CCA'd CAPQUEST Re: Egg credit card

[twinkle1977]

resend in case anyone today can help.....

[steven4064]

Did you post a copy of the agreement anywhere?

[twinkle1977]

Hi all

 

last question - yes, I did post a copy of the agreement. I will post again on Monday when back at work.

 

Also, latest news is - got a letter from Capquest stating that they won't be reimbursing the money they took from my account whilst it was in dispute.

 

And, that they are closing the account and handing it back to Egg. Don't know what to make of that.... I will post the letter and all on Monday to see what you all think.

 

Should I expect to hear from Egg or do you think it more likely that another wonderful DCA will be in contact in the new year?

 

ho ho ho

[twinkle1977]

Hello all

 

Attached and PDF'd is a series of letters from my CCA request through to CAPQUEST saying that they are shutting down my account.

 

please - feel free to take a look through and comment on any of it if you want to or if you think I should respond in any way?

 

Thanks all

Enjoy the read!!!

Capquest Docs.pdf

[twinkle1977]

Anyone think i should purue this further?

[steven4064]

Hi twinkle

 

I had a read through the documents and ISTM that they have fully complied with your s78 request and, in fact, the agreement in pages 12-13 is an enforceable agreement, as it has your signature and the prescribed terms - the basic requirement of s127(3) of the CCA 1974.

 

Whether you should pursue the matter depends on what you are trying to achieve.

[Jaws75]

The agreement was made 2001!, so they can dig em out after all. I suppose Egg are little more organized being the newer bank. However good luck!

[pt2537]

actually, id argue that it didnt have the prescribed term relating to the credit limit following the ruling of HHJ Overend in the case of Central Trust v Spurway

 

HHJ overend stated that there can be no other word than "credit" used to denote the term as the act gives "credit" such a narrow meaning that no other word is sufficient

[steven4064]

actually, id argue that it didnt have the prescribed term relating to the credit limit following the ruling of HHJ Overend in the case of Central Trust v Spurway

 

HHJ overend stated that there can be no other word than "credit" used to denote the term as the act gives "credit" such a narrow meaning that no other word is sufficient

Well spotted that man

[the winkler 72]

Which means what?

[steven4064]

Which means what?

On page 12 of the document attached to the post above, next to "About your Egg card" it talsk about an "Approved Limit" when the prescribed term is "Credit Limit" - see Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983

[the winkler 72]

sorry to seem a little slow, so it's UNenforceable?

 

many thanks

 

Winkler

[steven4064]

Pt thinks so (and I have to say, I agree)

[the winkler 72]

So one little word is wrong? surely they would take you all the way to court?

 

Winkler

[steven4064]

THey mioght suddenly realise their msitake and give in. This from an Appeal Court judgement: Lord Justice Tuckey in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. ..."

[twinkle1977]

Wow

 

Been away for a couple of days and just read all your replies! Thanks

 

When you asked Steven, what i was hoping to achieve.... I was purely thinking that on the basis that my CCA letter was sent but they continued to take payments from my account.

 

Ideally, I'd like to get Capquest to pay back the monies that they took while the account was in dispute.

 

Do you think I have a chance or should I sit tight?

And do you really think that it's unenforceable?

 

Thanks everyone!

[steven4064]

IMHO you don't stand much chance of getting the money back that you paid whilst the account was in dispute.

 

What you could do is to write to them saying - you do not have an enforceable agreement (and explain why) and offer them a full and final settlement of about 20% of the outstanding balance (minus any unlawful charges), which is about all they would get if they sold the debt to a debt purchaser. If they have put a default marker on your credit file you should get that removed as part of the deal. If they won't then you could take them to court under the Data Protection Act - it would be ugly but you wold have case. What does anyone else think.

[katie3105]

hi there subbing to this thread ...i have an egg agreement the same have you had any further developments

[twinkle1977]

Hi Katie 3105

 

The current situation is I've got no DCA chasing for this, following my last letter.

 

Egg have not contacted and i've not pursued Capquest for the money they took while the account was in dispute.

 

Have you posted your letter / credit agreement up on the site?

[PrettyPaula]

hiya just wanted to wish you good luck, and say i will watch closely as just had a letter from crapquest about a loan account!

[katie3105]

hi there thanks for getting back to me....not not posted it up...but it is the same as most others....so watching yours with interest. i have managed to see capquest off but noe have ARC to deal with.