Egg Card CCA

[mimic51]

I sent a request to egg for my CCA and have received a readable CCA but it has my old address on from 4 years ago although they send all the post to my new address is this still legible and is this a proper CCA?

 

CCA attached

 

http://www.qualitaslettings.co.uk/eggcca.jpg

 

The document is readable.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I am afraid the Egg are pretty good with agreements and this one looks OK.

Did you get any T&C with the agreement.

 

HAK

[sutherland]

Perhaps the only question might be about the credit limit not being explicitly stated. According to 'havingastella' posting on one of my threads (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/166782-cahoot-cca-response-6th.html) that makes it invalid. I'm not sure that's the case.

 

At least they've sent you a CCA. I've been waiting for 7 months, although my account with them was probably opened in 1999 or 2000, so perhaps they were less careful in those days.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Perhaps the only question might be about the credit limit not being explicitly stated. According to 'havingastella' posting on one of my threads (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/166782-cahoot-cca-response-6th.html) that makes it invalid. I'm not sure that's the case.

 

At least they've sent you a CCA. I've been waiting for 7 months, although my account with them was probably opened in 1999 or 2000, so perhaps they were less careful in those days.

 

Very good point this.

 

Ive often wondered this.

 

1983 CCA act says

 

Credit Limit

A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

 

HAK

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Ive posted this on this thread as well

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-664.html

[pt2537]

there is significant counsel opinion that only the word "Credit" will suffice

 

in that Egg agreement there is no mention of the Credit Limit at all

[Having_A_Knightmare]

What do you think Paul

 

are we on to something?

[pt2537]

i think that the thing is that you must treat each case on its own merits

 

look at the documents , pull them apart and apply the law to the facts

[mimic51]

Well I might not be able to get them on that but was surprised to see in my statements that I was paying a ppi on the card that I did not know about so have sent a letter off for my S.A.R and when I spoke to them on the phone about this they put me on hold for about 5 min then said I took it out with the card but on the CCA it doesn't show a ppi!

[pt2537]

Well I might not be able to get them on that but was surprised to see in my statements that I was paying a ppi on the card that I did not know about so have sent a letter off for my S.A.R and when I spoke to them on the phone about this they put me on hold for about 5 min then said I took it out with the card but on the CCA it doesn't show a ppi!

It just gets better,

 

so , we have an agreement which does not set out clearly a term stating the credit limit

 

and

 

we have PPI that was not requested and therefore may well taint the whole agreement

 

now the CCA should set out the PPI either as credit or a charge for credit

 

you have a somewhat defective document there

[sutherland]

there is significant counsel opinion that only the word "Credit" will suffice

 

Can you expand on this? Does that mean some legal opinion is that instead of stating "£5,000" or whatever that it is fine if it just says "Credit"? What's the rationale behind that view?

[pt2537]

Can you expand on this? Does that mean some legal opinion is that instead of stating "£5,000" or whatever that it is fine if it just says "Credit"? What's the rationale behind that view?

No, the amount of credit must appear for fixed sum credit

 

however for running account such as credit cards the regulations provide that there must be a term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there will be no limit

 

now credit is defined within section 9 of the CCA 1974

 

Bradley Say among others sets out in is opinion that, since the act is specific in the word "Credit" the agreement cannot get away with saying the "approved limit" it must state the "Credit limit" as only credit will do to comply with the prescribed term

 

 

it falls on the construction of the act, the act is to ensure that lenders set out matters clearly for the consumer and that there is transparency in lending and the true cost of borrowing clear to the borrower

 

you have two main concepts

 

Credit & items entering into the cost of credit and every where you look the act refers to CREDIT not loan or approved limit

[noomill060]

In a situation where the agreement is unenforceable and the balance includes unfair penalty charges and premiums for PPI which was either unsolicited or missold and where an action in Small Claims for their return is under consideration, could the applicant also ask for a declaration on unenforcabilly under s.142- or would this declaration need to be done formally in the County Court?

[Josie8]

You can make a stand alone application for a declaration od unenforceability under s.142 (2)

[pt2537]

You can make a stand alone application for a declaration od unenforceability under s.142 (2)

damn,beat me to it:D

[Josie8]

In a situation where the agreement is unenforceable and the balance includes unfair penalty charges and premiums for PPI which was either unsolicited or missold and where an action in Small Claims for their return is under consideration, could the applicant also ask for a declaration on unenforcabilly under s.142- or would this declaration need to be done formally in the County Court?

 

 

You can request a declaration as eithe part of your claim, defence or counterclaim

[noomill060]

Thanks

[noomill060]

Is there any problem where this is done in Small Claims or County Court?

 

Im in N.Ireland by the way, there is no allocation procedure here. You can file in Small Claims or County Court, the choice is up to the applicant.

[sutherland]

however for running account such as credit cards the regulations provide that there must be a term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there will be no limit

 

now credit is defined within section 9 of the CCA 1974

 

Bradley Say among others sets out in is opinion that, since the act is specific in the word "Credit" the agreement cannot get away with saying the "approved limit" it must state the "Credit limit" as only credit will do to comply with the prescribed term

 

Forgive me for being dense, but are we talking about one or two things here? The Egg agreement referred to above says:

 

"We will tell you from time to time the Approved Limit we have set and, if different, the Individual Limit which you have chosen for the Account."

 

Are you saying that it would fulfill the CCA if it read as follows without actually stating £4,000 or whatever as a limit?--

 

"We will tell you from time to time the Credit Limit we have set and, if different, the Credit Limit which you have chosen for the Account."

 

Or, are you saying that it should state "Credit Limit" as opposed to "Approved Limit" and that it should also state the limit in precise figures? It's certainly puzzling if a statement saying "We will tell you..." can in any way be construed as stating "the manner in which it will be determined".

 

I appreciate this discussion as I'm trying to decide how hard to fight on MBNA and Cahoot accounts with wording similar to this Egg agreement.

[pt2537]

Forgive me for being dense, but are we talking about one or two things here? The Egg agreement referred to above says:

 

"We will tell you from time to time the Approved Limit we have set and, if different, the Individual Limit which you have chosen for the Account."

 

Are you saying that it would fulfill the CCA if it read as follows without actually stating £4,000 or whatever as a limit?--

 

"We will tell you from time to time the Credit Limit we have set and, if different, the Credit Limit which you have chosen for the Account."

 

Or, are you saying that it should state "Credit Limit" as opposed to "Approved Limit" and that it should also state the limit in precise figures? It's certainly puzzling if a statement saying "We will tell you..." can in any way be construed as stating "the manner in which it will be determined".

 

I appreciate this discussion as I'm trying to decide how hard to fight on MBNA and Cahoot accounts with wording similar to this Egg agreement.

the requirement is to state the credit limit..........

 

now then, it can be stated as either a sum of money .i.e the credit limit will be £300000000...... or a statement like you have outlined above

 

the key is that where it states how the limit is to be set, it must without question state CREDIT limit nothing else will suffice in counsels opinion

[sutherland]

OK, so when MBNA say "We will from time to time choose the credit limit and notify you of this," or when Cahoot say "We will tell you from time to time what your credit card limit is," they have met the demands of the CCA with respect to that term whereas Egg have not.

 

If one ended up in court, would an argument that the MBNA or Cahoot statements fell short due to not giving the precise limit be absolutely hopeless or worth a shot?

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

Edited November 24, 2008 by sutherland

[mimic51]

Hi Guys thanks for that how strong would the arguement of credit stand up in court? Am going to persue the ppi though and have worked it out would knock a grand off my credit card which I would be more than happy with.

[pt2537]

Hi Guys thanks for that how strong would the arguement of credit stand up in court? Am going to persue the ppi though and have worked it out would knock a grand off my credit card which I would be more than happy with.

i do not see why you wouldnt enjoy a strong argument with that line

 

 

Quite simply the word credit is not there in the slightest

 

so there is a failure to state a prescribed term

[atwozee]

Just playing Devil’s advocate – In the Wilson v FCT case the judge allowed interpretation on the wording of the prescribed term. The prescribed term is “Amount of credit” but it was accepted that “Amount of loan” was an acceptable replacement. The word credit is omitted.

 

So would a judge interpret “Limit” and the statement that followed as an acceptable interpretation of “Credit limit”

 

I have a similar question on the prescribed term “Rate of interest” being replaced by “APR” on most loan agreements. Personally I think if only the APR is stated then the prescribed term “Rate of interest” is in fact missing – making a huge amount of personal loans potentially unenforceable.

 

Amazing that such simple statements have been so misrepresented on so many agreements and having such drastic consequences for the creditor!

 

I did read in one piece of case law that a mortgage company (can’t remember who) successfully sued its solicitor for allowing such flawed documents to be drawn up. Maybe the banks should apply there energy to recover these losses from the people responsible for these errors in the first place – just a thought.

 

This is my argument re APR:

I’m not so sure though – the regulations make a clear difference between APR and Rate of interest.

 

Schedule 1 paragraph 9(2) under the heading ‘Total charge for credit, rate of interest etc.’ states:

 

The rate of interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement or, where more than one such rate applies, all the rates in all cases quoted on per annum basis with details of when each rate applies.

 

Schedule 1 paragraph 15 under the heading ‘APR’ states:

 

The APR in relation to the agreement or a statement indicating that the total amount payable under the agreement is not greater than the total cash price of the goods, services, land or other things the acquisition of which is to be financed by credit under the agreement.

 

Personally, I think the prescribed term ‘Rate of interest’ under schedule 6 refers to the former description and not the description for APR. If the APR was meant to be a prescribed term then schedule 6 would have made that clear.

 

Thoughts anyone?

[pt2537]

HHJ Overend in Central Trust vs Spurway ruled that only the word credit would suffice