Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

I think the whole thing is weird! I know what Egg did, why they did it and how they did it.

 

That is a good argument that they must have been aware of the correct way to do this, i.e. restrict the credit limit. I can only think they made one humdinger of a cockup or it was deliberate.

 

I keep wondering how long before this gets in front of a judge. I just hope it isn't because some dumbass CMC decides to make a name for itself and ballses it up for everyone with poor legal argument. Like seems to be happening a lot just recently !

 

I agree, we were advised to let Egg make the claim first, then defend on this basis.

The legal team are long established, and wouldn't normally do this type of work.

However, one has personal contacts.

I was told initially that they would look it over, but to expect that they would not touch it.

 

However, after looking at the termination letter, it suddenly became very interesting to them.

Like you say, it could have been deliberate. A disgruntled senior employee who was not happy with the purchase, just as a hypothetical example. Otherwise, it was the textbook schoolboy error.

 

With Egg up for sale again, two things will be revealing:

 

1. If it sells.

2. Assuming that it does, what the sale price is.

 

We should then be able to get a handle on what the write-offs are at this point, and make a guess at how hard they will take things through the court.

 

Furthermore, say a sale does go ahead, if they close down UK operations and purely run it as an Internet service from another (cheaper) location. That would suggest that they have valued the brand and the good customers and are likely to have written-off the bad stuff.

 

And let's face it, most of the people who have been going the enforceability route are more likely to be can't pay rather than won't pay. If people have fallen on hard times, then there is no money to be recovered and no point in wasting resource chasing it.

[BEC01]

The mecahnics of money does explain that there is no hard cash involved. However, it would not stand up as an argument in court, in my opinion.

 

Several of my contacts have with-held payment from Egg after termination, have been served default notices, and are awaiting Egg to issue a court claim, which will then be defended on the basis that there is no contract in place, having been ended by Egg's free choice.

 

They went quiet after defaults and a couple of court threats, too soon to PT's case to see if that had any bearing. Unlikely though, as this is completely separate from enforeceability, and - again in my opinion - a much stronger case.

[BEC01]

I think Mistermind is putting over some fair points to balance things up here.

He is not another Peter Bard, as far as I can see.

 

I never really thought that "approved limit" would prove a legal loophole, and - if we are being honest - the Judge applied common sense to the case. It was fair enough.

 

However, I disagree with Mistermind that the Egg termination letter was ambiguous.

On the contrary, it was very clear.

 

They chose to end the agreement. It is very different from restricting an account, it is also very different from closing an account.

 

It was ending the agreement, that is the contract that governed the creditor-debtor transactions.

 

Once the agreement is brought to an end, there can be no account, and there can be no debt.

 

There really is nothing anyone can do to change this, other than the two parties agree a new contract.

[BEC01]

One thing I am sure about is that we are not 100% sure. I wouldn't even like to put a percentage on how sure we are. All I can say is that it is a lot more sure than we were on the approved limit approach.

 

I think some on here do take what is posted as definitive, that is one of the dangers of the Internet, it is far from it.

As you say, it is a good place for debate, and discussion.

 

In my view, the banks run countries, not parliament. What has happened over the past 18 months is clear proof of that.

 

It is a tough win for us. What I can say that is once defaults have been served, there is little point in the banks going any further. So, if you can live with a default...

[BEC01]

Indeed it can Peter, and Egg choose to end the agreement.

Thus nothing is in place to govern any facility, therefore end of debt.

 

They could, of course, have stipulated a time-scale that included a full payback of any debts.

Which would also have been perfectly above board. It would then have been up to the debtor to find the balance, or then negotiate with Egg.

 

Egg did not do this, the lawfully ended the agreement, and any related serviced.

Very clearly.

 

But, as we have seen, only a judge will truly decide...

[BEC01]

I have no disagreements with your points in this post either Peter.

I, personally, think that it is a grey area whether or not what Egg did was lawful. I would not want to test that in court.

 

Our standpoint is that Egg have acted within their rights, have terminated the accounts, therefore everything is complete.

[BEC01]

I have to say I am becoming very uneasy about this argument.

 

Much as it pains me to say it, as I am one of the thousands with a 'termination' letter and have disputed the account on the strength of it.

 

Unfortunately in the same way as the judge in Slater ruled that 'Approved Limit' was readily seen to be the credit limit, I have to see that a judge could easily say that the manner of terminating the agreement in the way Egg did was readily understandable by an average debtor.

 

I am not sure that I disagree with what Egg have done.

However, I do think that it means they decided to write-off the debt.

 

To the layman, that seems to be a perfectly clear interpretation.

 

Although, there is certainly a case against the way that they did it.

[BEC01]

It's the only logical interpretation I can arrive at.

Why else would they have worded in such a way?

 

For example, if they have merely wished to stop further lending, then they would surely have said that and left agreement in place.

 

Businesses sometimes choose not to continue relationships - for whatever reason - and in this case it appears that Egg just did not want to deal with a specific set of customers.

 

Fair enough, they end the agreement, consumers ends payments.

[BEC01]

I've been called a great deal of things in my life, toymaker, but charmingly naive is a new one. I've seen so many people destroyed at court over the years, either through overconfidence or a belief that the law is so certain that it defies intepretation, that I've come to the conclusion that being a lawyer is more to do with risk - assessment than legal nous. I daresay that nobody believes that Carey is an accurate statement of statute, but it has now become - by dint of the way in which the County Court system works - the dominant precedent on CCA construction.

 

I stand by what I said - if a company fails to go through the proper legal procedure, then it's open to the judge to say that the cancellation and / or termination was not properly executed. It would be a brave man to guess what the consequence of such a failure might be. My guess is that Egg aren't brave enough to test the waters and hopefully no-one will push the case into Court a la the Rankins. One thing I can express with absolute certainty about the County Court system is that it operates on the level of realpolitik. You can argue your case, but don't expect your judge to be a CC expert or take a great deal of time with your case. I'm not sure also that you understand the level of discretion that the CPR has given judges. If it gets kicked up to the COA, then you can expect a better level of judge, but by that time your legal costs risk is more than enough to bankrupt most people. That's the real problem. You have an arguable case, but how far do you want to risk your livelihood?

 

I hope you're right, toymaker, as I'm one of the many people who have Egg - shaped debts. Genuinely hope you're right, and I'll leave it at that, as I think this thread has exhausted all possible interpretations of the statute in question.

 

Good luck, all,

 

GL

 

Really can't argue agianst such a graceful reply.

I think your point about risk-assessment is the absolute key to this.

 

This is why my advice - not legally qualified, I may add - is to not take the initiative, but to let Egg take the action.

[BEC01]

When and are you able to provide details of case?

[BEC01]

Understand, are you able to say if it was initiated by Egg or yourself?

[BEC01]

Personally, I am quite happy that they terminated.

Our business came to close nice and concisely and unambiguously.

[BEC01]

I think questioning their right to terminate is a dead end, just as I though eforceability would be.

I have accepted Egg's termination and have, therefore, ceased to trade with them.

 

A few threatening letters responded to by stating "I no longer have an agreement with you." and referred them to the termination letter.

It ended with, well be should agree to disagree, only a court can decided.

 

Not a peep, for over a year now, but sure they will come back to the few of us who did this.

Acceptance of termination is the only possible logical explanation, CCA route doesn't hold much strength to me.

[BEC01]

Personally, I still don't think challenging their right to terminate will hold any credence in court, even though I can see Toymaker's point.

The way in which the termination was worded, however, makes it quite clear that there was to be no further contractual agreement, therefore end of the business relationship, at a given time.

 

They did it the wrong way, have subsequently changed their process as they realised so.

They will not take to court for the reasons that Peter has mentioned, and also that if defended in a robust and akileed way could very well be left at, the contract was legally terminated on given date, with the balance not demanded within that given timescale, the matter has come to and end (in layman's terms of course).

 

In answer to your earlier question Toymaker, we have all not paid for well over a year, all had defaults served, all heard nothing for several months thereafter.