CCA'd CAPQUEST Re: Egg credit card

[steven4064]

I agree 100% with Andy, above

So if it didn't become binding upon you signing it, when did it?

would just add, did it ever become binding?

[steven4064]

Looks Ok except it is not a criminal offence for them to purue the debt whilst the account is in dispute - change to summary offence.

[steven4064]

I would write back and thank them for their attention and remind them that the statutory period for their reply is 12 days.

[steven4064]

It wil probably be quicker via the bank to get the money back. Cancell teh DD whilst youare at it so they can't do it again.

 

Wirte to them a stiff (but polite) letter:

 

1. pointing out again that the account is in dispute because of their non-compliance with s78(1)

2. that the payment they have taken is unlawful because of s78(6) of the CCA 1974

3. requesting that they return the payment immediately

4. that if they don't you will pursue it via the OFT and the courts, if necessary

5. tell them you have stopped the DD and that the bank is also looking at reclaiming the money for you

 

ps - I understand you are angry but I have had to modify your post above - site rules

[steven4064]

Did you post a copy of the agreement anywhere?

[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.

[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

[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

[steven4064]

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

[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. ..."

[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.