Egg credit card agreement terminated

[basa48]

Quite simply if they took me to court I would defend on the basis that there is no agreement.

 

In my case egg 'ended' my agreement. If it is ended it no longer exists therefore any terms that were in it no longer exist. If there is no agreement it cannot conform to the cca 1974 and therefore they can't enforce it.

 

And of course my agreement did not show a credit limit so even if egg managed to argue that it was not ended it is unenforcable anyway due to a missing prescribed term.

 

Cosalt

 

Or could you challenge the clause they refer to in the T&Cs as an unfair term. With its removal there is no method by which they can terminate.

[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.

[Hopster]

Twodogs. Send them a CPR letter now that they have threatened you with court. This letter pretty much demands everything that they have and further to this there will be more letters from them, and eventually they ARC will write to you and say "that the account is currently on hold as we have passed your comments to oyur client and are awaiting their instructions." You do not have to pay for the information requester in the CPR Letter even though they may ask you to do so.

[Peterbard]

Quite simply if they took me to court I would defend on the basis that there is no agreement.

 

In my case egg 'ended' my agreement. If it is ended it no longer exists therefore any terms that were in it no longer exist. If there is no agreement it cannot conform to the cca 1974 and therefore they can't enforce it.

 

And of course my agreement did not show a credit limit so even if egg managed to argue that it was not ended it is unenforcable anyway due to a missing prescribed term.

 

Cosalt

 

I really do wish you luck but i think you are misstaken.termnation does not mean the agreement as ended. Agrements are terminated during defaulat and the court still goes on to enforce,how hould they do tha if the agreement was void, charges can still be added to atrerminated accounts, this is not a theory it happens every day. I would love you to be correct but.

The isssue of not showing the credit limit is a diffeernt one an if true has a chance of success bearing in mind that a figure does not have to be shown on an agreement of this type just the method of deriving it

 

I would really like your comments and reason why the first paragrah of this post dows not alter your position in this.

 

Peter

Peter

[Peterbard]

Quite simply if they took me to court I would defend on the basis that there is no agreement.

 

In my case egg 'ended' my agreement. If it is ended it no longer exists therefore any terms that were in it no longer exist. If there is no agreement it cannot conform to the cca 1974 and therefore they can't enforce it.

 

And of course my agreement did not show a credit limit so even if egg managed to argue that it was not ended it is unenforcable anyway due to a missing prescribed term.

 

Cosalt

 

HI just another point that i would like you to clear uop for me. Since you are saynig the termination has ended the agreement,does this mean that you accept that the termination is legal. Because if it isnt of corse then the agrement wouldnt be terminated at all.

 

If it turned out that the termination did in fact mean that the agreement was dead then isnt it possible that they court would say that this is just a partial terminatial as provided for in the act. secion 98(4)

 

 

Peter

Peter

[Peterbard]

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.

 

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

[diddydicky]

HiDD

 

If termination under any circumstances was unlawful wouldnt it say so in the act, and doesnt the very fact that it doesnt say so defeat your argument section 170

 

Peter

 

hi peter,

 

i didnt say that termination under any circumstances was unlwaful-

 

if the creditor abides by the cca then he may lawfully terminated

 

if he falls foul then he unlawfully termintes

 

in an earlier reply to anothe poster you argued that if the agreement was terminated- what was it that the creditor took the debtor to cour for

 

the answer being that if he lawfully terminates- he is entitled to claim the benefits of s87 of the agreement - to immediate payment of those sums that were not yet due under the agreement until it was terminated- those sums are still due to the creditor after the (lawful) termination of the agreement itself- as are any arrears that were due at the time of the termination

 

when unlawfully terminated- they are not!

[diddydicky]

I really do wish you luck but i think you are misstaken.termnation does not mean the agreement as ended. Agrements are terminated during defaulat and the court still goes on to enforce,how hould they do tha if the agreement was void, charges can still be added to atrerminated accounts, this is not a theory it happens every day. I would love you to be correct but.

The isssue of not showing the credit limit is a diffeernt one an if true has a chance of success bearing in mind that a figure does not have to be shown on an agreement of this type just the method of deriving it

 

I would really like your comments and reason why the first paragrah of this post dows not alter your position in this.

 

Peter

Peter

 

 

i think ||||" we are terminating your agreement means

 

we are "terminating" your "agreement"

 

you seem to overlook the fact that the CCa is there to specifically protect and come to the aid of the "david" (the debtor) against the "goliath" in these credit agreements

 

the courts will (are obliged by the act) to recognise that the debtor will be unsophisticated in these respects and will be entitled take the creditors at his word

 

indeed the act is predicated on the debtor being left in do doubt as to what the creditor intends

 

the test of the chap on the clapham omnibus- if applied to the phrase "we have terminated your agreement" will i suspect, uphold that view

 

your difficulty seems to be in accepting that the law will indeed tolerate the creditors "unlawful|" actions in repudiating the agreement, or that the injured or performing party then has the "option" of either accepting or rejecting that action

[Peterbard]

hi peter,

 

i didnt say that termination under any circumstances was unlwaful-

 

if the creditor abides by the cca then he may lawfully terminated

 

if he falls foul then he unlawfully termintes

 

Sorry not with this do you mean some other law other that the cca?

If he fauls foul or breaches the cca then the sanctions for that breach are listed within the appropriate section.

 

in an earlier reply to anothe poster you argued that if the agreement was terminated- what was it that the creditor took the debtor to cour for

 

the answer being that if he lawfully terminates- he is entitled to claim the benefits of s87 of the agreement - to immediate payment of those sums that were not yet due under the agreement until it was terminated- those sums are still due to the creditor after the (lawful) termination of the agreement itself- as are any arrears that were due at the time of the termination

 

 

when unlawfully terminated- they are not!

 

Hi see ablve

 

Sorry i cannot understand the reasoning hear perhaps the judgge will.

Best of luck

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

i think ||||" we are terminating your agreement means

 

we are "terminating" your "agreement"

 

you seem to overlook the fact that the CCa is there to specifically protect and come to the aid of the "david" (the debtor) against the "goliath" in these credit agreements

 

the courts will (are obliged by the act) to recognise that the debtor will be unsophisticated in these respects and will be entitled take the creditors at his word

 

indeed the act is predicated on the debtor being left in do doubt as to what the creditor intends

 

the test of the chap on the clapham omnibus- if applied to the phrase "we have terminated your agreement" will i suspect, uphold that view

 

your difficulty seems to be in accepting that the law will indeed tolerate the creditors "unlawful|" actions in repudiating the agreement, or that the injured or performing party then has the "option" of either accepting or rejecting that action

 

Hi

Yes the clapham omnibyus argument used a lot in law lots of barristors from clapham, some of them are i think also in the legal proffession.

 

Might be an idea if you clicked on my name and had a look at some of my previous threads and perhaps ou may get an idea that i know what i am talking about.

 

This is rubbish i am aaffraid

 

Peter

[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?

[Peterbard]

Well, think of it this way.

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

 

Make sense?

 

Hi

Well yes there is section 40 of the administration of justice act i suppose.

 

However the creditor would still be be to ask for repayment even if the agreement was unenforceable the only way ot get rid of the debt unfortunately iis to pay it.

 

Peter

[cosalt]

I really do wish you luck but i think you are misstaken.termnation does not mean the agreement as ended. Agrements are terminated during defaulat and the court still goes on to enforce,how hould they do tha if the agreement was void, charges can still be added to atrerminated accounts, this is not a theory it happens every day. I would love you to be correct but.

The isssue of not showing the credit limit is a diffeernt one an if true has a chance of success bearing in mind that a figure does not have to be shown on an agreement of this type just the method of deriving it

 

I would really like your comments and reason why the first paragrah of this post dows not alter your position in this.

 

Peter

Peter

 

I suggest you take a look at post 119 on this thread. Egg most definately did 'end' my agreement

 

Not sure why you are still arguing the point but they can't just end an agreement without it being in default. They can restrict the use but they can't end it.

 

Not quite sure what your agenda is here but it would seem you are just disagreeing with anything that is said on this thread. You are of course entitled to your opinion and I am all for healthy debate which is of course the very thing that makes forums such as this work.

 

Unless of course you have a vested interest....................

[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...

[Guest HeftyHippo]

the court still goes on to enforce,how hould they do tha if the agreement was void, charges can still be added to atrerminated accounts, this is not a theory it happens every day.

 

a court can Order anything it likes. if someone hits you on the head a court can Order them to pay you compensation - despite there being no agreement that you allow someone to hit you on the head for a charge of £x.

 

Agreements that are ended correctly, via a default notice and the termination sometimes end up in court, but the agreement itself is not enforced by court - that would mean 5% of the balance being due every month and interest at the appropriate APR. Instead, the Court orders repayment at a rate the debtor can afford, and interest and charges are frozen. That's not the same as the agreement being enforced. Once the judge has made a decision, his decision overrides anything else and only the court can vary that Order.

 

If you borrow money from your friend and don't pay it back, the court can order you to do so, despite there being no agreement under the CCA1974, or any 'proper' agreement at all.

[Peterbard]

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...

 

 

Hi

 

On the contrarry

I fully understand

 

A terminated account does still exist the parties are still under an agreement as the act puts it even though the agrement is terminated.

 

It is a fact i am affraid.

 

The term you are looking for is void not terminated.

 

Yes i have an agenda , i work with the CAB, i am the tresurer and vice chair of my local credit union and i have been active in fighting against the baillifs increasing powers both on here and on the wider arrena for some years click on my name and have a look.

My agenda here is to stop others following tnhis frankly foolish action.

 

Best regards

Peter

[diddydicky]

Hi

 

On the contrarry

I fully understand

 

A terminated account does still exist the parties are still under an agreement as the act puts it even though the agrement is terminated.

 

It is a fact i am affraid.

 

The term you are looking for is void not terminated.

 

Yes i have an agenda , i work with the CAB, i am the tresurer and vice chair of my local credit union and i have been active in fighting against the baillifs increasing powers both on here and on the wider arrena for some years click on my name and have a look.

My agenda here is to stop others following tnhis frankly foolish action.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

the court enforces that which is still (lawfully) due to the creditor upon termination of the agreement. which is the whole of the outstanding balance of the account if it was lawfully terminated and is restricted to the arrears outstanding at the time of termination if the creditor unlawfully repudiated and the debtor accepted his actions as rescinding the agreement

 

CAB do a lot of good work but i have personal knowledge of many occassions where debtors have been advised to make offers of payments on debts that they should never have accepted as valid, let alone make payments.

[Peterbard]

Hi

What you are saying ,if I understand you correctly is,n agreement once terminated no longer has any contractual hold over either party.

WE have discussed this on here before back last year after Rainkine and more recently in connection with companies who specialise in “Debt Buying”.

You see what you are suggesting if correct has far more wide ranging implications than I think you envisage

If the termination removes all the creditors rights under the agreement ,then it also removes all the lenders.

So what then if the creditor terminates a contract under section 98 and subsequently the lender applies for a copy document under section 77?

According to your analysis the parties are no longer “under an agreement” so the request would not have to be complied with.

This was the opinion of the judge in Rankine as I said earlier, and agrees with your position.

However this judgement was universally panned by the likes of Goode and Beniun who said that terminating the account did not mean that the parties lost all rights under the agreement.

I wish I could lay my hands on the piece by Goode that explains this but I cannot find it, I know PT has a copy because it was he who first brought it to my attention on the agreements thread, perhaps he may find it for you if you asked I doubt he would for me.

You may be aware of the current [problem] that is going around where companies say they can buy your debt for a fee and then you will not have to face your creditors.

We had an interesting conversation with one of these practitioners, and it turns out that their whole business, is based around your definition of Termination.

They argue that since Rankine if the account has been terminated then the debt is no longer under an agreement therefore the debtor can do what he likes with it. If your definition of termination is correct then it is hard to see how this would not be the case.

However it most certainly is not the case. The ministry of justice have left no doubt that the practice of selling debts is illegal and have even taken steps to remove the credit licences of those who engage in it.

Peter

[Peterbard]

the court enforces that which is still (lawfully) due to the creditor upon termination of the agreement. which is the whole of the outstanding balance of the account if it was lawfully terminated and is restricted to the arrears outstanding at the time of termination if the creditor unlawfully repudiated and the debtor accepted his actions as rescinding the agreement

 

CAB do a lot of good work but i have personal knowledge of many occassions where debtors have been advised to make offers of payments on debts that they should never have accepted as valid, let alone make payments.

 

Sorry but this is factually incorrect,the court can only enforce judgemnt on an active ageement(thank goodness) if you definition was correct they could not enforce after the ageement was terminated.

 

Peter

[pumpytums]

Hi everyone,

just had a look through my SAR from Egg and it clearly states in early 2008 that "Account Terminated" it actually has this on 3 lines on one of the logs. May I add that I was keeping up with payments at this time. I had problems early 2009 and they allegedly defaulted after 1 missed payment I have never seen the default notice to this day I have even asked for it 3 times in writing even sending a LBA.

 

I went to see the CAB they were helpful but they take a neutral stance in my view. They did advise to make £1 to creditors, but they never advised looking at agreements. I think they are simply swamped and they advised me to declare myself bankrupt, which I did consider at the time.

 

Luckily I found CAG, and I know so much more.

 

Pumpytums

Edited February 24, 2010 by pumpytums

[diddydicky]

they are well meaning and selfless folk but i do not think that many of them have the qualifications to be able to make such draconian suggestions to clients

 

in the event that a client truly was bankrupt |(ie had nothing) he is often in a very strong bargaining position and IMO the LAST thing he should be doing is the creditors jobs for them- rather he should be telling them he aint paying and if they dont like it they can swivel

[Guest HeftyHippo]

lets try another tack because positions are becoming entrenched here. on the assumption that we all genuinely want to learn and benefit from other's experience, please indulge me for a while, nothing has been achieved so far, and there is no narrowing of the gap between the 2 views.

 

so peterbard, if, as you say, (08.54 yesterday)

A terminated account does still exist the parties are still under an agreement as the act puts it even though the agrement is terminated.

, can you explain how? forget specifically the CCA, there are lots of other agreements, eg renting a house, you have a tenancy agreement. are you saying that when your 6 month initial agreement ends, and you decide to move out, that they agreement still exists? does that mean you can still live there even though the agreement (which includes your agreement to pay £xx on yy of every month) has ended, and with it, your agreement to pay the rent?

 

If you are right, can you give us some legal judgements that confirm what you say? the egg caggers, (I think that's a new adjective, or maybe noun, or perhaps a new collective noun) of which I am one, are in the position that there is an unknown here, probably because no card or credit company has even done what egg did, so we don't have any precedent to support our views. On the other hand, if you are right, then there should be precedents to quote, because whilst our situation is egg-specific relating to their never done before actions, a agreement/contract that continues post termination could have precedents in a whole variety of fields - housing rental, car rental, etc as well as those in the credit field. after all, your window cleaner has an agreement with you, and you with him. agreements are all over the place, so give us an example to support what you say. if you prove yourself right, you might also prove us wrong.

 

I believe it's far better for us all to know the truth in law (if thats not a contradiction) so we can decide what to do, even if it means that we're unfortunately wrong. so, convince us your'e right, not by saying you are, but showing us. we can't show that we're right, because no one has done an egg before, but there is plenty out there about repudiated contracts to prove one element of what we say.

 

so, lets forget the arguing, lets just see some evidence of youre claims. I would very much like us to be right, but I'd rather know for sure one way or the other rather than risk losing court action because I don't look for all the facts both for and against me.

Edited February 24, 2010 by HeftyHippo

[c14r3]

Hi

 

On the contrarry

I fully understand

 

A terminated account does still exist the parties are still under an agreement as the act puts it even though the agrement is terminated.

 

It is a fact i am affraid.

 

The term you are looking for is void not terminated.

 

Yes i have an agenda , i work with the CAB, i am the tresurer and vice chair of my local credit union and i have been active in fighting against the baillifs increasing powers both on here and on the wider arrena for some years click on my name and have a look.

My agenda here is to stop others following tnhis frankly foolish action.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

 

CAB only GOD could tell me where they get their prehistoric information! The advice they have gave me in the past was absolutely shocking! In 2008 they told me I would NEVER find a solicitor who would be willing to take legal proceedings against another solicitor regarding professional negligence they said it was unheard of! I'm sure they do a lot of other good work but I personally would never rely on what they told me and I would never think of recommending them to my family or friends, I'd only recommend them to my worst enemy.

[twodogs]

Perhaps the bard works for Egg, T. Munn or ARC Europe Ltd?

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Perhaps the bard works for Egg, T. Munn or ARC Europe Ltd?

 

well lets not malign the guy, lets see what he can prove. As I said, its on our interest to know our true position, even if we don't like it.

 

there's no point in simply arguing is there, we should all we trying to establish the truth