Egg credit card agreement terminated

[BEC01]

 

They should have just restricted the account.

[toymaker1]

Any idea what 5. refers to?

 

In section 98, subsection (1) basically says that an agreement can be terminated by the creditor giving 7 days notice.

 

But before you panic,

 

subsection (5) basically says that there are regulations elsewhere which make it clear that there are certain agreements to which subsection (1) does not apply.

 

included in those agreements to which subsection (1) does not apply are credit card agreements.

S86 87 88 make it clear that credit card agreements cannot just be terminated by the creditor giving 7 days notice, but by the creditor complying with the provisions of 86 87 88.

Hope that is not too garbled and explanation.

 

regard

Peter

[BlueSquirrel]

I am not one of the people who have been terminated in these circumstances however I do have experience of how Egg just ignore you and hope you will go away.

After a CCA request I asked why the same monthly rate had two different APRs quoted in separate parts of the agreement. Also the sections referred to in the statement prior to the signature box did not exist in the agreement. I have asked them 5 times since last July and they just ignore me. They have also failed to provide a complete SAR request, all they sent was copy statements. They told me they did not have my original agreement as "The FSA did not require them to keep it." I asked them to point me to this particular piece of information and why was it relevent in the face of all the other reasons to keep it and no reply....

They really are quite crap, aren't they?!

[BEC01]

Does anyone know what one can do should a SAR not be completely fulfilled?

 

For example, the termination letter does not get produced in the SAR, but you still have a copy, proving that they sent it to you.

 

Would this be a problem - or is it within the law?

[phatram]

I notice that Egg refers to "your message". Does that mean you are communicating with them by email?

I suggest that you only communicate with them by letter, posted special or recorded delivery. Also, tell them (in writing!) that you wish all communications to be in writing, in order that both parties to the dispute will have a clear record of all communications, in the event that the matter is brought before a court.

 

It is difficult to provide an answer to the message you have received from Egg, because the message is so unintelligable. It is hard to write something that Egg will understand.

 

 

One could perhaps say,

 

Thank you for your letter of xxxx date.

 

I note your correct observation that section 18 sets out the methods which Egg may employ to limit my use of my account, and also sets out the circumstances in which will those methods may be used.

 

I also note your correct observation that limiting use of the account under section 18 does not mean that the agreement has ended, but simply means that my use of the account will be limited.

 

I am therefore very puzzled at your apparent indication that Egg has limited my use of the account by ending my Egg agreement. This is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of section 18, where it is expressly stated that use of the account may be limited "without ending the Agreement". I regret the need to point out to you that is is also illogical. That is to say, if my Agreement is ended, or terminated, I cannot at the same time have my use of it limited.

 

It is clear therefore that the ending, or termination, of my Egg agreement has been done under a term of the agreement other than section 18, which, as you have correctly indicated, does not involve the ending of the agreement.

 

I would be grateful if Egg would indicate to me which section of the terms and conditions Egg has used to terminated my agreement, and also under which part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that term falls , and also which part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides Egg with the legal authorisation to terminate my agreement without complying with the provisions of Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Act.

 

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Regards

Peter

 

It's secure message not email Peter. I am printing all of them off to keep as evidence.

[ftd]

Is there a letter anywhere informing Egg that I withdraw permission for them to update CRA's on the status of my account seeing as they ended my agreement? I'm undecided what to do as my account has always been up to date and i'm on a relatively low interest rate, but i'm struggling financially! Ftd

[toymaker1]

It's secure message not email Peter. I am printing all of them off to keep as evidence.

 

Ok, but personally I think it is much better to write letters, and get a letter back in reply. If it comes to a legal dispute I believe a letter has more weight in court.

Those secure messages are responded to off the cuff by whoever is on duty at the time, and it's probably a temporary or agency person. Egg wil claim that is what happened, and they will say the person who answered your secure message was not conveying the corrrect company policy etc etc etc. and you should have written to them setting your grievance etc etc, and the judge will ask you if you wrote a letter setting out your grievance etc etc.

 

So far as I am concerned, it is ALWAYS LETTERS, SENT BY RECORDED OR SPECIAL DELIVERY. They are then totally liable for what they say in the letter.

 

A letter has to be answered in a much more formal and considered way, that Egg cant get out of.

 

Regards

Peter

[toymaker1]

Is there a letter anywhere informing Egg that I withdraw permission for them to update CRA's on the status of my account seeing as they ended my agreement? I'm undecided what to do as my account has always been up to date and i'm on a relatively low interest rate, but i'm struggling financially! Ftd

 

Is your situation that you have been terminated when you were not in default? and have you continued to pay them a direct debit each month?

 

regards

Peter

[cosalt]

Have had another secure message from egg saying the matter can not be dealt with in writing or by messaging and I must phone collections to discuss it.

[thekat1979]

Cosalt - I keep getting told that and it is frustrating to say the least! I keep getting non-sensical answers in return, or I get told they can ONLY talk about this over the phone. No way am I going to talk over the phone.

 

I'd be interested in a letter to send to Egg to tell them to stop processing my data as they have terminated my agreement. They are the only current financial element causing me grief RIGHT NOW - and all because of ONE returned DD!

[ftd]

Is your situation that you have been terminated when you were not in default? and have you continued to pay them a direct debit each month?

 

regards

Peter

 

Yes, never had problems with Egg, I'm disputing charges with my bank lloydstsb, thats why i'm i'm here. I was surprised to see when I got my CCA, T&C's & statement from Egg that the interest is now called a 'finance charge'? Ftd

[c14r3]

I have sent my letter to Egg regarding this matter on the 10 Feb. I also sent a copy to Capquest who are persuing me for the terminated Egg Acc. In the letter to Egg I have requested Egg to indicate to me which specific part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is considered by Egg to provide Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement. I also mentioned that Until Egg could provide clarification to me; I considered the account to be in dispute.

 

Today I received a letter from CapQuest stating that the letter I sent them is not acceptable and unless I pay in full or come to some arrangement to pay by 26th Feb they will enforce one of the following methods, charging order, statutory demand or attachment of earnings.

 

I have not even heard from Egg yet and based on the replies others have had on this thread I really doubt they are going to give me an acceptable response. The thing is I know CapQuest just sent me a standard letter and probably did not even consider the points I raised in the letter.

 

Should I write back to the Capquest and remind them that the account is in dispute? What about the interesting points raised by BigEddieChek should I include them in the letter too?

 

Cosalt, in response to your PM.

I think I can post this without upsetting certain people, and it may be for the greater good - which is what this is all about.

 

This is the way I see it.

 

1. Write to the DCA, enclosing a copy of the 1st termination letter. State that you no longer had a contract with Egg after the 35 day notice period.

 

2. Point out that as it was a credit card, it was a revolving service. This is different from a loan that has a fixed period.

 

3. Following on from 2; if Egg wished to terminate the agreement, they had the right to demand repayment prior to that. However, they clearly chose not to do so.

 

4. Upon termination of the agreement (35 days after the notice letter), if they had not requested full payment of the balance prior to that, they then ceased to have the right to demand any outstanding balance.

 

So, it was basically their choice to give up their right to;

 

1. Process your data with a CRA.

2. Request payment from you with regard to that account (as it has ceased to exist), and any outstanding balance.

3. Maintain the account. It should have been closed as there is no contract to govern it.

 

You should point out that this is an extremely serious situation, and that the DCA should strongly consider their role within this. Particularly the implications that it may have with regard to its registered directors. I would also get the names of the registered directors from Companies House (costs £1), and make sure you send a copy to them as well. They really need to be aware of this. Maybe they don't deserve it, but in my opinion it is a responsible thing to do to notify them. They may thank you for it

 

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS JUST AN OPINION - NOT LEGAL ADVICE - ONLY BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED HERE, SO I MAY NOT HAVE THE FULL FACTS.

 

If any of the more experienced members here disagree, please post a message to help.

 

We're off to see a Solicitor about this next week. So any advice will be passed on.

 

[toymaker1]

I have sent my letter to Egg regarding this matter on the 10 Feb. I also sent a copy to Capquest who are persuing me for the terminated Egg Acc. In the letter to Egg I have requested Egg to indicate to me which specific part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is considered by Egg to provide Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement. I also mentioned that Until Egg could provide clarification to me; I considered the account to be in dispute ]Today I received a letter from CapQuest stating that the letter I sent them is not acceptable and unless I pay in full or come to some arrangement to pay by 26th Feb they will enforce one of the following methods, charging order, statutory demand or attachment of earnings.

 

Should I write back to the Capquest and remind them that the account is in dispute? What about the interesting points raised by BigEddieChek should I include them in the letter too?

 

I'm a bit confused, because you appear to be writing to Egg and Capquest at the same time.

In my opinion you should definitely only be dealing to one company at any one time about your account.

 

It sounds as if you should be writing to Capquest at the moment.

 

From what I understand of your situation, if it was me I would do absolutely nothing for now. Eventually you will probably receive a letter before action from the solicitor acting for Capquest.

 

If that happens, I suggest saying something like this,

 

Dear sir or madam

 

 

Re: Termination by Egg of Egg Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Thank you for your letter of (date).

 

 

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, Capquest Debt Recovery, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

 

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.

 

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.

a.

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

b.

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.

c.

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 xxxxxxx 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.

d.

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.

e.

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.

 

As the solicitors acting for Capquest Debt recovery you will be fully 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.

 

In the event that this matter is put before a court I will draw the court’s attention to the manner in which (Solicitor's company name) 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 (all your letter refs).

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

You could tailor such a letter to fit your own situation.

If they dont sent a letter before action, but serve you with a Claim Form,

post their particulars of claim on this site immediately.

 

If they simply pass it on to yet another company post the details on this site. - that would be a good sign by the way, because it would indicate that they dont really know what to do, and are just trying to frighten you.

 

Take it a step at a time, dont panic, only deal with one company at a time. If Capquest are handling it, you wont get anything useful from Egg.

 

regards

Peter.

Edited February 16, 2009 by toymaker1
personal details accidently posted.

[BEC01]

Received a useful bit of inside info at the weekend.

Egg are basically bust, and their current tactic is that of damage limitation.

 

E.g. increasing minimum payments, etc.

 

I'll get killed for posting this!

[c14r3]

I had sent a CCA request to CapQuest and after receiving my agreement I think that it is enforceable or would have been enforceable if my agreement had not been terminated. However I will post in the relevant forum for confirmation of this. I sent a letter to both Egg and CapQuest purely because I knew I would just get a standard response from CapQuest and wanted to see what egg would have come back with. From now on I will just deal with CapQuest.

 

Thanks for the reply toymaker1

[toymaker1]

I had sent a CCA request to CapQuest and after receiving my agreement I think that it is enforceable or would have been enforceable if my agreement had not been terminated. However I will post in the relevant forum for confirmation of this. I sent a letter to both Egg and CapQuest purely because I knew I would just get a standard response from CapQuest and wanted to see what egg would have come back with. From now on I will just deal with CapQuest.

 

Thanks for the reply toymaker1

 

Best of luck.

 

Just be patient, and deal with things one at a time as they come up.

Sit tight and do nothing until you hear again from Capquest or their solicitors - then write on the lines I suggested.

When they say things like "your reply is unnacceptable" that is just bluster, hot air and trying to frighten you.

Your reply has to be acceptable by them, because you sent it to them!

(recorder delivery I hope).

The bottom line is that you will find Egg/Capquest have no answer to the question about which part of CCA 1974 provides them with entitlement etc etc. - because there is'nt an answer. As I have said before, there is only one legal method for Egg to terminate your credit card agreement.

I found out very quickly about the law, and I have not paid Egg a penny since they terminated my agreement. They passed it to Capquest, who seemed to get fed up with me, and they passed it on to Collect Direct.

I got a letter before action from their solictors, and wrote the letter I suggested to you.

Havent heard from them yet after a month.

Regards

[basa48]

Best of luck.

 

Just be patient, and deal with things one at a time as they come up.

Sit tight and do nothing until you hear again from Capquest or their solicitors - then write on the lines I suggested.

When they say things like "your reply is unnacceptable" that is just bluster, hot air and trying to frighten you.

Your reply has to be acceptable by them, because you sent it to them!

(recorder delivery I hope).

The bottom line is that you will find Egg/Capquest have no answer to the question about which part of CCA 1974 provides them with entitlement etc etc. - because there is'nt an answer. As I have said before, there is only one legal method for Egg to terminate your credit card agreement.

I found out very quickly about the law, and I have not paid Egg a penny since they terminated my agreement. They passed it to Capquest, who seemed to get fed up with me, and they passed it on to Collect Direct.

I got a letter before action from their solictors, and wrote the letter I suggested to you.

Havent heard from them yet after a month.

Regards

 

You really know how to say the right things

 

You give me hope

 

One thing bugging me is my s78 request is tracked by the PO as still not delivered after 4 working days :?

 

Maybe Egg now refuse to accept recorded deliveries

[toymaker1]

You really know how to say the right things

 

You give me hope

 

One thing bugging me is my s78 request is tracked by the PO as still not delivered after 4 working days :?

 

Maybe Egg now refuse to accept recorded deliveries

 

Dont let it wind you up. Maybe it really did get lost in the post. - just send it to them again, and pay another £4.60. Be patient.

It isn't up to Egg to refuse recorded deliveries. - if the Royal Mail deliver it, they will record that delivery.

 

Regards

[basa48]

Dont let it wind you up. Maybe it really did get lost in the post. - just send it to them again, and pay another £4.60. Be patient.

It isn't up to Egg to refuse recorded deliveries. - if the Royal Mail deliver it, they will record that delivery.

 

Regards

 

My one to Tesco got delivered :-|

 

I'll wait until late tomorrow and send another. My cost was £1.50 PO + £1.08 recorded letter, or should I send it special D next day ??

[lollipop73]

Does anyone know what one can do should a SAR not be completely fulfilled?

 

For example, the termination letter does not get produced in the SAR, but you still have a copy, proving that they sent it to you.

 

Would this be a problem - or is it within the law?

 

Depends on how the SAR was worded, did it include a part asking where docs have been destroyed a full explanation of the method by which it was destroyed and certification that it was destroyed in an appropiate way, because if they claim they did destroy it well isn`t it lucky for them you have the original. I would however consider reporting them for this because they are clearly playing silly beggars with legitimate requests-one might almost ask-why? What have they to lose, if they are so good at this stuff?

[thekat1979]

Playing silly beggars with SARs is a bit of an understatement! I'm just about to send off for default judgement against them because they didn't even acknowledge service of my claim for non-compliance. All I want is what I paid for (and they cashed the cheque so SOMEONE has seen it)

[Mistermind]

Does anyone know what one can do should a SAR not be completely fulfilled?

 

For example, the termination letter does not get produced in the SAR, but you still have a copy, proving that they sent it to you.

 

Would this be a problem - or is it within the law?

 

The law obliges Egg to maintain copy of all info they store electronically about a particular cardholder (in case it is wrong and needs to be challenged), not to store a verbatim copy of every letter they send to every cardholder. If the latter then Egg will need to treble their magnetic storage media. When template letter no. 137B is sent out to a cardholder, the most that will be stored is a marker on the account showing said letter has been sent out, possibly with a date but may be not. When the same template letter is sent out to 161,000 cardholders it is inconceivable for 161,000 identical copies to be stored on each account.

 

Anybody mounting a lawsuit for a group of 10 is launching class action, i.e. it will be transparently obvious to the judge, his verdict will become at worst encouragement and at best a precedent for 161,000 others in the same boat. Purely hypothetically, if the judge found himself leaning towards the verdict "cardholder no longer liable for his debt after agreement termination", he will be acutely aware his verdict will deprive Egg of 161,000 outstanding debts -- say at average £2,000 per account, then a total of £320 million. A county judge will most likely withhold a verdict triggering transfer of £320 million deeminig it more appropriate to the High Court after exhaustic examination, and if he did Egg will be certain to appeal all the way up at ruinous legal expense to all parties. Tom Brennan tried in court to take on the banks as the battering ram for millions of common folk. The judge would have none of it, ruling that battle was for the OFT-v-banks in the Test Case.

 

And if the Egg cardholder loses his lawsuit in county court? Quite likely some or all of Egg's costs will be awarded against the losing party.

[toymaker1]

The law obliges Egg to maintain copy of all info they store electronically about a particular cardholder (in case it is wrong and needs to be challenged), not to store a verbatim copy of every letter they send to every cardholder. If the latter then Egg will need to treble their magnetic storage media. When template letter no. 137B is sent out to a cardholder, the most that will be stored is a marker on the account showing said letter has been sent out, possibly with a date but may be not. When the same template letter is sent out to 161,000 cardholders it is inconceivable for 161,000 identical copies to be stored on each account.

 

Anybody mounting a lawsuit for a group of 10 is launching class action, i.e. it will be transparently obvious to the judge, his verdict will become at worst encouragement and at best a precedent for 161,000 others in the same boat. Purely hypothetically, if the judge found himself leaning towards the verdict "cardholder no longer liable for his debt after agreement termination", he will be acutely aware his verdict will deprive Egg of 161,000 outstanding debts -- say at average £2,000 per account, then a total of £320 million. A county judge will most likely withhold a verdict triggering transfer of £320 million deeminig it more appropriate to the High Court after exhaustic examination, and if he did Egg will be certain to appeal all the way up at ruinous legal expense to all parties. Tom Brennan tried in court to take on the banks as the battering ram for millions of common folk. The judge would have none of it, ruling that battle was for the OFT-v-banks in the Test Case.

 

And if the Egg cardholder loses his lawsuit in county court? Quite likely some or all of Egg's costs will be awarded against the losing party.

 

I really cannot see where Mistermind is coming from on this.

I believe it is quite straightforward, insofar as if a creditor terminates a credit card agreement without complying with the provisions set out in S86 87 88 of CCA 1974 then legally they havent got a leg to stand on.

I believe that if the creditor (in this example Egg) appealed, the court would decide that Egg were liable for damages, because they breached the contract between them and the debtor.

 

The court would not be worried by the fact that it might cost Egg £320 million.

 

Regards

Peter

[Mistermind]

 

I believe it is quite straightforward, insofar as if a creditor terminates a credit card agreement without complying with the provisions set out in S86 87 88 of CCA 1974 then legally they havent got a leg to stand on.

I believe that if the creditor (in this example Egg) appealed, the court would decide that Egg were liable for damages, because they breached the contract between them and the debtor.

 

The court would not be worried by the fact that it might cost Egg £320 million.

 

Regards

Peter

 

If you believe it is quite straightforward,

if you know what the court will do,

what is your advice for Eddie about to go to court?

[BlueSquirrel]

Depends on how the SAR was worded, did it include a part asking where docs have been destroyed a full explanation of the method by which it was destroyed and certification that it was destroyed in an appropiate way, because if they claim they did destroy it well isn`t it lucky for them you have the original. I would however consider reporting them for this because they are clearly playing silly beggars with legitimate requests-one might almost ask-why? What have they to lose, if they are so good at this stuff?

 

I worded my SAR in this way, Egg said they do not have the original agreement. I have asked a further question regards their methods of destroying etc and they will not reply. They just keep saying the FSA tell them they don't have to keep it, which is nothing to do with anything IMHO.