Egg credit card agreement terminated

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,

Have you had any further developments regarding your egg card. If so can you please share.

 

Ruby

[toymaker1]

Toymaker,

Have you had any further developments regarding your egg card. If so can you please share.

 

Ruby

Hi Ruby

 

The position with my Egg credit card account is that Egg terminated it when I was not in default with my monthly repayments.

This caused me to read the relevant law (CCA 1974) very carefully.

The conclusion I came to was that Egg had no right to terminate my Egg agreement. It seems to me that there are two possible positions one can take, namely,

 

1. Egg has committed a flagrant breach of CCA 1974 by not complying with the requirements set out in sections 87/88 of that Act, and, if Egg took the matter to court, Egg would have to explain to the court it's reasons for comitting that flagrant breach. Furthermore, I have informed Egg that should Egg take the matter to court, I will ask the court to consider making an order against Egg under S140 of CCA 1974 (unfair business relationships etc.).

 

or

 

2. Egg was totally within it's rights to terminate the contract which existed between Egg and myself. The problem for Egg is that, having chosen of it's own free will to terminate the unbreached contract, Egg cannnot subsequently say to me, "oh, by the way can we have the money you owed to us under that contract which we (Egg) have just terminated" So far as I am concerned any liability I had to Egg was ended by Egg when Egg, of it's own free will, terminated the contractual relationship between us, which included terminating my liabilities under that contract.

 

I have written a letter to the chief executive, Vikram Pandit in Newyork, explaining all this, and informing him that the purpose of the letter is to keep him fully informed of how his company (Egg) has dealt with the matter, so that if the matter goes to court, he will be able to explain his company's actions to the court.

 

Egg passed the account to capQuest, who have not been able to provide a copy of the original agreement, therefore cant proceed further in the matter.

I do not think Egg will want it's conduct in this matter to be put before a court.

 

Hope you can understand all that. let me know if you want any more info.

 

Regards

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,

S140 of CCA 1974 (unfair business relationships etc.).

How would you use the above piece of legislation to argue against Egg.

 

I was in a similar situation with Egg and they have told me if I am dissatisfied I should complain to the FOS.

 

HBOS have used a similar strategy with a friend who I am trying to help - so I will tell him to use the same or similar arguments. I want to be sure that they cannot throw anything else into the mix.

 

Did you explore the possibility of using arguments based on 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' as I have noticed that in my friend's t&c's there are lots of terms and conditions that give HBOS an unfair advantage.

 

Both Egg and HBOS need to be brought down to size.

 

I appreciate your prompt reply and thanks for your support.

 

regards

Ruby.

[toymaker1]

Toymaker,

How would you use the above piece of legislation to argue against Egg.

 

I was in a similar situation with Egg and they have told me if I am dissatisfied I should complain to the FOS.

 

Did you explore the possibility of using arguments based on 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' as I have noticed that in my friend's t&c's there are lots of terms and conditions that give HBOS an unfair advantage.

 

Ruby.

Ruby

My understanding is that Unfair terms Regs. 1999 do not directly apply, in the sense that S4(2) of the Regs states that the regs are not intended to apply to contractual terms which reflect regulatory provisions having effect in the United Kingdom.

I understand that to mean that any unfairness in credit card agreement terms is covered by the regulatory provisions set out in CCA 1974. - i.e. Egg's credit card agreement terms are meant to reflect the relevant regulatory provisions, which are contained in CCA 1974.

 

For example, Egg credit card term 20.2 states that Egg "can end this Agreement at any time"

That is an unfair term, insofar as it does not reflect anything whatsoever in CCA1974!

Egg can only end a credit card agreement by complying with the provisions of S87/88 of CCA 1974. - Egg cannot end an agreement just because it wants to, and with no default by the cardholder.

 

When Egg tells you to take it up with FOS, that is the same as brer fox asking not to be thrown into the briar bush. Egg would like you to go to FOS because it will confuse the issue, drag matters out, and at the end of the process Egg thinks it may have a 50 percent chance of winning, and even if Egg loses, it will all be kept private. What Egg doesn't want is for their bad conduct and poor professional and ethical standards to be aired in a public court.

 

I have no intention of taking Egg to court, I have told them that they are welcome to take me to court, where they will have to justify their conduct.

Section 140 states that the court may make an order under S140B in connection with a credit agreement if it is determined that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor because of the terms of the agreement, the way in which the agreement is operated by the creditor or any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the creditor before or after the agreement was made.

The court may take into account all matters it thinks relevant in determining whether a relationship is unfair. (Consumer Credit act 2006, Explanatory Notes). I believe a court would certainly consider it unfair, within the terms of S140, for Egg to terminate an account without complying with S87/88 of CCA1974.

 

Also, S173 of CCA1974 states that a term contained in a regulated agreement is void if it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor contained in any regulation made under CCA 1974.

 

e.g. Egg's term 20.2 is clearly inconsistent with the provision for the protection of the debtor contained in regulations 87 and 88 of CCA 1974.

 

therefore Egg's term 20.2 is void.

My position is that if Egg do not agree with that assesment of the situation, then Egg is welcome to put the matter before a court of law.

 

Regards

[RubyRose]

Toymaker,

Thanks for your prompt reply. How have you dealt with Capquest -I have had a further letter from Collect Direct(UK) in the guise of a solicitors letter demanding full payment. Do you think i should report them to trading standards and if so should it be my local trading standards office or the one where they are registered at.

 

Also, can i ask for some help from you regarding these HBOS t&C's that i talked about in my previous post. I would be grateful if you could scrutinise it and show me where there are flaws in it as HBOS sent him a letter telling him that they were not going to provide him with a new card even though he had not defaulted on his payments, their arguments were similar to those used by Egg.

 

Your help and advice is much appreciated.Here's the link to the T&C's

Halifax - Credit Card Conditions

 

regards

Ruby

[toymaker1]

Toymaker,

Thanks for your prompt reply. How have you dealt with Capquest -I have had a further letter from Collect Direct(UK) in the guise of a solicitors letter demanding full payment. Do you think i should report them to trading standards and if so should it be my local trading standards office or the one where they are registered at.

 

Also, can i ask for some help from you regarding these HBOS t&C's that i talked about in my previous post. I would be grateful if you could scrutinise it and show me where there are flaws in it as HBOS sent him a letter telling him that they were not going to provide him with a new card even though he had not defaulted on his payments, their arguments were similar to those used by Egg.

 

Ruby

 

Ruby,

I have dealt with capQuest by asking for a copy of the original Egg agreement, as provided for by S78 of CCA 1974. Capquest have not been able to provide me with a copy, therefore they cannot take any further action to collect the debt.

Even if capQuest eventually provides a copy of the Egg agreement, I will then draw their attention to the fact that as the account between Egg and myself is in a state of dispute, which I have referred to in previous postings, it is not permissible for Egg to pass the account to capQuest for collection.

 

Regarding the letter asking for full payment, I would not bother with all the stress and complications of reporting to trading standards etc.

Just write to HBOS providing details of your income/expenditure, then make an offer of a monthly affordable payment, even if it is a very small amount. Request HBOS to suspend the interest on the debt, and state that you will commence the monthly repayments as soon as HBOS consider your offer (i.e. monthly affordable repayment with suspension of interest), and agreement is reached between HBOS and you. Tell HBOS that the purpose of your offer is to repay the debt in a manner which is affordable out of your income, and will not cause HBOS to increase your overindebtedness.

If they refuse your proposal, request HBOS to reconsider your proposal. Dont pay a penny until HBOS comes to an agreement along the lines I have suggested. If HBOS takes you to court, the court will see that HBOS refused a reasonable offer made by you which is affordable out of your income, and will not increase your over-indebtedness.

 

If HBOS ask you to go to a debt management organisation, say to HBOS that you are very grateful for their advice, but you will be dealing with the matter yourself, and do not require a third party to act on your behalf.

 

I had a quick look at HBOS tc's. The one which jumps out is 15.1 where HBOS says "We may end this agreement by giving you written notice".

I would write to HBOS asking them which UK law does that statement by HBOS fall under. - It certainly isn't covered by anything contained in

CCA 1974.

The same applies to later in 15.1 "If this agreement is ended, you must pay us everything you owe". - ask them what law that falls under.

My opinion - which I have made clear to Egg - is that if the credit card company chooses of it's own free will to end the agreement when it was not in default, then it has extinguished any obligations you had under the agreement. They cannot ask for money owed under a contract which no longer exists. As I said earlier, if HBOS thinks they can ask for that money, ask them which law covers that situation.

I would be interested to know their answer to that.

 

Hope there is something useful in there.

regards

[Guest malissa7999]

Toymaker1,

 

i have been reading this thread all through, and i am inspired by you, recently hsbc have wrote to me asking me to return my credit card cut up back to them, i called them asking why i receieved this letter, and they said it was because i owed them £57 on my hsbc current bank account, and have not been managing that account well,even though they accept that my credit card had never had any missed payments or defaulted and was always upto date, the thing is i have not had any default letter either for my current bank account and certainly not for my credit card, infact they sent me a final demand for the £57 dated the 21st july,giving me 7 days to reply,so as far as i am aware my account is still open,and im confused asto whether they have rights to terminate my credit card when i never even missed payments on it,.... hope you dont mind if i quote your words of wisdom to hsbc,..?

 

replying to one of your previous posts, about egg giving you a default,..and at the very worst a ccj...this is really serious, and was wondering if you are currently taking any action to get the default removed?..(i ask this as my credit file is due to recover from the 6years of hell that a previous default and ccj gave me,and i would hate to get the same again for another 6years)

 

good luck with your continued battle

malissa

[Decanus]

Hi Toymaker,

 

nice to see the thread still bubbling along....

As per your earlier email, I am afraid I was away for a while on holiday, then for work reasons, so have not posted for a bit, but have still dipped in to read when time allowed. I am now back, and am still being harrassed by a wide range of people, but will restrict it to cracking the EGG for this thread.

My situation has escalated somewhat. Every time I sent an email, including the specific one you suggested, they never acknowledged it! I sent them through the secure facility on my account, and asked for replies to specific points, which I even numbered to make it easy for their little brains....but the only response I ever received was 'blah blah will be in touch soon....)

Then, after 2 more blustery emails from me, I received in quick succession a default notice, and virtually instant calls from Moorcroft, the debt company chosen to harrass me. I have told them in writing I will not deal with them, as my account is in dispute and they should never have been assigned the debt, but they continue to ring. I am logging all calls, but obviously not answering any.

The fact EGG has failed to respond to my points, and the speed with which they assigned my account to Moorcroft does make me wonder if they are rattled by the points Toymaker initially raised. I think we have a definite legal arguement there that EGG are a bit wary of defending in court.

My current stance is that I am refusing to deal with Moorcroft, the debt is in dispute, and they have never allowed me a 'reasonable' opportunity to offer a payment plan.

 

I have not read all the latter posts yet. but any change in your position, Toymaker? did EGG ever respond to you?

[toymaker1]

Hi Toymaker,

 

My situation has escalated somewhat. Every time I sent an email, including the specific one you suggested, they never acknowledged it! I sent them through the secure facility on my account, and asked for replies to specific points, which I even numbered to make it easy for their little brains....but the only response I ever received was 'blah blah will be in touch soon....)

Then, after 2 more blustery emails from me, I received in quick succession a default notice, and virtually instant calls from Moorcroft, the debt company chosen to harrass me. I have told them in writing I will not deal with them, as my account is in dispute and they should never have been assigned the debt, but they continue to ring. I am logging all calls, but obviously not answering any.

 

My current stance is that I am refusing to deal with Moorcroft, the debt is in dispute, and they have never allowed me a 'reasonable' opportunity to offer a payment plan.

 

I have not read all the latter posts yet. but any change in your position, Toymaker? did EGG ever respond to you?

 

Hi Decanus

The response you have had from Egg is exactly the same as I have had. The main thing is not to be frightened of them. I find the best way is to regard a credit card company as if it is just another person like yourself. - they are bound by exactly the same laws and regulations as you are, but they like to make you think that in some way they have more power and authority.

My own view is that it is best to keep things as simple as possible. For example, I send as few letters as possible, and keep them directly to the point. Dont get into complicated quasi legal arguments, there is no point. The secret I have discovered is that Egg or whichever other company, just have no clear knowledge of the laws and regulations governing credit cards!

Look up the relevant regulations, and keep to them yourself. The idea is that if they ever take you to court, you can demonstrate that you have acted within the law and reasonably, and they have acted outside the law and unreasonably and unfairly.

When I say they have acted outside the law, I mean, for example, that they have terminated your credit card account without complying with the provisions set out in S87/88 of CCA1974. They just cant do that, and the court will know that they cant do that.

When I say they have acted unreasonably and unfairly I mean, for example, if you have offered to pay an (affordable to you) monthly repayment, and requested them to suspend interest on the debt so that they do not cause your over-indebtedness to them to increase and that you will commence the repayments as soon as an agreement is reached between the company and yourself, and if they refuse to consider such an offer, you should not pay them a penny until an agreement is reached on those lines. If they take it to court the court will see that they refused to consider a reasonable offer of settlemtn from you which was affordable out of your income and would not cause your indebtedness to the company to increase.

Hope that makes sense. - I do all that, and so far it has worked.

 

regards

[toymaker1]

Toymaker1,

 

i have been reading this thread all through, and i am inspired by you, recently hsbc have wrote to me asking me to return my credit card cut up back to them, i called them asking why i receieved this letter, and they said it was because i owed them £57 on my hsbc current bank account, and have not been managing that account well,even though they accept that my credit card had never had any missed payments or defaulted and was always upto date, the thing is i have not had any default letter either for my current bank account and certainly not for my credit card, infact they sent me a final demand for the £57 dated the 21st july,giving me 7 days to reply,so as far as i am aware my account is still open,and im confused asto whether they have rights to terminate my credit card when i never even missed payments on it,.... hope you dont mind if i quote your words of wisdom to hsbc,..?

 

replying to one of your previous posts, about egg giving you a default,..and at the very worst a ccj...this is really serious, and was wondering if you are currently taking any action to get the default removed?..(i ask this as my credit file is due to recover from the 6years of hell that a previous default and ccj gave me,and i would hate to get the same again for another 6years)

 

good luck with your continued battle

malissa

 

Hi Malissa

Bank current accounts are regulated by different regulations to credit card accounts. If HSBC want to terminate your credit card account they must strictly comply with S87/88 of CCA 1974. End of story.

I can only tell you what I have done in that situation, that is to say when Egg terminated my account when it was not in default.

I looked up the law, and when I discovered Egg could not do that, I cancelled my £300 a month direct debit, and asked Egg to indicate to me which part of the CCA 1974 provided Egg with the authority to terminate my account when it was not in default. Egg has not been able to provide an answer. - and they cant get out of it by passing the matter on to a debt collection company. That just puts Egg in an even more dodgy position if they ever take it to court.

As I said in a previous posting I have set all this out, in very simple terms, to Egg chief executive, Vikram Pandit

Chief Executive Officer

Citibank

399 Park Avenue

New York

NY10043

U.S.A.

I stated that the purpose of my letter was that, should matters in dispute between Egg and myself be put before a court for adjudication, Mr Pandit, as the person with overall responsibility for Egg, will have full knowledge of the matter, and will be able to explain to the court how his company has dealt with it.

 

 

Regards

[Guest malissa7999]

Hi Malissa

Bank current accounts are regulated by different regulations to credit card accounts. If HSBC want to terminate your credit card account they must strictly comply with S87/88 of CCA 1974. End of story.

 

Regards

 

 

thanks Toymaker for clarifying that for me,

[Decanus]

I must say, the card companies, banks, and debt collectors are only making things worse through their arrrogance. I am finding my attitude hardening towards them purely because they have made no effort to help me, work with me, or assist in any way. I have had accounts for many years with some, and to be treated like this after the first time I have ever had any trouble with paying is just disgusting.

 

Egg specifically are different, because the issue began with the termination of my credit card even though I was up to date on payments, and always had been. They have never been able to explain where they were allowed to do this, despite me asking several times. The only answer I ever received was that they can terminate any account at any time, as it is in th terms and conditions. As Toymaker has stated, their terms and conditions can say what they like, but if they fail to comply with legislation they will not hold up in court. At the very least, I suspect Egg know they are on dodgy ground, and are not willing to allow a 'test case' because of the other 160,999 punters eagerly watching......

 

their greed makes it easy to fight them, and I have no qualms about refusing to pay whatsoever. Its only business after all.........

[Guest malissa7999]

their greed makes it easy to fight them, and I have no qualms about refusing to pay whatsoever. Its only business after all.........

 

i agree about the refusing to pay after they have decided of there own free will to terminate the agreement,and it makes sense that they should forfeit there right to entitlement as Toymaker1 said previously,.. my only issue is getting a default of ccj on credit files, i know that they shouldnt do this, again as previously said they would be in breach of the data act, but actually how easy(or difficult) is it to get the ccj/default removed if they do put one on???....

in december i am about to have a ccj drop off my file, and have suffered drasticaly over the past 6 years due to it, and i certainly wouldnt want to be getting another one:mad:

 

surely this must be worrying you too?

[Decanus]

Hi Malissa,

 

the defaault notice and the CCJ are two seperate things, although neither are very good.

 

To be honest, when you fight back against these companies, they fight dirty, and its pretty much certain they will threaten you with a default, then issue one if you don't crumble....in theory, you can miss one payment, and they can claim you have broken the terms of your agreement, and default you, so no-one is ever that far from one. I always expected the defaults, and although annoying, I felt I may be able to address them later if things settled down. First things first and all that....

 

CCJ's are a different kettle of fish, but most of the companies, despite their threats, don't go as far as this unless they are pretty sure of their position. The discovery by consumers that the companies need a valid CCA has been a godsend, and I would fight tooth and nail in court on every scrap of law to dispute a CCJ.

 

The good thing is, you are only ever one post away from the best back room team around..........

[Guest malissa7999]

Hi Malissa,

 

The good thing is, you are only ever one post away from the best back room team around..........

 

hi Decanus

i do completely agree with that comment!

[Guest malissa7999]

Hi Toymaker1.

 

i dont want to hijack your thread but would appreciate some of your help and advice, this is a link to my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/153426-hsbc-have-cancelled-my.html

 

if you dont mind please could you help me put together a letter that i can inform hsbc how i feel they have breached the cca 1974, and that i wont be making any future payments, and that i will be withdrawing my permission to forward any current or future data to credit ref agencys,due to the fact that they have wilfully chosen to terminate my account in breach of the cca1974,

 

also the letter they sent to me asks me to cut up and return my card back to them, but when i called the manager told me to keep hold of it, which do you think i am best to do?

 

and what if after my complaint they decide to reinstate my account?...am i supposed to sign a new agreement?...and what happens to the debt on the card if i dont agree to sign a new agreement?

 

what am i actually complaining about? is the point of this now to get out of repaying my debt, by not letting them escape there own breach, or to get my account back reinstated and carry on as normal?

my own preference is the 1st option,providing they dont give me a default or ccj...im not that bothered at getting the account reinstated.

 

(gosh im so sorry for the long,list of questions:-|)..im so confused, but want to make them suffer for what they have done!

[jannercobbler]

Hi Toymaker,

 

Is there any further developments with this?

[ftd]

I'm 'bumping' this thread with a question:

 

Was the 'form' of the letter that egg sent out notifying that the agreement had ended in the 'prescribed format' as stated in the regs (similar to a default notice)?

 

Or, Is that irrelevent as section 98 of the act doesn't apply, or is it just parts 1 & 2 of S98 that don't apply?

 

AND

do you get copies of the letters notifing them ending the agreement when you request a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)?

 

 

 

Anyone (please)

 

ftd

[cosalt]

Is there any update on this thread, has anyone made any progress re eggs termination of accounts ?

[cosalt]

Strangely enough, I have been terminated again, got a letter today.

 

How can they terminate a terminated acount

[toymaker1]

Is there any update on this thread, has anyone made any progress re eggs termination of accounts ?

 

Here is a letter I posted today, regarding Egg's termination of my agreement when I was not in default. Someone in a similar situation might find it useful. The really important bit is paragraph 4. - they have no answer to that!

 

 

 

My name and address

Solicitors

Name and address

 

 

Our Ref:

Your Ref:

15th January 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear (Solictor's name)

 

 

 

 

Re: Termination by Egg of Egg Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter of 13 January 2009.

 

1.

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, (name of debt collector company) Ltd, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client are fully aware, are set out in my letters (Letter refs) inclusive. 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.

 

 

 

 

3.

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

3a

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

3b.

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.

3c.

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 13 January in which you state that the issue of court proceedings will mean that the amount I owe your client will increase. 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.

3d

I also consider your client’s actions amount to psychological harassment within the terms of section 2.6h. of the OFT Guidelines, in that your client has ignored and disregarded the fact that I have reasonably queried and disputed the debt.

3e

I also consider that the way in which your client has exercised his 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.

 

 

4.

As the solicitors acting for (xxxxxxxx) Ltd 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 provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement with effect from 6th March 2008.

 

5.

In the event that this matter is put before a court I will draw the court’s attention to the manner in which (xxxxxxxx) Solicitors have dealt with the dispute between 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.

I am confident that Egg, or 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, including copies of my letters Egg/1 to Egg/17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

xxxxxxxxx

 

Hope that might be useful to someone.

regards

Peter.

[militantconsumer]

Hello toymaker1

 

I've been following your thread with interest. Many of the points in the letter above could, of course, be used when disputing a debt for all sorts of reasons - for example an unenforceable credit agreement, as in the case of my friend's Egg loan:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

 

But regarding your central point, I was wondering if you had considered bringing a claim for damages against Egg as a result of them issuing you with a default notice and passing this information onto credit referencing agencies after terminating your agreement.

 

The reason I am suggesting this is that surely the judge in this case would have to rule on whether your agreement was still in force at the time of default. I.e. have Egg actually terminated the agreement as you are claiming and then illegally issued a default, or have they just reduced your limit to zero but worded their letter incorrectly, in which case the default was presumably ok?

 

This seems to me a less risky option than waiting to be sued because, if the judge agreed that the agreement had been terminated by Egg and therefore the default notice should not have been issued, you would know for the certain the view of the courts on the current status of your agreement.

 

I can't see how Egg could then justify any further charges being levied on your terminated account, for example adding interest.

 

However, if Egg were to sue you at this point I wonder if the judge might still rule that you owed the balance from the date when the agreement was terminated, irrespective of how many laws Egg had breached in achieving this.

 

Just some thoughts.

[toymaker1]

Hello toymaker1

 

if Egg were to sue you at this point I wonder if the judge might still rule that you owed the balance from the date when the agreement was terminated, irrespective of how many laws Egg had breached in achieving this.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Hello militant consumer

Thanks for your response.

The way I see it, the judge would not be influenced in making his judgement by the fact that the debtor rather than the creditor initiated the action. The law is the exactly the same for both parties to the action, and the judge's ruling would be the same whoever initiated the court action.

 

The tactics of these companies is to frighten you to the point that you will get so worried you will give in to them. But all you have to do is keep your nerve, be fully aware of all the facts of the matter, and keep within the law. In my case Egg did not keep within the law.

That is a simple statement of fact, regardless of Egg's huffing and puffing and bluster.

 

Regards

Peter

[toymaker1]

Just a quick follow up to my reply to militantconsumer.

 

as I mentioned in an earlier post, the crucial point (in my dispute with Egg) is contained in paragraph 4 of the letter I posted recently. - I have asked in writing five times for an answer to my question (i.e. which part of the CCA 1974 provides entitlement to Egg to terminate an account which is not in default). I have not yet received an answer to that from egg!

 

cheers

[militantconsumer]

You are certainly very determined in your views about this, and I wish you the best of luck with your case.

 

And I will be following with great interest, of course.