[basa48]

Reply along the lines of:

 

IMPORTANT YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

 

I refer to the agreement which you entered into with me. you are in breach of the CCA 1974 which requires you to supply me with a revolving credit facility, that I will make payments to, until such time as you inform me in writing that the agreement has ended between us without a default notice being served.

In light of having written notification from you that agreement has ended without receiving a default notice, and the terms and conditions plainly state that the agreement shall remain until I have repaid all amounts I owe you, you are required before the date shown below, to remedy the situation by either asking me to enter into a new agreement with you for the amounts you believe are outstanding on the account, or confirm in writing that the account has been closed,

 

Date you must act by:.................

 

or risk either:

Instructing my solicitors to begin legal procedings for breach of contract or sharing information you hold about me with third parties without my consent

 

signed......

 

 

 

 

FTD (dont sign it my name though!)

 

You all need to be quite sure what outcome you want from this approach.

 

As I read it, under breach of contract law, one remedy is to terminate the account, but there is also a choice of returning the contract to a state prior to the breach. I'm not sure who's choice that is the complainant or the court.

 

Similarly under CCA 1974 140B (as amended by CCA 2006 para 19) the court could apply various remedies not all requiring cessation of the agreement.

[toymaker1]

Reply along the lines of:

 

I refer to the agreement which you entered into with me. you are in breach of the CCA 1974 which requires you to supply me with a revolving credit facility, that I will make payments to, until such time as you inform me in writing that the agreement has ended between us without a default notice being served.

 

 

There is nothing in CCA 1974 which entitles a credit card company to inform a credit card holder in writing that the credit card company has ended the credit card agreement without a default notice being served.

 

Regards

[basa48]

There is nothing in CCA 1974 which entitles a credit card company to inform a credit card holder in writing that the credit card company has ended the credit card agreement without a default notice being served.

 

Regards

 

I think that's what ftd was getting at ... Egg can't inform him of any such facility, 'cos there ain't one !!

[toymaker1]

I think that's what ftd was getting at ... Egg can't inform him of any such facility, 'cos there ain't one !!

 

I take your point, but if you read it carefully it does appear, on the face of it, as if ftd was suggesting that phatram should write a reply to Egg which included an explicit acceptance that the agreement would continue until Egg wrote to phatram saying that the agreement was ended without a default having occured.

Maybe it was just badly drafted, or maybe I have misread it.

[ftd]

I take your point, but if you read it carefully it does appear, on the face of it, as if ftd was suggesting that phatram should write a reply to Egg which included an explicit acceptance that the agreement would continue until Egg wrote to phatram saying that the agreement was ended without a default having occured.

Maybe it was just badly drafted, or maybe I have misread it.

 

Likely badly drafted.

 

The points I was trying to get across is getting Eggs admission that an agreement no longer exist by either:

 

1. Asking to enter into a new one for the alleged amount outstanding.

2. Or confirm that they are not pursuing a debt.

 

and

3. Ensuring the right to process personal details ended when they ended the agreement.

 

FTD

[ftd]

You all need to be quite sure what outcome you want from this approach.

 

As I read it, under breach of contract law, one remedy is to terminate the account, but there is also a choice of returning the contract to a state prior to the breach. I'm not sure who's choice that is the complainant or the court.

 

Similarly under CCA 1974 140B (as amended by CCA 2006 para 19) the court could apply various remedies not all requiring cessation of the agreement.

 

I'm trying to look at it how a judge (or an impartial ordinary person) would see the terms of the agreement that I signed up to (whether egg can prove they are part of the same document that I signed or not - thats another issue) If I chose to go to court over Egg continuing to chase me for a debt that I no longer see existing by my understanding of the plain English used in the T&Cs:

 

1. The T&C's say the agreement will continue until the debt has been paid (or thereabouts) Irrespective of what else the T&C's go on to say?

 

2. The wording Egg used in the 'termination letter was 'We are Ending our agreement' on xx/xx/xx!

 

Or am I missing something?

FTD

[toymaker1]

1. The T&C's say the agreement will continue until the debt has been paid (or thereabouts) Irrespective of what else the T&C's go on to say?

 

Or am I missing something?

FTD

 

Hi,

I think the thing you're missing is that CCA1974 overrides anything in the T&C's which is not consistent with CCA1974, e.g. the T&C which says the agreement will continue until the debt has been paid has no legal force whatsoever, because it does not match up with anything in CCA1974.

S173 of CCA1974 says that a term contained in a regulated agreement is void if it is inconsistent with a provision contained in CCA1974.

The T&C saying that the Egg agreement will continue until the debt has been paid is inconsistent with S87 and S88 for a start.

 

Regards

[ftd]

Hi,

I think the thing you're missing is that CCA1974 overrides anything in the T&C's which is not consistent with CCA1974, e.g. the T&C which says the agreement will continue until the debt has been paid has no legal force whatsoever, because it does not match up with anything in CCA1974.

S173 of CCA1974 says that a term contained in a regulated agreement is void if it is inconsistent with a provision contained in CCA1974.

The T&C saying that the Egg agreement will continue until the debt has been paid is inconsistent with S87 and S88 for a start.

 

Regards

 

I understand your point - the agreement is for 'rolling credit' where the balance is irrelevant and should continue until I terminate it by either:

 

'defaulting'

or

paying up and writing in that I wish to end it.

 

but taking at face value the T&C's, anyone who agrees with the T&C's would have to conclude that Egg terminated the agreement (whilst not in default)... In doing so is notice that no debt is owed, the termination letter never mentioned limiting use of the account (is limiting use of the account also in breach of the act?)

 

FTD

[toymaker1]

I understand your point - the agreement is for 'rolling credit' where the balance is irrelevant and should continue until I terminate it by either:

 

'defaulting'

or

paying up and writing in that I wish to end it.

 

but taking at face value the T&C's, anyone who agrees with the T&C's would have to conclude that Egg terminated the agreement (whilst not in default)... In doing so is notice that no debt is owed, the termination letter never mentioned limiting use of the account (is limiting use of the account also in breach of the act?)

 

FTD

My understanding of the position is that where Egg has chosen, of it's own volition, and with no default by the other party to the agreement/contract (i.e the credit card holder), to terminate the agreement/contract, then in such a situation Egg has voluntarily given up any right to demand from the other party (the credit card holder) any money which had been due under the agreement/contract. By itself terminating the agreement/contract, has forfeited any rights under the agreement/contract, which no longer is in existence.

[phatram]

Any chance of one of the legal eagles doing a template letter for us to send ?

[toymaker1]

Any chance of one of the legal eagles doing a template letter for us to send ?

 

This is a letter I sent. - I haven't heard anything since January!

(note that the most important part of this letter is paragraph 4)

 

xxxxxxx Solicitors

 

 

Our Ref: xxxxx

Your Ref:xxxxxxx

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

Re: Termination by Egg of Egg Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter of (date)

 

1.

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, ARC (Europe) Ltd, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client are fully aware, are set out in my letters xxxx to xxxx inclusive. As you know, paragraph 2.8 k. of the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003, updated in December 2006, makes it clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. I look forward to the results of your investigation.

3.

In the event that the dispute between Egg Banking plc and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

3a

Both you and your client. ARC (Europe) Ltd, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of paragraph 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3b.

Both you and your client have ignored and disregarded the fact, of which both you and your client are fully aware, that the debt claimed by Egg Banking plc is disputed by me, and both you and your client have continued to make unjustified demands for payment, in breach of paragraphs 2.6h. and 2.8i. of the OFT Debt collection Guidance.

3c.

Both you and your client have communicated with me in a manner which presents information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression, and exploits my lack of knowledge, for example, my lack of knowledge of the law in relation to your own. Specifically, I am referring to your letter dated xxxx in which you state that the issue of court proceedings will mean that the amount I owe your client will increase. You also state that I can stop the claim being issued and the debt increasing by paying in full now. I consider that this amounts to unfair business practice, psychological harassment and a misrepresentation of the correct legal position within the terms of paragraphs 2.2b, 2.3, 2.6f, 2.10a, 2.10b of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

3d

I also consider your client’s actions amount to psychological harassment within the terms of section 2.6h. of the OFT Guidelines, in that your client has ignored and disregarded the fact that I have reasonably queried and disputed the debt.

3e

I also consider that the way in which your client has exercised his rights under the agreement amount to an unfair relationship in terms of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

4.

As the solicitors acting for ARC (Europe) Ltd you will be aware that the credit card agreement between Egg and myself is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, therefore I would be grateful if you would indicate to me the relevant section of the Act which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement with effect from 6th March 2008.

5.

In the event that this matter is put before a court I will draw the court’s attention to the manner in which Trevor Munn Solicitors have dealt with the dispute between Egg Banking plc and myself, particularly in relation to,

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The Data Protection Act 1998,

The Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and Unfair Business Practices (Updated December 2006),

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,

The Credit Services Association Code Of Practice.

I am confident that Egg, or the parties acting on behalf of Egg will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters xxxx to xxxxx.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

Peter

Edited April 15, 2009 by toymaker1
deleted identifying references

[basa48]

My understanding of the position is that where Egg has chosen, of it's own volition, and with no default by the other party to the agreement/contract (i.e the credit card holder), to terminate the agreement/contract, then in such a situation Egg has voluntarily given up any right to demand from the other party (the credit card holder) any money which had been due under the agreement/contract. By itself terminating the agreement/contract, has forfeited any rights under the agreement/contract, which no longer is in existence.

 

I see and agree with where you are coming from with this......but, where does it get us that Egg acted 'illegally' in sending the letter. As far as Egg is concerned the agreement continues until the debt is repaid. So how do we fight that stance by Egg. They won't agree with our view. Take them to court and explain they have acted contrary to s87/88 and thus the letter is voided via s173? (Is a letter a 'term' as stated in s173??).

 

The judge 'voids' the letter, we get our agreement back as it was and Egg just limits the credit available to your debit balance (which is what they should have done in the first place).

[toymaker1]

where does it get us that Egg acted 'illegally' in sending the letter. As far as Egg is concerned the agreement continues until the debt is repaid. So how do we fight that stance by Egg. They won't agree with our view. Take them to court and explain they have acted contrary to s87/88 and thus the letter is voided via s173? (Is a letter a 'term' as stated in s173??).

 

The judge 'voids' the letter, we get our agreement back as it was and Egg just limits the credit available to your debit balance (which is what they should have done in the first place).

 

Egg did not act 'illegally' in sending the letter; Egg acted 'illegally' in terminating the agreement.

The judge will not 'void' the letter; the judge will void the terms in the Egg agreement which are inconsistent with CCA1974.

In the scenario you have described, Egg would clearly be liable for severe punishment for it's serious breach of consumer credit/data protection/debt collection laws and guidelines.

For example, a judge could- and probably would - impose severe punishment and fines against a credit card company for breaching S140 of CCA140, not to mention numerous breaches of other related contract law etc.

Then their would be the massive public humiliation and embarrisement

for such companies if they lost in court.

All credit card agreements in future would have to be worded to fully comply with consumer credit law i.e. there would be a level playing field between creditor and credit card holder, - which up to now there hasn't been.

Also, I cant really understand youre objection to the agreement being restored to it's original state, provided compensation and/or punishment is given where appropriate. - all law works on that principle of restoring the status quo.

 

In my own case, I have told Egg clearly that I consider they have breached CCA1974, and I have not paid them a penny since then.

I'm not sure what else you can expect to happen.

 

Regards

Peter

[ftd]

I see and agree with where you are coming from with this......but, where does it get us that Egg acted 'illegally' in sending the letter. As far as Egg is concerned the agreement continues until the debt is repaid. So how do we fight that stance by Egg. They won't agree with our view. Take them to court and explain they have acted contrary to s87/88 and thus the letter is voided via s173? (Is a letter a 'term' as stated in s173??).

 

The judge 'voids' the letter, we get our agreement back as it was and Egg just limits the credit available to your debit balance (which is what they should have done in the first place).

 

 

I think Egg would still need to prove that they are entitled to limit the use of the account, which they say they can do if they suspect fraudulent use etc (Do they actually have a right to reduce the amount of credit available on an account not in default?)

 

Then again, we're back to the arguement on the enforceability of the agreement!

 

FTD

[toymaker1]

Do they actually have a right to reduce the amount of credit available on an account not in default?

 

Yes, any time they like. - see S98(4) of CCA1974.

 

Regards

[basa48]

Egg did not act 'illegally' in sending the letter; Egg acted 'illegally' in terminating the agreement.

The judge will not 'void' the letter; the judge will void the terms in the Egg agreement which are inconsistent with CCA1974.

In the scenario you have described, Egg would clearly be liable for severe punishment for it's serious breach of consumer credit/data protection/debt collection laws and guidelines.

For example, a judge could- and probably would - impose severe punishment and fines against a credit card company for breaching S140 of CCA140, not to mention numerous breaches of other related contract law etc.

Then their would be the massive public humiliation and embarrisement

for such companies if they lost in court.

All credit card agreements in future would have to be worded to fully comply with consumer credit law i.e. there would be a level playing field between creditor and credit card holder, - which up to now there hasn't been.

Also, I cant really understand youre objection to the agreement being restored to it's original state, provided compensation and/or punishment is given where appropriate. - all law works on that principle of restoring the status quo.

 

In my own case, I have told Egg clearly that I consider they have breached CCA1974, and I have not paid them a penny since then.

I'm not sure what else you can expect to happen.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Yeh that is clearer now.

 

I did write to Egg along the same lines a while ago saying the termination contravened s87/88 and was laible to remedies in 140B etc. (Heard nothing).

 

It would be catastrophic for Egg if they lost an action about this issue in court (think 160,000 x av £200/month repayments not collectable).