Egg Card CCA

[atwozee]

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

I will have a look for that case – but it is county court where as Wilson is House of Lords – so the latter carries more weight doesn’t it?

It’s a useful argument to put in though – if the judge isn’t on the ball then who knows.

[pt2537]

yes but Wilson may be distinguished from any case relating to a credit card where as the view of HHJ Overend is in direct relation to a credit card;)

[mimic51]

I have asked for a S.A.R from EGG and I am just wondering what do next as the next payment is due and I am not sure about the ppi that was added to the card should I carry on paying the minimum?

[mimic51]

Anyone????

[basa48]

yes but Wilson may be distinguished from any case relating to a credit card where as the view of HHJ Overend is in direct relation to a credit card;)

 

I take your point, but Lord Nicholls did state:

 

Para 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with.

 

In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3).

 

Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.

 

This quote seems fairly generic and could be read as to relate to any CC agreement. 127(1); 61(1)(a) & 127(3) relate to all CC agreements. Don't you think?

[pt2537]

 

 

 

This quote seems fairly generic and could be read as to relate to any CC agreement. 127(1); 61(1)(a) & 127(3) relate to all CC agreements. Don't you think?

Yes but the matter for the court then is on proper construction are the prescribed terms in the agreement

 

following HHJ overends approach you are incorporating Wilson and the other vast body of over 30 Consumer Credit cases but you are also saying , even if the term is there, it must be clearly identifiable to the lay person as a term of that type

 

of course, you can choose to ignore my input, that is your choice, but i am yet to lose a case i have taken to trial for my clients and i have successfully used the arguments above

[atwozee]

yes but Wilson may be distinguished from any case relating to a credit card where as the view of HHJ Overend is in direct relation to a credit card;)

Can you clarify this point PT – someone disputed it on another thread

Thanks.

[basa48]

Yes but the matter for the court then is on proper construction are the prescribed terms in the agreement

 

following HHJ overends approach you are incorporating Wilson and the other vast body of over 30 Consumer Credit cases but you are also saying , even if the term is there, it must be clearly identifiable to the lay person as a term of that type

 

of course, you can choose to ignore my input, that is your choice, but i am yet to lose a case i have taken to trial for my clients and i have successfully used the arguments above

 

Sorry 'pt', wasn't trying to tread on toes. Actually I thought I was reinforcing your argument. I don't understand you reasoning.

 

Are you saying using that case (Wilson v Secretary of T&I) is dangerous or misleading?

[pt2537]

People seem to merely focus upon the wilson judgment saying the prescribed terms must be there blah blah blah,

 

well then all you are saying to the judge, if you arent careful, is does this document have a credit limit or rate of interest or terms saying how i have to pay

 

which can go against you, however the point which HHJ overend, a senior circuit judge, makes is that not only must the terms be there but must be accurate and also must be clear to the lay man exactly what they mean, now the words "limit" as found in all egg cards is not Credit limit and i would argue as i have successfully done in over 5 litigations against Egg plc, that the word limit could mean anything, for example it could mean the limit of transactions you are permitted to make, or the limit of withdrawals, the term is too ambigous and that is where Spurway and Central Trust comes in

[pt2537]

Sorry 'pt', wasn't trying to tread on toes. Actually I thought I was reinforcing your argument. I don't understand you reasoning.

 

Are you saying using that case (Wilson v Secretary of T&I) is dangerous or misleading?

No not at all, im not saying that

 

what im saying is i rely upon spurway with wilson as it makes a somewhat formidable argument

 

relying upon wilson solely however can leave you with counsel for the other side arguing that it should be distinguished and you may get some daft judge who agrees

[pt2537]

Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, HHJ Overend states

 

24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

 

(a) The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b) That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is

 

 

 

i trust this assists

[basa48]

i trust this assists

 

It certainly does and I thank you for the clarification

 

The confusion for me arose out of the use of the word 'distinguished' which is somewhat different in 'legalese' from the word when used in general speech or writing.

Edited March 1, 2009 by basa48

[lollipop73]

Thanks pt, I agree there can be some confusion between the definition of term as per the dictionary( the word term can mean a few different things aswell as the word limit lol), but the additional info you have given has most definitely cleared that up for me.

[cds]

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

 

googled everywhere for this case anybody know where it can be found

 

cds

[pt2537]

yes, i happen to know where you can find it

 

its sat in my law library on the book shelf at home,along side over 100000 other cases and reference materials

[cds]

LOL thanks PT

 

in that case would just referring to it in any correspondence to egg suffice, or would I have to state the source.

 

Just getting another letter ready for egg and thought it would be handy to include.

 

cds:-)

[angelsmile]

hi ....i am following these egg threads and seem to be at a similar stage to yourself...have you written a letter to egg yet ref the 'approved limit' and quoting the case...if so i would be appreciative to learn what you have written if you wouldnt mind...i could use some help

 

thanks

[BeauBrummie]

Subbing in with interest.

 

Have exactly the same "agreement" being hounded by Lowell for Egg account.

 

Beau

[geoffmr1]

Subscribing.

 

I have the same problem with Egg at present, so I'll follow this with interest.

[miketw10]

PT... Can you confirm that this only applies to similar agreements from 2005 onwards? My own agreement is from 2002, which on another (similar) thread states that this only applies to post-2005 agreements.

 

Surely the same rules should apply whenever the agreement was taken out???

[Undercover-Elsa]

Subbing

Elsa x

Edited July 28, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa

[tortilla]

Ditto

 

Cheers all

[TheScaryOne]

Me too.

[Number6]

Just a general point of order.

 

Instead of simply posting the word "subbing" or similar and hence potentially cluttering up a thread with non-relevant posts if you look at the top of each page of any thread there is a button labled 'Thread Tools'. If you click on this there's an entry labled 'Subscribe to this Thread' (assuming you haven't already subscribed), if you click that and then confirm it you will subscribe to the thread without cluttering it up.

 

Thanks.

[Fiscalawareness]

Hi guys i like thia thread i have the same agreement

 

question is do i get a solicter to do it or do it myself, with £15k at stake id like to get it right

 

i have a solicter who will run the case on a no win and no fee bases afeter a £60 quid audit report.

 

should i do it or try it on my own

 

Plus do i write to Egg and tell them the accounts in Dispute and tell them why or just put in for a un enforecement through the courts

 

anyones thought would be good the phone keeps calling and it them, i havent defualted and would like to keep away from doing so

 

cheers

james