Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

Have you been taking advice, Sir?

[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.

[BEC01]

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

[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?

[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.

[BEC01]

I take my hat of to Mr Toymaker.

 

[BEC01]

So - the question remains. Does the termination by Egg when the account is not in arrears mean that the agreement/debt is unenforceable ? No lengthy explanations please. Yes or No.

 

A direct answer, yes.

It no longer exists, therefore cannot be enforced.

[BEC01]

Sorry to join in the argument here, but I would say that Toymaker is not in the slightest bit confused.

 

Something no-one has mentioned recently is that people may have felt intimidated into continuing to pay, even though they felt that the agreement did no longer exist. Let's face it, the threat of CCJ, or doorstep collection is very frightening to most people.

 

That is one of the many aspects that makes Egg's actions rather serious...

[BEC01]

I am baffled as to why so many caggers still keep saying that CCA does not address termination of non-default cases. it has been posted many times, but caggers wont believe it. Just read CCA.

S98 addresses the termination of non default account (i.e. it is the part of CCA, and the only part, which addresses the termination of all regulated credit agreements which are not in default, which includes all credit card agreements which are not in default.) and S98 makes it very clear that only non-default agreements which have a fixed duration can be terminated under S98.

Therefore it is very clear that, as credit card agreements do not have a fixed duration, non-default credt card agreements cannot be terminated under S98.

It's no good looking for some other section of CCA which might offer alternative provisions for the termination of non-default agreements. - there isn''t one. It doesn't exist.

You are absolutely correct.

[BEC01]

Having problems with photobucket.

 

they sent me a letter stating

 

1) when my present card expires they will not issue a new one(end of this month )

 

2) I will then not be able to use my account

 

3) Any outstanding balance will have to be repaid by at least the minimum

required under my card agreement each month

 

4) The card agreement continues until the balance is repaid in full

 

Did the letter say that your agreement was being terminated, or ended?

If not, then it says an awful lot to the 160,000 who were told that WAS that case a couple of years back.

 

[BEC01]

Toymaker,

 

I will send them a letter as you have advised,however can I also put the acc into dispute and stop the direct debit ( monthly repayments are in excess of £200 ) ?

 

Thanks for your help,it's very much appreciated.

 

trout

I would be very careful about ending payments.

Can you scan a copy of the letter?

 

I suspect Egg have taken advice and altered the wording compared to their first effort of termination.

 

If they are restricting the credit facility, then that is completely different from their wording of "ending your agreement" on a specific date.

 

Be very careful with this.

I think they know the first letter would not stand up in court and have therefore got it right this time.

[BEC01]

BECO,

 

They have not restricted my credit card facility,they have ended it,

and on a specific date.

 

From what I understand from Toymaker,there are no provisions within

the CCA 1974 that allows them to do so.

 

Toymaker,do you still stand by post 1398 ?

 

Thanks as always,

 

trout

 

Thanks for posting the info Trout.

They are certainly doing this differently now. They are withdrawing a service, but not specifically ending the agreement. I'm still not sure that they have worded it correctly, but it is not a solid case as per the first wave of termination letters.

 

I would, personally, continue paying them.

Of course, if you can live with a default notice for 6 years, then you may decide differently.

 

This change in wording is a tacit admission that ending the agreements of 160,000 was a big gaffe.

[BEC01]

However, I would expect Egg to argue that a cc agreement is a running credit agreement and each time one tries to use it, this constitutes a fresh application for credit from the credit card holder to the cc provider.

 

This would be highly unlikely to hold any credence in court though.

 

A fair point that has been considered.

[BEC01]

Hi

Thought I would have another go at this, there seems to be a glimmer of rationality emerging so here goes.

Firstly as to why no one else bothers to comment on this, the reason is obvious. As you will see following this post

Secondly forget the idea, just for a minute that I am in the pay of Egg or anyone else, the idea is frankly absurd, click on my name and look at the threads I have started if you need any assurance, if you still have reservations about what I tell you, then I ask you to just put them on hold until you finish reading this post.

Thirdly and most importantly no one is saying that Egg are morally correct or even fair in what they have done, extending a line of credit and then just cutting it off for no good reason leaving the debtor in a position where he has to repay without the leeway that the credit afford them is to my mind grossly unfair, unfortunately it is not unlawful

Egg know this and it may good a good way to explain their reluctance to pursue these cases in court, not good publicity is it for future card holders.

It seems to me that this thread is based around the idea that an agreement for running credit cannot be terminated without a default, this is incorrect.

The act does not have to say that this cannot happen as I have said before it does not have to.

Legislation I general does not work that way, what it does is tell you what you may not do.

With the above in mind pleas re look at section 98, yes I know you have disregarded this as not relevant but please just humour me.

Now bearing the above in mind what is it for.

It says,” Duty to give notice of termination None default cases”

It then goes on to say that if an agreement is for a stated length or term the agreement cannot be terminated without notice.

This is understandable because the agreement you sign has a term and terminating it would otherwise breach that requirement.

A running account agreement has no such restriction, therefore no such notice is required.

It is I admit highly convoluted statutory language, but if you look at it without bias I think you will see the correct meaning.

The fact that section 98 is there at all acknowledges that termination of agreements of this type are totally compliant with the regulations.

I must go on to say that this is not a matter of interpretation , this is fact I am afraid as acknowledged by the OFT the DTI(as was) judges including the one I Rankine and just common sense.

Regards

Peter

 

Ending a credit line without default can certainly be considered lawful, by interpretation. I actually agree with you on this.

 

However, Egg did not actually do this in their first round of terminations. I am sure it is what they intended, but they got it wrong.

 

They ended agreements, and thus no contract in place, so any outstanding balance is thereafter not due. Furthermore, any subsequent reporting to credit agencies is in contravention of the data protection act.

 

It is interesting that they appear to have sorted this out with subsequent restrictions on accounts.

 

We still cannot get them to take anyone to court over this.

I darn well wish they would as I would like to know what the courts make of this...

[BEC01]

Something very disturbing is happening on here.

I think it is time to find another consumer site...

[BEC01]

We all have no option Mr Snotty!!

 

The point is that contrary to peterbard's assertions that if the agreement is voided everyone has to pay back what they've borrowed (or charged in interest), Egg did not void the agreement, they 'ended' it!

 

Void means never happened - as it was before the agreement.

 

Ended means finished, completed, concluded. All parties are satisfied and can go home.

 

It is the result we all want - agreement ended, over, finished.

 

Geddit?

 

Based on the (quality) legal advice I have been party to, you are absolutely correct.

 

Peter is a mole and is being let to run riot.

Be careful what you post on here...

[BEC01]

Quite simply as BASA stated.

Egg choose to end the agreement. Fair enough. No balance left, no balance due, no credit facility in place.

 

Everything was brought to an end.

 

It is very simple, and that is why Egg have completely changed their approach with this.

 

Peter has already destroyed at least one other thread.

 

Beware.

[BEC01]

I'm getting quite nervous about this whole 'termination' argument Eddie. There is a rising argument that as s98 doesn't apply because it applies to fixed term agreements, therefore there is nothing in the Act that stops a lender terminating an agreement after giving notice as quoted in a clause in the agreements T&Cs.

I'm not particularly questioning the legality of ending the agreement.

In fact, our group accept that. Also they accept that if there is no agreement to govern a debt, then it must be assumed that the debt is written off.

 

That is what ending the agreement on a specific date very, very, very, clearly did.

 

No need for any reference to consumer credit law here.

[BEC01]

Well, if it is contractual, then they have terminated your agreement. Therefore, no need to re-instate your direct debit.

I can't believe how stupid Egg are.

[BEC01]

They will realise when someone takes them to court.

We have now got to the Bryan Carter stage and are hoping that they will now proceed.

 

To say we are prepared is an understatement.

[BEC01]

They will settle for 30%, but don't start at that point...

Why not let the courts decide though?

[BEC01]

I think it just needs one side to have the nerve to go to court.

You are quite right in pointing out that there are potentially some very serious offences committed by Egg.

[BEC01]

OK was that in reply to me Eddie? If so I don't understand.

No, not at all Basa.

Just a general comment on the situation.

 

All of our debate on here is meaningless until either Egg, or a consumer takes it to court.

[BEC01]

BASA, to give you some replies.

 

1. To people who did default and were then terminated. Nothing they can do, Egg were within their right to terminate.

2. I also agree that there is nothing in CCA that says Egg cannot terminate.

 

Therefore, Egg did terminate the (non-default) agreements. Fine.

No agreement, no further credit available, no debt remaining.

 

Neither side can have their cake and eat it.

 

Egg have clearly made a boo-boo with this, that they have since rectified. Evidence of this is that they have now changed the way in which they stop the further credit line.

 

There really is nothing that changes the fact that Egg choose to end the agreements of however many customers.

It was their choice.

 

How many businesses pay for services that have been withdrawn by the service providers choice?

[BEC01]

Our small group had never considered unenforceability, primarily as they were not looking at avoiding any debt.

It remains the assertion, like you have mentioned, that Egg voluntarily ended agreements which were being honoured by the consumers.

 

Fair enough, their choice, agreement ended: no credit facility, no debt.

What is not fair, thereafter, is to attempt to then collect monies under the threat of punitive action.

 

Imagine an office cleaning contractor cancelling their contract with their client: withdrawing their service.

Then continuing to invoice, and demand payment for those services which have ceased.

No chance.

 

As a credit card facility is not a fixed product, but a running service, then Egg either decided to write-off any balances, or got it wrong.

 

What they can do, is keep the credit facility, but restrict it in a manner that restricts or halts new credit.

For example, do not renew the card, but keep the facility until the balance is reduced to zero.

This way they would still be providing the service, but a service that is altered within the contractual agreement.

 

But they just decided to call it quits with however many customers.