Egg credit card agreement terminated

[toymaker1]

I have finally heard from Egg in writing; they sent me a letter asking me to call them from Capital Collections Agencies (CCA - oh the irony!!!).

I'm hoping for some guidance on my response as I originally requested my CCA back in March to which I have had no reply but since then I wrote stating that I did not acknowledge any debt, as they terminated our agreement when it was not in default, and could I have a refund of the accidental payments I'd made since then.

 

So should I reply concentrating on 1 subject or the other?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Without going into detail about your specific situation, I thought it would be important for you to know that on no account should you respond to Egg's request that you telephone them, or the company acting for them. The main thing is to reply to Egg's letter in writing, asking them to provide a response to the points raised by you in your letter.

 

Cheers

[basa48]

I have finally heard from Egg in writing; they sent me a letter asking me to call them from Capital Collections Agencies (CCA - oh the irony!!!).

I'm hoping for some guidance on my response as I originally requested my CCA back in March to which I have had no reply but since then I wrote stating that I did not acknowledge any debt, as they terminated our agreement when it was not in default, and could I have a refund of the accidental payments I'd made since then.

 

So should I reply concentrating on 1 subject or the other?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I'd keep hitting them with both ... termination and s.78(6). Keeps them confused and on their toes. 8)

[twodogs]

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,

"

[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?

[twodogs]

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

[toymaker1]

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

 

???????????????!!!!!!

[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)

[brokebutnotbeatn]

I agree with TM1 and DD...you can't deny any debt and then say you dispute it!. No debt, no dispute. An acknowledged debt without the ability to enforce it is a different matter. Perhaps if you just start off by saying the account is in dispute for the following reasons: etc etc. Otherwise, the fact that you're writing a letter about a debt acknowledges the debt IMHO!

[twodogs]

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

[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

[twodogs]

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

[brokebutnotbeatn]

I do understand your predicament but I think you're over complicating it in your head (easy to do of course, it is all mind blowing at times!). If you simply change the wording at the beginning to say that the account is in dispute for the following reasons, then the rest is more or less ok I would say. Then, as DD says, you can play 'in dispute' ping pong for the next 6 years until it becomes statute barred. Whenever they write you can reply saying - please find enclosed by letter of XX to which you have failed to respond adequately to and if they sell the debt on then its a case of, 'bemused as the account is clearly in dispute' enclosing copies of any previous correspondence confirming that it is indeed in dispute. From what I've read on the forum, EGG are not over disposed to seeking legal action and if they do you will have everything to support your defense. You can of course continue to make token payments to them whlst all this is going on, but the debt will not become SB'd if you do. To some extent that depends on 1) your personal circumstances regarding ablity to pay, however long it takes and 2) your personal view on the matter ethically.

[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

[twodogs]

OK I have been living on a reduced income lately and I'd been making min payments to Egg for some time. I found out about the whole CCA process and figured this would buy some time or potentially get me to a position where I could make a full and final much reduced settlement to clear the whole debt. So in March 2009 I started the CCA request process.

 

I was one of those customers that got terminated in March 2008 and found toymaker's thread after I'd sent the CCA request and decided another course of action was to follow his lead and I wrote another letter along the lines of "having recently reviewed my finances I noticed I was still paying a DD to Egg after you'd terminated our agreement of your own free will and therefore had no further requirement for me to pay it"

 

All has been quiet from Egg, not a peep, until this week when I got the first Collections letter and hence my posts from yesterday.

[toymaker1]

OK I have been living on a reduced income lately and I'd been making min payments to Egg for some time. I found out about the whole CCA process and figured this would buy some time or potentially get me to a position where I could make a full and final much reduced settlement to clear the whole debt. So in March 2009 I started the CCA request process.

 

I was one of those customers that got terminated in March 2008 and found toymaker's thread after I'd sent the CCA request and decided another course of action was to follow his lead and I wrote another letter along the lines of "having recently reviewed my finances I noticed I was still paying a DD to Egg after you'd terminated our agreement of your own free will and therefore had no further requirement for me to pay it"

 

All has been quiet from Egg, not a peep, until this week when I got the first Collections letter and hence my posts from yesterday.

 

You could try a letter something like this. From what I understand of your situation this letter would fit most of your points. The main thing, always, is to keep things as simple as possible, and keep to the point:

 

Dear Capital Collections (or whoever they are)

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxx.

 

As the Debt collection agency acting on behalf of Egg in respect of my credit card agreement with Egg, 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 provided Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement with effect from 6th March 2008.

 

Also, I would be grateful if you would indicate to me the relevant section of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which provides Egg with legal entitlement to have a term in the Egg Card Agreement, specifically term 20.2, which states that Egg can end my agreement at any time.

 

In the course of acting in this matter on behalf of your client, Egg banking plc, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

 

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client are fully aware, arise from the fact that Egg terminated my Egg agreement in a manner which does not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 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.

 

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

 

Both you and your client, Egg Banking plc, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of paragraph 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

 

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.

 

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 xxxxx in which you state that court proceedings will be instituted unless I pay your client an amount of money. 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.

 

I also consider that the way in which your client have exercised their 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.

 

 

 

In the event that this matter is put before a court I will draw the court’s attention to the manner in which Capital Collections and Egg Banking plc have dealt with the dispute between Capital collections and 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.

The pre-action protocols which have been approved by the Head of Civil Justice.

I am confident that Egg, and 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.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best of luck, if you have any questions about this letter, post them on this site.

 

regards

[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

[toymaker1]

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

 

Doing a SAR to Egg could well be a good idea for twodogs to do. However, in my opinion that will not materially affect the dispute. That is because Egg will have no problem sending to twodogs a 4 inch thick file in response to his SAR. The real point though is that if twodogs wants to cut to the quick, and really catch Egg and it's DCA totally off balancem and on the back foot, then twodogs should send the letter i suggested. That will force Egg and it's DCA to confront the matter head on in a way they dont know how to deal with. My own experience has been that they just do not have an answer to the two central questions, i.e which part of CCA entitles them to terminate an account which is not in default, and which part of CCA entitles them to include in their T and C's at 20.2 that they can terminate an account "at any time".

Those two questions get to the heart of the matter.

 

regards.

[twodogs]

Thank you Toymaker; I will keep you informed.

[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.

[toymaker1]

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.

[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

[toymaker1]

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

 

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.

[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