Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

They would be open to much more than that Basa.

 

It is also arguable that some people may have continued to pay as they felt under threat to do so.

 

That is a very serious situation. It is not unreasonable for the lay person to think that the agreement has ended, but be frightened into continuing to pay under threat of CCJ or other punitive action.

[cab1ne]

They would be open to much more than that Basa.

 

It is also arguable that some people may have continued to pay as they felt under threat to do so.

 

That is a very serious situation. It is not unreasonable for the lay person to think that the agreement has ended, but be frightened into continuing to pay under threat of CCJ or other punitive action.

 

and the possibility of reducing the arrears on the default

 

cab

[toymaker1]

 

 

 

 

It is significant that Egg, in their ‘termination’ letter, do not mention any clauses from CCA 1974,...... Their sole reliance is on this clause 20 of the terms and conditions we are supposed to have signed up to.

 

If Egg are relying solely on clause 20 of their T&C's, then they are doomed.

It is clear that clause 20 is totally inconsistent with the provisions of CCA 1974, and is consequently a void term.

 

Any judge would recognize that if Egg's clause 20 was allowed to stand, then the CCA1974 would be rendered completely meaningless.

[BEC01]

Section 98 of the CCA is particularly powerful in this case.

[basa48]

If Egg are relying solely on clause 20 of their T&C's, then they are doomed.

It is clear that clause 20 is totally inconsistent with the provisions of CCA 1974, and is consequently a void term.

 

Any judge would recognize that if Egg's clause 20 was allowed to stand, then the CCA1974 would be rendered completely meaningless.

Similar clauses apparently allowing the lender to end the agreement after giving notice appear in many credit agreements.

[basa48]

Section 98 of the CCA is particularly powerful in this case.

Not sure why you think this since it only applies to fixed term agreements? It does not mention running accounts nor bar this ending of running accounts.

[BEC01]

Not sure why you think this since it only applies to fixed term agreements? It does not mention running accounts nor bar this ending of running accounts.

 

It fixes the argument, basically.

 

If that makes sense?

[diddydicky]

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—

55

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement,

 

seems pretty clear to me that it does!!

[basa48]

Depends how you read it.

 

I read it as:

 

He's not entitled to terminate the agreement - but this applies only to fixed term agreements.

[toymaker1]

Similar clauses apparently allowing the lender to end the agreement after giving notice appear in many credit agreements.

Exactly. - and they are all void terms.

I discovered this myself when doing research after Egg terminated my account 2 years ago. I was astonished that this has been permitted to continue, and no one seems to have noticed it. But there you go.

[toymaker1]

Not sure why you think this since it only applies to fixed term agreements? It does not mention running accounts nor bar this ending of running accounts.

I think what BEC01 is saying is that because S98 states that S98 only applies to accounts which have a fixed duration, then S98 clearly does not apply to running account agreements (i.e credit cards), which do not have a fixed duration, and that consequently creditors cannot use S98 to terminate credit card accounts, and that therefore S98 is particularly powerful insofar as it makes it absolutely clear that credit card accounts cannot be terminated under the provisions of S98.

[toymaker1]

Depends how you read it.

 

I read it as:

 

He's not entitled to terminate the agreement - but this applies only to fixed term agreements.

Thats right, - he's not entitled to terminate credit card agreements (running account agreements with no fixed term) but is permitted to terminate fixed term agreements because, as you have correctly observed, S98 applies only to fixed term agreements.

[cosalt]

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—

55

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement,

 

seems pretty clear to me that it does!!

 

I read that as the creditor can terminate a regulated agreement by giving not less than seven days notice, unless a period for the duration is specified in which case they can't terminate.

[cosalt]

IMO it doesnt say that s98 doesnt apply to other agreements, it says its terms do apply to fixed duration agreements.

 

if that makes sense?

[toymaker1]

IMO it doesnt say that s98 doesnt apply to other agreements, it says its terms do apply to fixed duration agreements.

 

if that makes sense?

 

S98(1) states that S98 applies only where a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, therefore it is very clear that S98 does not apply to agreements where the duration of the agreement is NOT specified in the agreement - i.e. credit card agreements - i.e Egg agreements.

[diddydicky]

Depends how you read it.

 

I read it as:

 

He's not entitled to terminate the agreement - but this applies only to fixed term agreements.

 

which is the opposite of what you said in post 1176

 

quote

 

Not sure why you think this since it only applies to fixed term agreements? It does not mention running accounts nor bar this ending of running accounts.

 

??

[diddydicky]

IMO it doesnt say that s98 doesnt apply to other agreements, it says its terms do apply to fixed duration agreements.

 

if that makes sense?

 

no i don't think it does,

 

if it applied to all types of agreement then it would not have gone out of its way to point out that it applies only to fixed term agreements

 

it is as clear as a pikestaff what it means

 

98 (2) quite clearly says that 98 (1) is subject to 98(2) (it does not say that only parts of 98(1) are subject to 98(2)

Edited March 5, 2010 by diddydicky

[BEC01]

I think what BEC01 is saying is that because S98 states that S98 only applies to accounts which have a fixed duration, then S98 clearly does not apply to running account agreements (i.e credit cards), which do not have a fixed duration, and that consequently creditors cannot use S98 to terminate credit card accounts, and that therefore S98 is particularly powerful insofar as it makes it absolutely clear that credit card accounts cannot be terminated under the provisions of S98.

 

Yes Toymaker, that is exactly what I am getting at.

[diddydicky]

spot on

[cosalt]

Ok I understand now !!

[basa48]

which is the opposite of what you said in post 1176

 

quote

 

Not sure why you think this since it only applies to fixed term agreements? It does not mention running accounts nor bar this ending of running accounts.

 

??

 

OK Try it this way - the clause that stops a creditor terminating an agreement only applies to fixed term agreements. It does NOT apply to running account agreements. Therefore he CAN terminate a running account agreement.

 

Does that make sense?

[toymaker1]

OK Try it this way - the clause that stops a creditor terminating an agreement only applies to fixed term agreements. It does NOT apply to running account agreements. Therefore he CAN terminate a running account agreement.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I agree that it can be easy to misinterpret the provisions of CCA in respect of termination of an agreement by a creditor. It is for that reason that the Government issued Explanatory Notes in 2006 to set out clearly what each section of CCA meant, and what was intended.

Section 14 of the 2006 Explanatory Notes puts an end to any possible misinterpretation in respect of termination of a credit card agreement by a creditor.

It states that if the creditor wishes to terminate the agreement, then he must give the creditor a default notice.

To put that in plain language, omitting the legal jargon, it means that if the creditor wishes to terminate the agreement, then he must give the creditor a default notice.

To keep questioning on what basis a creditor can terminate is a pointless waste of time.

By the way, the creditor also cannot say "we can end this agreement at any time".

I know they all say it in their T/C's - but it is a void term within the meaning of S173 of CCA.

 

The 2006 Explanatory Notes definitively spells spells out what it

[BEC01]

I take my hat of to Mr Toymaker.

 

[basa48]

I agree that it can be easy to misinterpret the provisions of CCA in respect of termination of an agreement by a creditor. It is for that reason that the Government issued Explanatory Notes in 2006 to set out clearly what each section of CCA meant, and what was intended.

Section 14 of the 2006 Explanatory Notes puts an end to any possible misinterpretation in respect of termination of a credit card agreement by a creditor.

It states that if the creditor wishes to terminate the agreement, then he must give the creditor a default notice.

To put that in plain language, omitting the legal jargon, it means that if the creditor wishes to terminate the agreement, then he must give the creditor a default notice.

To keep questioning on what basis a creditor can terminate is a pointless waste of time.

By the way, the creditor also cannot say "we can end this agreement at any time".

I know they all say it in their T/C's - but it is a void term within the meaning of S173 of CCA.

 

The 2006 Explanatory Notes definitively spells spells out what it

 

I don't disagree, but I like to look at everything from every angle not just the one favourable to the debtor.

 

Best be aware of all possible counter arguments n'est pas?

[diddydicky]

I don't disagree, but I like to look at everything from every angle not just the one favourable to the debtor.

 

Best be aware of all possible counter arguments n'est pas?

 

nothing wrong with playing devils advocate but always bearing in mind that we have lots of newbies and others on the forum who do not/cannot. follow the intracacies of the law to the same level of competence and who we don't want to confuse or de motivate to act

 

sometimes pays to concede a point so that others are not left confused