Egg credit card agreement terminated

[Mistermind]

 

What does seem clear to me is that it can be argued either way, which means in practice Egg won't want this case going anywhere near a court.

 

That is a shrewd comment from the legal profession.

 

In April 2006 the OFT fired the opening shot which triggered a nationwide revolt by penalty charge victims. For the next 12 months banks and credit cards avoided a pitched battle in court like a plague. Industry sources estimated the total of out-of-court refunds as £500 million towards 500,000 claimants?

 

Then in April 2007 came the Kevin-v-Lloyds trial. Many still believe this showdown materialised by accident. Lloyds barrister or solicitor did not bother to show up in Small Claims Court, but Judge Cooke surprisingly opted to try the case in absentia of Lloyds. Judgment went for the bank. Lloyds and other banks were cock-a-hoop, less afraid now of a precedent forcing the global refund of all charges going back 6 years.

 

Then Tom Brennan took NatWest to court despite NW desperately trying to bribe him not to. The verdict again favoured the banks, with the judge complimenting the 7 NW QCs cutting no slack for Tom.

 

After this other hesitating big guns lost their doubts and inhibitions. Immediately after the Brennan verdict the OFT announced a Test Case in the High Court, which led to a nationwide stay of impending claims. Two years and three trials later the Supreme Court again ruled for the banks, represented by 9 QCs to the OFT's 1.

 

Lending institutions because of their corporate dynamics and industry-wide fear of establishing an adverse precedent binding on other institutions find it very hard to seek a decisive yes-no decision in court. In the end it took litigants to drag banks kicking and screaming into court. In so doing the gung-ho DIY readers of law books did the banks a multibillion pound favour, and put zilch into the parms of bank charge claimants too complacent to complete reclaim activity before July 2007.

[sesto]

Hi

 

I've read this thread from begining to end and I think on balance the CCA simply isn't that clear on the point of terminating non defaulted accounts. What does seem clear to me is that it can be argued either way, which means in practice Egg won't want this case going anywhere near a court.

 

Think about it. I would have thought only about 2% of the people who had their facility withdrawn have stopped paying. I've been too busy to look into my own egg card [i've been too busy starting up my firm], so i'm as guilty as anyone else, but if paid about £60 interest per month for the last over two years, I've probably paid them about 1.5k interest on a 4k debt, plus 1k on the balance itself. Egg will make a huge profit on this decision over time, continue to make a huge profit on this decision, and they probably do live in fear of someone putting this matter into Court.

 

I'm a solicitor [employment, PI and some civil] and if someone came into my office today to ask for advice, I would give them the arguments and then I would tell them that on balance you should write to egg recorded delivery disputing their decision to close the account, claiming the original agreement was invalid and then let them sell on the debt. The chances of Egg taking you to Court, I would think, are next to zero, especially if they're wary of the agreements being held unenforcable for other reasons [in particular that corker about not putting in credit limits].

 

As for the nonsense from one poster about "a barrister cutting you to pieces because you haven't thought it through" and "how can they be giving these agreements to debt collectors because that's against the law?", I think some of you know that it's a lot more wild west out there at the moment.

 

Debts are sold on regularly with next to no internal compliance by either party. No - one cares because these companies are almost completely unregulated, but - more importantly for you - they're also a sign that the company who you owe the money to doesn't have the confidence [in the case of Egg] and / or resources [in the case of British Gas, because they have too many customers] to sue people en masse.

 

As for the DCs, most of these letters that you're quoting from Debt Companies or solicitors acting as DCs are borderline fraud. I know of one solicitor firm based in London who reguarly say they've issued claims out of Northampton County Court but they never actually do. In practice, you should wait for actual proceedings to be issued and served on you before you treat these people seriously. Otherwise, it's just pure bullying, an attempt to wear you down.

 

Anyway, I'm glad to have read through the thread, because I think most people who read through all the messages will come to the conclusion that if they were one of the 160,000, you should stop paying.

 

Toy - you've already won the argument by putting forward the argument strongly enough and stopping your payments. You might be right or you might be wrong - my own feeling is you're probably wrong about your construction of s98 but right enough about the CCA as a whole that Egg won't ever sue you. If the other line of argument was correct, then it would mean that Egg could (a) lend you 5k on 5%, (b) raise the rate to 22% the following week, and then © the next week, tell you the card was cancelled and demand that you pay it back... can't see that being compliant with the CCA, or UCTA, or indeed on general equitable principles...

 

Anyway, whatever, I'm glad there are people like you in the world that are willing to fight for what's fair.

 

I'm cancelling my DD tomorrow. It'll save me about a 100 a month.

 

i'm glad to see that a solicitor is confused by s98! . i can't see why that section has been included in the act,as it seems to make it much easier for a lender to end a non-defaulted account than a defaulted account. (for loans anyway)

i see that lenders now have to give you 60 days to reject an interest rate hike - yipee- oh,but wait a minute,you have to agree to close your account. poor old Egg,they could have used that method to persuade all the punters they took a dislike to, to agree to ending their agreement .

 

BBC News - New credit card protection agreed

[toymaker1]

i'm glad to see that a solicitor is confused by s98! . i can't see why that section has been included in the act,as it seems to make it much easier for a lender to end a non-defaulted account than a defaulted account. (for loans anyway)

 

That's right, loans - not credit cards.

[Bosund]

Chelsealove,

Re your comment above, 'Toy - you've already won the argument by putting forward the argument strongly enough and stopping your payments. You might be right or you might be wrong - my own feeling is you're probably wrong about your construction of s98 but right enough about the CCA as a whole that Egg won't ever sue you. If the other line of argument was correct, then it would mean that Egg could (a) lend you 5k on 5%, (b) raise the rate to 22% the following week, and then © the next week, tell you the card was cancelled and demand that you pay it back... can't see that being compliant with the CCA, or UCTA, or indeed on general equitable principles...' that's more or less exactly what they did with me just prior to terminating my card, see my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/235513-terminated-agreement-interest-rate.html

Have complained to the FOS but in a telephone conversation with them they stated that I may be add 2 & 2 and getting 5, (their comment), but as far as I’m concerned they must have known my card was due for termination just after they hiked the rate.

[toymaker1]

Chelsealove,

Re your comment above, my own feeling is you're probably wrong about your construction of s98 but right enough about the CCA as a whole that Egg won't ever sue you.

 

As I see it- and based upon my own experience with credit card companies-

there is no middle ground, i.e. if you are wrong (about your construction of S98 or anything else) they will sue you for every penny; if you are right, they will keep their heads down and wont sue you.

[phatram]

This just arrived,

Should I reply?

Thanks

Mrs P

[toymaker1]

This just arrived,

Should I reply?

Thanks

Mrs P

 

This is what I would send:

 

Bryan Carter Solicitors

De Havilland Drive

Weybridge

Surrey

KT13 0NT

 

Our Ref: xxxxxx

Your Ref: xxxxxx

Date:

 

Dear Bryan Carter Solicitors

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxxx.

1.

As the solicitors acting for xxxxx 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.

1a.

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, xxxxxx, 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 will be aware, are set out in my letters xxxx to xxxx 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, Midas Legal Services, Moorcroft Debt recovery Limited, Bryan Carter Solictors 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, xxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of Section 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3b.

Both you and your client, xxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have accepted assignment of the disputed account. You will be aware that this is in breach of Sections 2.6c and 2.8f of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, and also in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

4.

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.

5.

I will also draw the attention of the court to the manner in which both you and your client xxxxx have acted in respect of the dispute between Egg Banking and myself, particularly in relation to,

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The Data Protection Act 1998,

The Protection from Harrassment Act

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 consider that your conduct in the dispute between Egg Banking and myself amounts to an unfair relationship in terms of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, and I will request the court to make an appropriate Order under S140 of the Act.

6.

I am confident that Egg Banking and Midas Legal Services and Moorcroft Debt recovery Limited and Bryan Carter Solicitors will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters xxxx to xxxx.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

xxxxxx

[Hopster]

is this Egg banking ? Send BC a CPR Letter.......................that might make them think twice about issuing procedings.

[phatram]

Which is the CPR letter?

[Hopster]

Given that the matter is now subject to potenetial court proceedings and to ensure a even playing surface, under civil procedure rules CPR you are entitled to all the info that they have and would declare prior to proceedings. This is not a SAR request and the info does not need to be paid for -if they come back and say they want £10 or even £1 they are not acting within Civil Procedure Rules. Best that you find a CPR template letter - there must be one here on the forum. Send it recorded delivery.

I am no lawyer but I dio know that they don't like this letter one little bit ! Good luck.

[chelsealove]

Um, Hopster. No, that's completely untrue.

 

If you make a CPR pre-action application for disclosure without first following the protocol [and arguably even if you do], the presumption is that the applicant pays. Further - if the judge thinks you're on a fishing expedition, you'll end up paying the other side's costs, which are usually a grand.

 

I've done three hundred of them in PI cases and unless you follow the rules very closely, you'll end up getting screwed up against the wall. Plus - it's quite complicated paperwork to complete to make the application.

 

On the other hand, you are entitled to disclosure WITHIN proceedings, once the matter has been issued. That might be what you were confusing it with.

[chelsealove]

My recommendation is that you ignore the letter btw until you see actual legal paperwork, then go see a lawyer. If they're doing this work bulk, it's highly unlikely they have authority to issue the claim.

 

Also - they don't know that you live permently at that address. If you write to them, you're putting them on notice you DO live there and are open to any kind of action against you.

[chelsealove]

One other thing - Bryan Carter aren't putting their SRA number at the bottom of their letter. Report them to the SRA here because they're in breach of the new Solicitors Rules. There is an option in the link for you as a member of the public to "report intelligence anonymously". Give their address.

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

What it'll mean is they'll have to get entirely new stationary at huge cost to them, as well as having to throw away thousands of pounds of old stationary.

 

Jokers.

[TinaTurner2]

The letter from Egg says:-

 

"the agreement will end 35 days after the date of this letter"

 

"the Egg Card agreement continues to apply until the balance is repaid in full"

 

This seems to be contradictory. Either the agreement ended in March 2008 or it ends when the balance is repaid. If the agreement ended in March 2008 then surely they have no agreement to apply interest nor to update Credit Reference Agency records.

 

I don't see how they can say the agreement has ended but still bind you to the agreement.

 

Reading the rest of this thread, it seems that there is some question about whether the lending facility was ended or the repayment facility. But I only had one agreement which covered both aspects of the running of my account so Egg's reference to 'the agreement' can only refer to that. Surely?

 

Has anyone had any luck in freezing or reclaiming interest for the post-"agreement end" or stopping Egg from updating (and removing historical) Credit Reference Agency records??

Edited April 7, 2010 by TinaTurner2
spelling doh!

[alisindebt]

One other thing - Bryan Carter aren't putting their SRA number at the bottom of their letter. Report them to the SRA here because they're in breach of the new Solicitors Rules. There is an option in the link for you as a member of the public to "report intelligence anonymously". Give their address.

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

What it'll mean is they'll have to get entirely new stationary at huge cost to them, as well as having to throw away thousands of pounds of old stationary.

 

Jokers.

Done!

[marmbers]

has there been any further progress on this issue ??

[alisindebt]

Personally, I am not sure, other then I reported them as mentioned in the previous post(s)

[chelsealove]

I think you can assume that defaulting isn't going to bring about any further action, other than debt collectors trying to harass you and an entry on your credit file. As long as you're prepared to suffer that, I doubt egg will do anything further. As I said before, they're not interested in a Court case that sets a precedent one way or another.

 

I defaulted now a few months ago. I told them they could sue me and I would be happy to go to Court. Nothing in response.

 

Egg can go screw themselves. If they want to act like gangsters, they should be treated as such.

[aj_smith68]

I had two credit cards with Egg that were both terminated whilst not in default. I was one of the 160,000. I have since received the usual harassment from Fredericson and then Bryan Carter. This morning I received a claim form for Northampton County Court which I have to respond to for one of the cards. Has anybody else received something similar and how did you deal with it. I obviously intend to challenge it on a number of fronts eg enforceability and the fact there is no agreement in place to enforce anymore. Is this just another level of scare tactic they employ? Are they not running a big risk if they are not successful?

 

Any advice would be welcome.

[Hopster]

Me too. Will keep in touch. Taking advice at the moment. Yes they are taking big risk and I am pretty sure there may have been a court case today re. this.

[toymaker1]

I had two credit cards with Egg that were both terminated whilst not in default. I was one of the 160,000. I have since received the usual harassment from Fredericson and then Bryan Carter. This morning I received a claim form for Northampton County Court which I have to respond to for one of the cards. Has anybody else received something similar and how did you deal with it. I obviously intend to challenge it on a number of fronts eg enforceability and the fact there is no agreement in place to enforce anymore. Is this just another level of scare tactic they employ? Are they not running a big risk if they are not successful?

 

Any advice would be welcome.

This should have been resolved long before it got to this stage, however, one has to deal with a situation as it is.

If I received a claim such as the one you have received, I think I would respond as follows.

( I assume it is a claim you answer online)

Log in to the online court service. If by any chance it is not an online response form, contact the court and/or whoever served the claim form on you, and let them know you wish to respond online. Then you will be provided with log in details.

 

When you log in you will find a page headed Defence and Counterclaim.

Question 1. will ask How much of the claim do you dispute.

Tick the box which says I dispute the full amount.

Question 2 asks Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? Tick the No box.

In box 3 Defence, say something like,

 

There exists no contractual agreement of any kind between Egg banking PLC and myself.

Egg Banking will confirm to the Court that in March 2008 (or whatever the date was) Egg Banking chose, of it's own volition and solely for it's own reasons and outside the terms of any provision contained in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and in the absence of any default by my in respect of any provision of the Act, to terminate it's contractual relationship with me.

In light of the above, it would appear that in serving this claim on me, Egg banking has acted with gross incompetence and possibly in breach of The Consumer Credit act 1974 and Data Protection law and OFT Debt collection guidance and other regulatory measures and credit industry codes of practice and legal standards and rules of the court.

 

 

 

 

Let me know if you dont understand any of that.

Regards

[aj_smith68]

Thanks Toymaker and Hopster, all advice is really appreciated.

 

Hopster - Do you know if there has been a test case brought from any of the Egg customers who had their aggreements terminated and if so the outcome? I have searched for hours online but to no avail.

 

Toymaker - I have tried so hard to deal with this well before now. I was in contact with Egg up until July of last year but it got to a stage where they just refused to answer my questions. I got all the way to the Chief Execs office - but still no answer. They even put in writing that they would no longer discuss my "complaint" with me as they had come to their decision. All communication with Egg stopped in July 09 and I heard nothing until the start of this year when I started getting phonecalls/letters from Bryan Carter/ Fred Int. Since then I have phoned Fred Int and Bryan Carter but they always want loads of personal details which I refuse to give out so never get far enough to discus the matter. I did make it clear to them, giving a ref number, that the accounts were in dipute.

 

I fully understand your advice, and really appreciate it. I was already thinking along similar lines. Just a few questions...?

 

Should I put my full defence down now straight away? Should I go into the ins and outs of it or just keep it short and simple?

 

Not to complicate also...I have it in writing from them that they wrongly applied PPI to both credit card accounts but they would only apply it to my card accounts as refund whereas I wanted it returned as cash to my bank acc. When they refused to discuss my case anymore I couldnt challenge this any further although still have the letter staing they wrongly applied it and were willing to refund it. They have not taken this amount into consideration in the amount they are claiming, they have not deducted it.

 

Hope this doesnt complicate things!!

[toymaker1]

 

Should I put my full defence down now straight away? Should I go into the ins and outs of it or just keep it short and simple?

 

Not to complicate also...I have it in writing from them that they wrongly applied PPI to both credit card accounts but they would only apply it to my card accounts as refund whereas I wanted it returned as cash to my bank acc. When they refused to discuss my case anymore I couldnt challenge this any further although still have the letter staing they wrongly applied it and were willing to refund it. They have not taken this amount into consideration in the amount they are claiming, they have not deducted it.

 

Hope this doesnt complicate things!!

 

Keep it short and simple. - what I put in my post set out all the relevant facts of the matter. Egg cannot deny that defence. From what you have posted,It is a simple and straightforward fact that Egg terminated your Egg card outside the provisions of the CCA 1974. That is all you need to say in box 3 when replying to the Claim.

Leave the PPI as a separate issue. it will only confuse the issue to bring it into this particular claim - keep it for another occasion.

The words I suggested put Egg into an impossible situation. They will have to explain to the court the full circumstances and reasons that they terminated your agreement when you were not in default.

I would be surprised if it goes much further.

Anyway keep it simple and to the point - always. and dont bring in extraneous matters. (e.g. PPI is extraneous to their termination of your agreement)

 

Do it online as soon as possible - tonight.

 

Regards

[MandM]

Thanks Toymaker and Hopster, all advice is really appreciated.

 

Hopster - Do you know if there has been a test case brought from any of the Egg customers who had their aggreements terminated and if so the outcome? I have searched for hours online but to no avail.

 

Toymaker - I have tried so hard to deal with this well before now. I was in contact with Egg up until July of last year but it got to a stage where they just refused to answer my questions. I got all the way to the Chief Execs office - but still no answer. They even put in writing that they would no longer discuss my "complaint" with me as they had come to their decision. All communication with Egg stopped in July 09 and I heard nothing until the start of this year when I started getting phonecalls/letters from Bryan Carter/ Fred Int. Since then I have phoned Fred Int and Bryan Carter but they always want loads of personal details which I refuse to give out so never get far enough to discus the matter. I did make it clear to them, giving a ref number, that the accounts were in dipute.

 

I fully understand your advice, and really appreciate it. I was already thinking along similar lines. Just a few questions...?

 

Should I put my full defence down now straight away? Should I go into the ins and outs of it or just keep it short and simple?

 

Not to complicate also...I have it in writing from them that they wrongly applied PPI to both credit card accounts but they would only apply it to my card accounts as refund whereas I wanted it returned as cash to my bank acc. When they refused to discuss my case anymore I couldnt challenge this any further although still have the letter staing they wrongly applied it and were willing to refund it. They have not taken this amount into consideration in the amount they are claiming, they have not deducted it.

 

Hope this doesnt complicate things!!

 

Hi aj.

 

Use the link below and start a new thread in the legal forum.

 

Legal Issues - The Consumer Forums

 

Top left side of the main menus is a grey button that says 'New Thread'.

 

Click that (when you're ready) and start a thread.

 

Good luck,

 

M

[alisindebt]

Keep it short and simple. - what I put in my post set out all the relevant facts of the matter. Egg cannot deny that defence. From what you have posted,It is a simple and straightforward fact that Egg terminated your Egg card outside the provisions of the CCA 1974. That is all you need to say in box 3 when replying to the Claim.

Leave the PPI as a separate issue. it will only confuse the issue to bring it into this particular claim - keep it for another occasion.

The words I suggested put Egg into an impossible situation. They will have to explain to the court the full circumstances and reasons that they terminated your agreement when you were not in default.

I would be surprised if it goes much further.

Anyway keep it simple and to the point - always. and dont bring in extraneous matters. (e.g. PPI is extraneous to their termination of your agreement)

 

Do it online as soon as possible - tonight.

 

Regards

 

Personally, I got my PPI money back from Egg, after all the expected ceremonial shouting and kicking by them and refusals to pay initially. They sent me a sound file of the sales conversation with one of their sales agents in which I clearly stated that I worked abroad and so they eventually had to complain. However separately, I disputed the CCA enforceability. By the way, Egg cannot unilaterally call a dispute settled and "close" a complaint just because they say so. Keep the complaint going and that way, they cannot lawfully pass the account to third parties, such as DCAs.