Egg credit card agreement terminated

[Peterbard]

Good grief, here we go again.

 

 

 

No - I don't accept that. Also, neither does the OFT. For the benefit of others reading this thread I will post the whole of the very first paragraph:-

 

This guidance note provides a brief introduction and overview of the

post-contract information requirements under the Consumer Credit Act

1974 (the 1974 Act) as amended. It does not spell out all the

requirements, nor does it provide explanatory interpretations of the

legislation. As such, creditors and owners are advised to read this

guidance note in conjunction with the legislation and not in place of it.

 

You seem to have overlooked a couple of very important words - NOT and NOR. Lets have a look at that first paragraph again:-

 

It does NOT spell out all the requirements, NOR does it provide explanatory interpretations of the

legislation.

 

then lets have a look at the next sentence:-

 

are advised to read this guidance note in conjunction with the legislation and NOT in place of it.

 

ok, so let's move on to your next point:-

 

As can be seen from the whole sentence, you have just lifted a small part of the sentence from the guidance and left out the critical bit, the guidance note is NOT to be read in place of the Act. In other words you need to read the act itself. You tend to just quote this guidance note - which, as the OFT itself says, does NOT provide explanatory interpretations of the legislation.

 

 

Yes, you have quoted the guidance note correctly. However, it is the act itself that specifies in detail which types of agreement require what sort of termination notice. The guidance note just gives general guidance, it is not the law and it is not an exhaustive explanation of the act.

 

So, in 1.5, yes, in general, notice of termination must be given however this doesn't apply to all agreements and the detail is given in the act of what sort of agreements require notice.

 

With 6.6, yes you have quoted that correctly, but then you go and ignore para 6.9, presumably because you don't seem to like it, and then when peterbard quite rightly points this out to you above you claim that you don't understand his point.

 

Again, para 6.9 says:-

 

Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration.

 

So, reading from 6.6 to 6.9 altogether it is clear that, in general, a termination notice is required but that they are NOT needed where an agreement is for an indefinite duration.

 

But again, you choose to only selectively quote from the guidance note and not read all of it.

 

 

 

 

All these arguments have already been gone over and I won't bother repeating them here.

 

For people who are interested, have a read here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?288036-DCA-Goldfish-amp-Egg-combined-the-2-debts-into-one-alleged-sum-of-money.

 

A creditor is quite at liberty to terminate a credit card agreement in a non-default situation at anytime they want and they do not have to send any specific type of notice. Despite what your opinion is.

 

Talking about your opinion, have you got a date for your court case yet? I will be interested to hear how you get on with your opinion.

 

I have been quite happy to share my experiences of my times in court with this forum over the years. From claiming back charges to defending credit card claims through to making a contested statutory demand set aside application. You just need to search my posts to find them.

 

I would be interested to hear how you get along with your court case where you have said that you will be relying on this argument for your defence.

 

 

 

HI

 

Thank goodness. I am happy to discuss the matter of the Egg termination of agrements if there is someone who seems to want to undrstand the reall issues involved.

The facet that Egg can terminate at any time is of cours a reality any creditor can if it says they can in their T and Cs.As previously said because there is nothing in statute that says they cannot. Please take that as read and move on.

 

The only point ot this thread(If there is one) is should they have terminated.

 

It has been said on here that Egg has not taken anyone to court yet that they have terminated in this way.Given that they can, any one think why.

 

The first reason of course is that no one likes taking debtors to court, it costs money tthat is rarely recoverd even wnen the case is won, why do you think they use DCAs.

The second and more importantly in this case is publicity, Egg spend a fortune in convincing us that they are a soft and lovely company who will help us out us out in time of need , the last thing they need is a high profile string of litigation high lighting their dubious although legal activities.

 

This is the only strtength of any argument on here, YOu should think about what the continuance of raising awareness of this will do, sooner or later egg will say sod it and litigate just to shut you lot up.

 

Maybe on mass or maybe just one high profile case.

NOw i suppose you will say i am trying to be "on there side", i know you will not understand this but i am not.

 

Peter

Edited February 13, 2011 by Dodgeball

[toymaker1]

HI

It has been said on here that Egg has not taken anyone to court yet that they have terminated in this way.Given that they can, any one think why.

 

Egg spend a fortune in convincing us that they are a soft and lovely company who will help us out us out in time of need , the last thing they need is a high profile string of litigation high lighting their dubious although legal activities.

Peter

Peter, if Egg are-as you believe- in the right on the issue of termination, then surely they can only benefit from having the matter decided in court. That would clearly show that Egg were in the right all along.

The reason they have not taken anyone to court is because they believe they are wrong, and that they made a stupid mistake when they terminated 166,000 card holders.

[toymaker1]

HI

The facet that Egg can terminate at any time is of cours a reality.

Please take that as read and move on.

 

Peter

 

Right, I'll tell the judge that then.

[Peterbard]

Peter, if Egg are-as you believe- in the right on the issue of termination, then surely they can only benefit from having the matter decided in court. That would clearly show that Egg were in the right all along.

The reason they have not taken anyone to court is because they believe they are wrong, and that they made a stupid mistake when they terminated 166,000 card holders.

 

No Toymaker because it is not an issue only in your head.

[Peterbard]

Right, I'll tell the judge that then.

 

I think you will find he will be the one telling you

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

In response to the orrignal point about there not being any mention of the termination of anopen ended agreement in the act i am proud to mention that now their is, it is now compulsary to give 2 months notice of termination of this kind of account and some explaination as to why, previously as said niether was required but our more sensibly minded(in this case) european cousins thought that may be unfair. So since Feb 1 the new provision has been aded to the act, i have copied the relevant legslation on here before but it is available on bali.

 

I wont be responding to this threaed untill i see some more senbsible debate going on on here.

 

Peter

[basa48]

I actually think that all things done in relation to a regulated agreement must be done within the provisions of the regulating Act. I do not believe there is scope for any action outside of the regulations.

 

Given that the Act is silent on terminating non default running credit accounts. I think it correct to interpret that as being that a creditor cannot terminate such an account. That is why the Act specifically allows a creditor to defer or restrict the account. This is the action Egg or any other creditors should take if they wish to stop the debtor borrowing more money.

 

There is absolutely no need for any creditor to terminate except in a breach situation. The provisions under a breach are so a creditor can take action to recover the whole debt. In a non breach situation there is no need for the creditor to pursue the whole debt as he is guaranteed its eventual return under the agreed repayment schedule.

 

Given the above it is my contention that the termination by Egg is ineffective, but the debtor was not to know this. I maintain this situation could be therefore argued as unfair under s140A.

[toymaker1]

Hi

 

In response to the orrignal point about there not being any mention of the termination of anopen ended agreement in the act i am proud to mention that now their is, it is now compulsary to give 2 months notice of termination of this kind of account and some explaination as to why, previously as said niether was required but our more sensibly minded(in this case) european cousins thought that may be unfair. So since Feb 1 the new provision has been aded to the act, i have copied the relevant legslation on here before but it is available on bali

Peter

 

Thanks for that Peter. It would be very useful if you could give a reference so we can look it up. - I'm afraid I dont know what bali is.

 

Regards

[basa48]

Thanks for that Peter. It would be very useful if you could give a reference so we can look it up. - I'm afraid I dont know what bali is.

 

Regards

 

I think Peter is referring to a new European directive or some such legislation, not an actual court case.

 

PS: I think Peter is referring to BAILLI, the case law and legislation information website. But without a title of the new paper it will be all but impossible to find.

Edited February 13, 2011 by basa48

[nicklea]

I actually think that all things done in relation to a regulated agreement must be done within the provisions of the regulating Act. I do not believe there is scope for any action outside of the regulations.

 

Given that the Act is silent on terminating non default running credit accounts. I think it correct to interpret that as being that a creditor cannot terminate such an account.

 

Ok, just a quick question for you.

 

The act also does not specifically have a provision allowing for foreign transaction fees or cash wirthdrawal fees to be made or for a credit limit to be changed.

 

Since the act is silent on these issues do you claim that they are unlawful?

 

If not, would you please explain why terminating an account in the situation you describe is unlawful but increasing a credit limit or making a foreign transaction fee is not?

[nicklea]

I think Peter is referring to a new European directive or some such legislation, not an actual court case.

 

PS: I think Peter is referring to BAILLI, the case law and legislation information website. But without a title of the new paper it will be all but impossible to find.

 

No, it is very simple to find. It is called the Consumer Credit Directive and a list of the statutory instuments affected is here:-

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation/ec-consumer-credit-directive

[toymaker1]

No, it is very simple to find. It is called the Consumer Credit Directive and a list of the statutory instuments affected is here:-

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation/ec-consumer-credit-directive

 

Thanks Nick.

[Peterbard]

Hi

Just a flying visit.

From skimming this thread I see my name is still being taken in vain on here not to worry.

I don’t have the time or frankly to go through all the postings on here so I will again give you the facts

1) Either party can terminate an open ended agreement at any time. This does not mean that the creditor can demand accelerated repayments at any time for that he has to issue a default note and default termination.

The termination by the creditor is not mentioned in the act because it is contractual it does not have to be.

In passing the European directive which amends the CCA and comes into force next year adds sections after 98 to make the creditor give reasons for these terminations you may wish to see them.

38. After section 98 (duty to give notice of termination), insert–

"Termination etc of open-end consumer credit agreements

98A.–(1) The debtor under a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, may by notice terminate the agreement, free of charge, at any time, subject to any period of notice not exceeding one month provided for by the agreement.

(2) Notice under subsection (1) need not be in writing unless the creditor so requires.

(3) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination of the agreement by the creditor–

(a) the termination must be by notice served on the debtor, and

(b) the termination may not take effect until after the end of the period of two months, or such longer period as the agreement may provide, beginning with the day after the day on which notice is served.

(4) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination or suspension by the creditor of the debtor’s right to draw on credit–

(a) to terminate or suspend the right to draw on credit the creditor must serve a notice on the debtor before the termination or suspension or, if that is not practicable, immediately afterwards,

(b) the notice must give reasons for the termination or suspension, and

© the reasons must be objectively justified

The full directive is available on bali http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_reg/2010/uksi_20101010_en_1.html

It should clear up a few matters for those of you able to understand it

As for default terminations yes they can be issued on a previously terminated account because

A The termination may just have been for the permission to draw credit or

B. The termination would not have been due to a default.

Regarding terminations after defaults.

If a default notice is incorrectly drafted it invalidates any action taken on it this means that any default termination would be invalid ,so the creditor would be within his rights merely just to issue a corrected default notice and after the required period terminate again this time correctly.

Not that it matters but my intentions on here are always to help stop people following incorrect advice. Nothing more

Peter

 

Here it is from some tme ago dont you read the postings that dissagree with your ludicrous arguments

[Peterbard]

Really don’t know why I let myself get draged into this but any way again this is the judgement from Amex v Brandon

40. I note that in the decision of His Honour Judge Griggs in American Express v

Harrison, I observe in passing that Mr Harrison has appeared here today with Mr

Brandon to assist him in his appeal, I note that His Honour Judge Griggs, dealing in

Many ways with a number of arguments not dissimilar to those which have been

advanced before me today, specifically deals with clause10 of the agreement.

At paragraph 19 he says this:

"They assert they were entitled to terminate the agreement without any

default on the part of the debtor by virtue of clause 10(2). Mr Harrison

has asserted that because that did not comply with the provisions of their

own default notice it was an invalid default notice. Section 98 of the

Act provides that the creditor is not entitled to terminate a regulated

agreement except by or after giving the debtor not less than seven days

notice of terrnination.

98(2) provides that subsection I only applies

where a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the

agreement and that period is not ended where the creditor does an act

mentioned in subsection (1). So far all this case is concerned subsection (1 )"

and he is there dealing with section 98:"does not apply because this was not an agreement where the duration was specified in the agreement."

And that, I observe in passing, must apply in this case."It was a running credit agreement which either party could terminate at any time. It follows that the claimants were entitled to terminate the agreement, even though they had not served seven days’ notice of termination. Mr Harrison has made the strong point that they have purported to serve a default notice. The default notice, because it was served on a Sunday, did not give the adequate seven days, therefore it was not valid."

I am quite satisfied there is nothing in that point for the reason that is apparent from the references I have already made. "Section 10(2) provides that the claimants were entitled to terminate at any time and that the Act does not prevent them from so doing. They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

Mind you this is just a high court judge

What does he know

Peter

[Peterbard]

Ok, just a quick question for you.

 

The act also does not specifically have a provision allowing for foreign transaction fees or cash wirthdrawal fees to be made or for a credit limit to be changed.

 

Since the act is silent on these issues do you claim that they are unlawful?

 

If not, would you please explain why terminating an account in the situation you describe is unlawful but increasing a credit limit or making a foreign transaction fee is not?

 

HI

You are wasting your time

I have tried all the reasoning many many times. There are people on here who just do not understand the way statute and legislation works.

 

If you go right back to the begining of this thread you find some people see the light and drop of to be replaced by otheres who follow toymaker for a while untill they to are edducted. Really this thread should be closed it serves no useful purpose

 

Peter

[toymaker1]

HI

You are wasting your time

I have tried all the reasoning many many times. There are people on here who just do not understand the way statute and legislation works.

 

If you go right back to the begining of this thread you find some people see the light and drop of to be replaced by otheres who follow toymaker for a while untill they to are edducted. Really this thread should be closed it serves no useful purpose

 

Peter

 

On the contrary Peter. This I find this thread extremely useful. One learns much more from engaging with those who post opinions which are different from one's own opinions. - It forces one to reconsider one own views, and check and re-check relevant statutes and regulations.

I think it would not be so useful if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time.

[Peterbard]

On the contrary Peter. This I find this thread extremely useful. One learns much more from engaging with those who post opinions which are different from one's own opinions. - It forces one to reconsider one own views, and check and re-check relevant statutes and regulations.

I think it would not be so useful if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time.

 

Hi yes of course.

But what we have here is your refusal to accept proven fact, not opinion.

The damage caused by this is shown on here by the number of people who have followed your mistaken idieas, the template letter for instance that says "WHERE IN THE ACT"for instance.

 

Apart from being totally innacurate it damages the efforts of the many knowledgeable members on here, the credit

ability of anyone who uses this forum is effected.

 

It relly is not difficult ,just take a step back,try and forget you have a vested interest and look at thi objectively. No one minds you being wrong, i was wrong myself once, cant just bring to mind when but i am sure i must have been.

 

Peter

Edited February 14, 2011 by Dodgeball
told you wrong spelling as usual

[toymaker1]

 

 

 

They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

Peter,

The case you have quoted does not relate to termination of a non-default regulated agreement.

It relates to termination of a defaulted regulated agreement where a default notice was served under S87 of CCA 1974.

Brandon's defence was that he considered the default notice to be defective. The judge said it was'nt

The judge said

" They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

From my reading of it, that judgement is perfectly correct. - In my opinion the defendant in that case seemed to be trying to avoid paying the money he owed, by using spurious technical arguments about the validity of the Default notice, which the court , unsurprisingly, saw through.

[Peterbard]

Peter,

The case you have quoted does not relate to termination of a non-default regulated agreement.

It relates to termination of a defaulted regulated agreement where a default notice was served under S87 of CCA 1974.

Brandon's defence was that he considered the default notice to be defective. The judge said it was'nt

The judge said

" They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

From my reading of it, that judgement is perfectly correct. - In my opinion the defendant in that case seemed to be trying to avoid paying the money he owed, by using spurious technical arguments about the validity of the Default notice, which the court , unsurprisingly, saw through.

 

I give up

[toymaker1]

I give up

 

You may well give up Peter, but the fact remains that the case you have quoted relates to an agreement which was terminated under S87 of the Act, and the defendant did not win his argument that the default notice was invalid.

That case did not relate to termination of a non-defaulted agreement.

[BEC01]

Personally, I still don't think challenging their right to terminate will hold any credence in court, even though I can see Toymaker's point.

The way in which the termination was worded, however, makes it quite clear that there was to be no further contractual agreement, therefore end of the business relationship, at a given time.

 

They did it the wrong way, have subsequently changed their process as they realised so.

They will not take to court for the reasons that Peter has mentioned, and also that if defended in a robust and akileed way could very well be left at, the contract was legally terminated on given date, with the balance not demanded within that given timescale, the matter has come to and end (in layman's terms of course).

 

In answer to your earlier question Toymaker, we have all not paid for well over a year, all had defaults served, all heard nothing for several months thereafter.

[Peterbard]

Personally, I still don't think challenging their right to terminate will hold any credence in court, even though I can see Toymaker's point.

The way in which the termination was worded, however, makes it quite clear that there was to be no further contractual agreement, therefore end of the business relationship, at a given time.

 

They did it the wrong way, have subsequently changed their process as they realised so.

They will not take to court for the reasons that Peter has mentioned, and also that if defended in a robust and akileed way could very well be left at, the contract was legally terminated on given date, with the balance not demanded within that given timescale, the matter has come to and end (in layman's terms of course).

 

In answer to your earlier question Toymaker, we have all not paid for well over a year, all had defaults served, all heard nothing for several months thereafter.

 

Hi

 

Unfortunately termination is termination, it always means the end of the contract. Even so the common law entitlement for the ballance to be re3paid in the manner precribed by the defunct contract remains(thismeans that no court would enforce if you continued to pay).

 

However when you stop paying you create a repudiatory brach of the argeement,it really is no use sayig that no agreement exists because it does,small a for as long as liabilities remain unpaid under the contract.

 

The creditor then has a perfect right to issue a default notice under section 87. The section just says ""an areement" not only an active agrement,if this was not the case no assignnee could ever issue a default and we know they can and do.

Peter