Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

It is their standard response.

I have seen exactly the same letter.

 

CCA route is definitely the easiest route, but the termination of contract has a lot of further possibilities as Steven has pointed out.

 

EGG seem not to be reporting our non-payers to the CRAs!!!

 

I wonder why...

[BEC01]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You are quite correct.

We are taking several routes with Egg on this one and they have got their knickers in quite a twist.

 

Not taken action against them yet, but it is highly likely that we will.

 

Although the CCA route is a proven one, and is probably best for the individual claimant.

[BEC01]

Just to pass on a further bit of advice.

Egg know that all the accounts that they sent the termination letter to have unenforceable CCAs.

 

They did an audit on all of their agreements prior to their sale a few years back.

 

The ones deemed unenforceable thus received the termination letter.

 

Sit tight, let them take you to court (which is unlikely to happen), and ignore any threatening letters.

 

Of course, you will get a default on your credit file - but that just means no more debt for 6 years.

 

Is that really such a bad thing?

 

[BEC01]

One also has to ponder the stability of the aforementioned company within the current economic climate in the US...

[BEC01]

I can also vouch for that Moorcroft can be shaken off.

 

Avoid telephone contact, but some carefully worded letters can be invaluable.

 

I share many of the sentiments on here though.

 

Does anyone know how many cases actually go to the courts?

It will almost certainly be the minority who do not give in to the bullying of these companies.

 

Egg are going to be severely tested in the courts over the next 6 - 12 months.

I would be very surprised to see them come out of it, to be honest.

 

Just sit tight, and take a slow, measured approach.

 

[BEC01]

Incidentally Big Eddie, how is your class action of no response going?

 

Letters requesting direct debits to be re-setup ceased, then secure message alerts ceased.

 

After that several phone calls that were answered with a response "Sorry you have the wrong number". They stopped.

 

Several letters from CCA - who are actually Egg. This is, of course required by law, confirmed on the footers of their letters.

 

After that, been quiet for a month. We are confident that they will not take it to court.

 

I'd be interested to hear if anyone HAS actually been taken to court by Egg

[BEC01]

I can only tell you what I would do/have done.

My experience is that it wont really be useful to your case. - Egg will just send you a copy of your agreement. It may well have certain technical irregularites, but it will be of a sufficent nature for Egg to put to a court.

I contrast with, for example Halifax or Morgan Stanley, who usually cannot provide a proper copy, if they do it is usually unreadable (which is illegal), so there is usually some useful stuff to be obtained from asking Halifax or Morgan Stanley for CCA.

But in your Egg situation (same as mine) the matter totally revolves around Egg's unlawful termination of your Egg credit card agreement. I suggest you totally focus on that. Egg cannot get around it.

 

I think this is good advice.

Several people have just went the direct route with a final response along the lines of, "Go on then Egg, take us to court". Then the mighty Egg fell silent.

 

They know they made a mess with the termination letter. They also know that the terminated accounts were likely unenforceable.

 

Don't give in to the bullies. They are bullying because they know they are weak.

[BEC01]

Bump.

[BEC01]

Many thanks for the words of wisdom Liz!

 

Ignoring Egg appears to have been very effective so far too.

You are right, they attempt to bully vulnerable people into paying what they cannot afford.

[BEC01]

Had a very clear additional opinion on this termination letter.

Without giving too much away, if you received this, Egg will not go to court if you challenge it.

 

They messed-up big time with this.

 

[BEC01]

HI

 

Creit accounts of no fixed period can be terminated without notice,

 

OFT 1002 Post contractual information

"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

So there is no specified form for a temination they can call it terminating or anything they like, doesnt make any differnce.

 

Which also means they can temiate as many times as they like. it is not like a section87 termiunation.

Peter

 

Indeed they can Peter.

Furthermore, where there is any outstanding balance, that is then no longer standing as there is no agreement to govern it.

 

Egg messed-up big time with this.

 

[BEC01]

I always thought the Act trumped OFT Guidance?

 

Anyway the guidance was issued July 2008, 6 months after Egg issued the letter (to me at least)!

 

There has been a lot of scrambling about with this.

BASA, if you received the original termination, stand your ground.

 

Egg are scuppered with this one.

 

[BEC01]

Peter, you are missing some crucial points in terms of contracts as agreed governance over certain conditions.

 

Discuss...

[BEC01]

Peter, if anything governed by a mutually agreed contract exists beyond termination of the agreement, then what is the point of the agreement?

 

I, partially, agree that a contract can be terminated.

However, should an agreement that governed a service be removed, then the services are also deemed to have been removed.

 

Your above posts make no sense.

[BEC01]

Hi

 

No i will answer this becausei can see where you have the problem ,i have the same uneasyness with this.

 

In rankine the judge held that a section 78 request could not be made because it had been terminated and therefore was not under an agreement.

 

This judgement was challenged by Proff Goode in his paper following the case who said that the termintion was simply the trermination of the function of the agreemnt not the agreement itself.

The is in essance the the anolgy i used earlier that your friend found so amusing. THe solicitor that i got it from has some 29 years experiance as a solicitor in contract law so yes he does know a little on the subject.

 

But as i said erlier i have never been entirely comfortable with this.

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

I agree.

However, where the agreement has been explicitly terminated, there can be no confusion.

 

If, as you say, certain parts of the services had been terminated, then it would have been perfectly lawful too. Probably within their terms and conditions.

 

Egg just got their language in their letter fatally wrong, in my solicitors' opinions.

 

It is proving very difficult to get Egg to take anyone to court where this is the dispute.

 

I suspect it is a much more secure route than the enforceability route, although that appears to have a certain amount of merit too.

 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss Peter.

[BEC01]

Let's not give too much away here guys...

[BEC01]

BASA, you covered a very important point.

The fact that the words "terminate" and "end" were used make their intention very clear.

 

Everything has been brought to a final conclusion.

 

Furthermore, the gave an explicit date at which everything was to end.

 

There is not a cat's chance in hell that there could be any other conclusion to this (or at least that is what I have been advised by a PROPER lawyer).

 

Several of our group have ASKED Egg to take them to court, yet it has never happened.

 

I wonder why...

[BEC01]

Question to Peter Bard or anyone else.

 

I received the termination letter while not in default or behind with payments.

I sent a subject acess request to Egg, they replied that they would send what they believed was relavent dispite the fact that I asked for complete disclosure. I asked them to define what they thought was relavent to which I received no answer.

When the SARs came through there was no termination letter, (I have mine anyway).

My question is why would they withhold this document if what they have done is correct. I am not the only one not to have received the termination letter as part of a SARs request or even if requested seperately.

 

Yes, they have also varied the termination letter when pushed for a copy. Obviously they thought that the original had been lost and sent a variation out. Make of that what you will...

 

BigEddie. Very interesting - if I understand you correctly. I was terminated by Egg - not behind with any payments at the time. If several of your group (can I join this group?) are asking Egg to take them to court knowing that Egg won't do that, are you saying that the Egg agreement is unenforceable ?

I have sent a CPR letter to the Egg DCA (ARC/Trevor Munn) who have replied saying that the matter is now on hold. Should I be having sleepless nights ? January 2006 was the date of the Egg agreement.

 

Firstly, we are a group of professionals who were miffed about the way Egge were treating us. So, we chipped in together and have paid several thousand to get expert advice. Based on that we stopped payment, recouped the costs, and have since struggled to get Egg to take us to court. They have also been extremely quiet in contacting us either directly or via DCA's. This is most unusual as the combined balances are almost £200k.

 

Secondly, we have not taken the enforceability route as it is not specifically our issue. We think ending and agreement, then continuing to run an unregulated credit facility has serious legal implications...

[BEC01]

Absolutely, there are no terms or conditions of which to govern any facility.

There are several very subtle parts of law outwith consumer credit law which absolutely nails Egg.

 

I expect that £200k is minor compared to a precedent being set for the other 159,980 "terminees".

 

The question for us is if it is worth us instigation action...

[BEC01]

I wonder whether that would work......I think that you should take them to court .that's what I'm getting advice about...................I am not sure that they would want to take risk..............

 

The advice we are getting is that they [Egg] are unlikely to take the risk.

A strong representative [for the Client] would cause a lot of problems.

 

It's a bit of a stand-off. None of the group care about credit ratings, so are happy to wait to be taken to court. However, to take Egg to court is rather tempting, it is just a case of weighing up the risks...

 

It's a very interesting situation.

[BEC01]

Hi

This just gets more bizzare. Take them to court on what, breach of agreement, what agrement you just said there isnt one.

 

If it is unlawful termination the you are saying the agrement isnt terminated so you are stil liableto repay.

 

Confused

 

Peter

 

Well, think of it this way.

No agreement, but still using threatening behaviour if payments are not still made.

 

Make sense?

[BEC01]

I think Peter just doesn't really understand.

He is trying to say that a terminated agreement still can exist.

 

I can say unequivocally that this is not at all possible: in law anyway.

 

He may be misunderstanding certain restrictions within contracts that may be construed as termination.

 

The special case of default requires the borrower to agree to repay a balance on default as part of the t&cs.

 

However, there is nothing in contractual law that allows a termination of contract by the service provider, yet a continuation of the pertinent service.

 

Egg should have written and withdrawn card services only (as they have subsequently done). Plus, they know that the 160,000 + agreements are unenforceable anyways - or at least from their internal audit...

[BEC01]

Basa, that is exactly the point.

It is common in contracts, in fact one could consider it as standard.

 

Anyone find anything like this in their Egg agreements?

 

;-)

[BEC01]

I also think this is what Peter's understanding of certain conditions that remain, even upon termination of contract, is based on.

 

If that is so, then he is correct.

 

It is a very important provision to make should any part of a contract be required to perpetuate.

 

Otherwise; terminate, end - or other words that mean to bring to a final point or conclusion - means exactly that. As has been pointed out earlier, there are barrel loads of cases to back this up. Hence this now - almost - ubiquitous term in contracts.

 

Now, this is not legal advice, and I am no lawyer, but would you be going to court with this if you were Egg?

[BEC01]

As far as I am aware, nobody has taken this to court.

 

I would think it is highly unlikely that anyone will take Egg to court, and vice versa.

 

Although for £2.5k plus interest, it may be worth considering making the first move?

 

My personal feeling is that if you can live with a default on your credit file, then Egg will go no further if contested on this point.

 

Bit of a skin off each other's nose situation. Just depends on your point of view.