Jump to content


Termination of Egg credit card agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3717 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'll be most interested in you results!

 

So will I:D

Its my wifes account , but I just love doing this stuff !

I will, of course, post anything they send to be used in our fight against these bankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So will I:D

Its my wifes account , but I just love doing this stuff !

I will, of course, post anything they send to be used in our fight against these bankers.

 

Excellent, let's hope we do it before they go bust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've Subject Access Requested them for anything to do with transactions and my banking history with them. Had to apply for a court order, and they didn't acknowledge service, so asked for a default judgement. A day later I receive copy statements from them but absolutely nothing else whatsoever. I know there should be more, they had to change my account number at one point because my new card went missing in the post, surely that at the very least should mean there is more to my account than just statements. I did a fairly basic SAR, as I said, just asking for information relating to my banking hsitory with them, no specific documents requested. Bit too late to change that now. I may RE-issue my SAR and state specific documents once this is all cleared up.

TheKat1979 - Taking Control!

 

Taking on -

Barclaycard via HFO - daft application form sent

Barclays Current Account - at AQ stage - fingers crossed asked for Hardship

Egg - various issues! Are about to default me on a disputed debt!

Bryan Carter CCJ set aside - looks to have been set aside without a trip to court! WOO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

I can't believe you think that I am a mole for Egg!?!?

 

What the hell? That's really really offensive. I am a HSBC consumer in practically the exact same situation as you. I am on your side!

 

However, I am trying to look at it from all angles...to see whether my arguments hold any gravity...and I'm beginning to doubt that they are. As a result, I wrote my earlier post for you to consider what I had begun thinking...

 

For whoever asked what level I am... I have studied for thee years now. I am a student/full time fee earner specialising in property law. So nowhere do I profess to be an experienced lawyer who you should believe word for word! I've explained all this in earlier posts! I am not professing to be knowledgeable in the Consumer Credit Act! I have never ever studied this and am doing it from scratch like the rest of you. I'm just joining in and telling you that I have started to doubt myself.

 

I will re-iterate what I said earlier and still believe:-

 

ss67-73 are not applicable. They apply to cancellation within the "cooling off period". cooling off is defined in the act.

 

ss87-89 are re default notices to be served if the account is in breach for any reason - this gives time to remedy the breach rather than cancelling it outright.

 

I understand that, if we had been in breach...it looks as though we'd have been better off than the position we are in now. Which is completely unfair and can't be right.

 

s98 re termination (that is what has been done to us! Non-default agreement has been terminated!) I don't understand why Toymaker is saying I'm getting confused. Terminated/Ended the agreement? But...this isn't applicable to credit cards because they are of an unspecified duration...

 

Therefore...cancelling of our agreements, to me, doesn't look to be protected by statute.

 

In my recent letter to HSBC, which I am still drafting because I don't feel confident with the contents, is talking about contract rights and how can they pursue me now that they have ended our agreement. They are no longer giving me credit which was a term of their agreement and I should therefore no longer have to pay them back in accordance with their T and C's.

 

However, even if this is the case...we still owe them money. Their money. We have no right to have that money. We have borrowed it. Just like you borrow a loan.

 

They shouldn't be able to charge a high interest rate on it now...and to be honest, we should be able to agree a repayment programme to how we want it. But I don't believe that we can claim they have no right for the money back.

 

Like I said, when money is owed on a mortgage after they have sold through repossession, they can pursue it from you as a personal debt (i.e out of the agreement). When taking it to court, they wouldn't ask the judge to enforce the agreement...which no longer applied. It'd be a personal debt that they had a duty to repay.

 

Many of you will simply shrug off what I say because it's against your own viewpoint and I'm beginning to see my input wasn't appreciated. However, for those of you out there who don't want to argue a case and then later realise you were barking up the wrong tree all the time. Maybe stop listening to other people on here telling you what's what when they themselves have no experience in Consumer Credit Act law and just form an opinion yourself and consider both sides. If you still want to go ahead and fight your case, then you should do.

 

I certainly will be doing regardless of what I've said here. I'll just be aware as to what may come back and if the time comes I run out of arguments, I'll have to accept what has been done can be done and can't be changed. No matter how much it sucks.

 

We need the ability to appreciate two sides of an argument in life. N the law is the law at the end of the day. The law isn't always fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you think that I am a mole for Egg!?!?

 

What the hell? That's really really offensive. I am a HSBC consumer in practically the exact same situation as you. I am on your side!

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist using the pun "Egg plant", which I admit I find hilarious. I shouldn't laugh at my own jokes!

 

Many of you will simply shrug off what I say because it's against your own viewpoint and I'm beginning to see my input wasn't appreciated. However, for those of you out there who don't want to argue a case and then later realise you were barking up the wrong tree all the time. Maybe stop listening to other people on here telling you what's what when they themselves have no experience in Consumer Credit Act law and just form an opinion yourself and consider both sides. If you still want to go ahead and fight your case, then you should do.

 

I appreciate all sensible input into these discussions and I think it is always worth hearing opposing points of view. After all, these could well come up court, and so it is useful to have thought about them and considered whether they can be refuted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've Subject Access Requested them for anything to do with transactions and my banking history with them. Had to apply for a court order, and they didn't acknowledge service, so asked for a default judgement. A day later I receive copy statements from them but absolutely nothing else whatsoever. I know there should be more, they had to change my account number at one point because my new card went missing in the post, surely that at the very least should mean there is more to my account than just statements. I did a fairly basic SAR, as I said, just asking for information relating to my banking hsitory with them, no specific documents requested. Bit too late to change that now. I may RE-issue my SAR and state specific documents once this is all cleared up.

I did an SAR request and all I got were copy statements. They said they didn't realise I wanted anything else even though my initial letter was very clear. I have chased them several times for the balance of info but they have sent nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let you know what I get from them eventually!

TheKat1979 - Taking Control!

 

Taking on -

Barclaycard via HFO - daft application form sent

Barclays Current Account - at AQ stage - fingers crossed asked for Hardship

Egg - various issues! Are about to default me on a disputed debt!

Bryan Carter CCJ set aside - looks to have been set aside without a trip to court! WOO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.

 

I have studied for thee years now. I am a student/full time fee earner specialising in property law.

 

Like I said, when money is owed on a mortgage after they have sold through repossession, they can pursue it from you as a personal debt (i.e out of the agreement). When taking it to court, they wouldn't ask the judge to enforce the agreement...which no longer applied. It'd be a personal debt that they had a duty to repay.

 

You clearly have studied property law in detail. I have not studied property law at all.

Let's examine what you have said about mortgage debt and compare it to a credit card debt.

The example you give about the mortgage borrower having a debt they have a duty to repay sounds perfectly logical and correct. In your example the mortgagee (the creditor) at no time acted outside the provisions of property law. The law sets out provisions for every stage of the proceedings, from the warnings letters from the mortgage company through failure of the mortgager to maintain his /her repayments, through repossesion of the property, through liability for any outstanding debt still left after the property has been sold to recover part of the debt owed to the mortgage company.

In your example, at no stage would the mortgage company have acted outside the provisions of the relevant property laws. Therefore, as you correctly indicate, the mortgager is left at the end of the process still owing some money, which he/she has a legal liability to repay.

However, in the case which we have been discussing in these posts, i.e. the terminating by Egg of accounts which are not in default, it is clear that Egg have acted outside the provisions of the relevant credit laws.

In fact, Egg acted in a manner which goes to the very heart of the contract between Egg and it's creditors. i.e. Egg voluntarily ended it's contract between itself and creditors who were not in default.

Can you not see that in that situation, far from having a duty to repay the money (which was owed under the terms of a contract which Egg has voluntarily terminated, and which Egg cannot therefore enforce) Egg has opened itself up to a liability to pay damages to the creditor, for a repudiatory breach by Egg of Egg's contractual agreement to offer credit to the undefaulting creditor.

Every aspect of what I have said is covered by relevant laws to regulate the conduct and liability of each party to agreements.

 

regards

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not quite relevant to the 'termination' issue of this thread, I have done abit of reading and thought this might be of interest (especially the bits underlined). It's quite long, but well worth a read.

 

Taken from House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

 

Extract from OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

 

Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

 

ON THURSDAY 10 JULY 2003

 

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

 

Para 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with.

 

In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3).

 

Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.

 

Para 49. I consider, however, that there is no relevant restitutionary remedy generally available to a lender in the circumstances now under consideration. The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan.

 

That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable.

 

True, the Consumer Credit Act does not expressly negative any other remedy available to the lender, nor does it render an improperly executed agreement unlawful. But when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.

 

Para*50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order.

 

In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions.

 

It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

 

This opinion was further endorsed by:

 

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

 

Any use?? Thoughts??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update.

Egg are sending out copies of the termination letter, albeit a bit of a variation, but with the crucial points in place; i.e. we are ending the agreement from this date.

 

It would seem that it requires a multiple route approach though.

 

I'll be interested to compare wordings of what other people receive compared to the original letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I asked them for the reasoning behind terminating my account via secure message.

 

Their response? Your account is will collections so we are unable to deal with your account by secure message.

 

Grrrr! I'm going to write to them by snail mail - apparently I can do that! I'm going to send them a lovely letter, going to compose it this evening which basically raises all of the points I have. I MAY do separate letters for each point so that they don't get confused.

 

Egg. This is WAR!

TheKat1979 - Taking Control!

 

Taking on -

Barclaycard via HFO - daft application form sent

Barclays Current Account - at AQ stage - fingers crossed asked for Hardship

Egg - various issues! Are about to default me on a disputed debt!

Bryan Carter CCJ set aside - looks to have been set aside without a trip to court! WOO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After sending my letter to Egg and a copy to CapQuest with regards to my "Terminated Agreement" asking egg to indicate to me which specific part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is considered by Egg to provide legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement when my account was not in default.

 

After CapQuest received my letter they then sent me a letter saying "it is apparent that you have not responded in away that is acceptable, to make necessary arrangements to settle your account" then going on to say the have continued legal proceedings with a view to one of the following enforcement methods charging order, statutory demand, attachment of earnings order.

 

I then sent CapQuest this letter

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Reference Number xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

With regards to your letter dated XXXXX it is quite clear from your response that you have chosen to ignore my letter that I sent you (on XXXXX ) and have decided to continue collection activity. I have made both you and your client fully aware of my reasons for disputing this debt in my letter. I have since received a letter from Egg dated XXXXX which I have enclosed a copy of, they have indicated to me that they are investigating the matter of my disputed debt.

 

Should you not be aware paragraph 2.8 k. of the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003 (updated in December 2006) makes it very clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. Should you chooses to ignore my dispute and continue to breach the OFT Collection Guidelines, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action. I hope that this will not be necessary.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and I look forward to the results of your client’s investigation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

I then received a letter from CapQuest saying they are unable to comment on the dispute and therefore they are closing the account on their system.

 

After receiving a letter from egg it is clear they have not investigated the matter at all. The say they are responding to my letter of the 20th Feb! I did not send them a letter on the 20th Feb. I sent a letter to them on the 10th! Anyway they go on to say that they did send me a "true copy" of the executed agreement What! :confused: I asked them to indicate to me which specific part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is considered by Egg to provide legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement when my account was not in default. Not if the agreement they sent me was a true copy or not!

 

Anyway I will now sit tight and await the next DCA's letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More than I've got from them. I just keep getting secure message bac saying that I cannot be dealt with via secure message.

TheKat1979 - Taking Control!

 

Taking on -

Barclaycard via HFO - daft application form sent

Barclays Current Account - at AQ stage - fingers crossed asked for Hardship

Egg - various issues! Are about to default me on a disputed debt!

Bryan Carter CCJ set aside - looks to have been set aside without a trip to court! WOO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
More than I've got from them. I just keep getting secure message bac saying that I cannot be dealt with via secure message.

 

Try starting multiple messages to multiple departments (from the dropdown menu), even if it doesn't seem relevant.

 

You might get some success.

 

They know that they have made a mistake with the terminations, but you have to be certain that you will see it all the way with them.

 

Do that and you will almost certainly get them.

 

Unfortunately, it may take a letter from a legal professional to get them to take notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just keep getting secure message bac saying that I cannot be dealt with via secure message.

 

 

Communicating with Egg via secure message system is a total waste of time.

You must WRITE A LETTER.

When you send via secure message, it is just acknowledged by whichever temp/agency staff happens to be on duty when your message comes through. You will not be able to get anything legally reliable from Egg. They would argue that the person who responded to your secure message was not correctly conveying Egg company policies. etc etc.

 

You must send a recorded delivery letter. That is the only way to have something which will stand up in court.

 

Regards

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
Communicating with Egg via secure message system is a total waste of time.

You must WRITE A LETTER.

When you send via secure message, it is just acknowledged by whichever temp/agency staff happens to be on duty when your message comes through. You will not be able to get anything legally reliable from Egg. They would argue that the person who responded to your secure message was not correctly conveying Egg company policies. etc etc.

 

You must send a recorded delivery letter. That is the only way to have something which will stand up in court.

 

Regards

Peter

I have to back up Toymaker here.

Everything we have had of value via secure message, we have insisted on in writing.

 

We actually got most of it.

 

Never give up with them, be relentless and you will eventually get results.

 

Lots of people on here to keep supporting you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know I am still actively persuing egg over this, however I am a little concerned with providing too much information as I believe some posters on this thread are not what they seem :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosalt, BigEddie and Toymaker.

 

Would you mind if I PM each of you later regarding a 'dispute' letter I am shortly to send to Egg CC? I just want you to look over it and comment. I don't want to put it on the forum for the same reasons 'cosalt' cited.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosalt, BigEddie and Toymaker.

 

Would you mind if I PM each of you later regarding a 'dispute' letter I am shortly to send to Egg CC? I just want you to look over it and comment. I don't want to put it on the forum for the same reasons 'cosalt' cited.

OK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosalt, BigEddie and Toymaker.

 

Would you mind if I PM each of you later regarding a 'dispute' letter I am shortly to send to Egg CC? I just want you to look over it and comment. I don't want to put it on the forum for the same reasons 'cosalt' cited.

 

No problem, although I am not the most qualified on here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We can't deal with this by secure message"

So why do they keep sending them out ?

 

Dear Mrs P,

 

You may have recently seen information from us about this message.

 

Despite numerous communications, your account still remains in arrears. You need to call us immediately on the contact number below to make suitable arrangements to bring your account up to date.

 

Failure to clear these arrears within the next few days will result in further collections activity being taken against you; this could involve the sending of a Statutory Default Notice, and information about how you manage your account is shared with Credit Reference Agencies and may affect your ability to get credit in the future, as this information is held for six years.

 

To prevent further collections activity call now on 08456 000 296.

 

If you have made a payment to clear your arrears in the last seven days, please ignore this message. Your payment will update your account shortly.

 

I'm really ashamed to have these cowboys in Derby!

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may take on that stance, I'm nearly done with my letter to the Collections Department stating everything I've been putting in secure message and keep getting 'we can't deal with this in secure message'. Grrr!

TheKat1979 - Taking Control!

 

Taking on -

Barclaycard via HFO - daft application form sent

Barclays Current Account - at AQ stage - fingers crossed asked for Hardship

Egg - various issues! Are about to default me on a disputed debt!

Bryan Carter CCJ set aside - looks to have been set aside without a trip to court! WOO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosalt, BigEddie and Toymaker.

 

Would you mind if I PM each of you later regarding a 'dispute' letter I am shortly to send to Egg CC? I just want you to look over it and comment. I don't want to put it on the forum for the same reasons 'cosalt' cited.

 

 

Sorry basa :( I missed your post.

 

Presumably you have sorted this now ? But if you need any help by all means PM and if I can help I will.

 

:)

 

Cosalt

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3717 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...