Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Egg CC - assistance required


roors
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5221 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

New to this Group - I've got another thread running on Lloyds PPI Reclaim - but have been posting all my information there - it was suggested that I start a new thread here - so here goes.

 

CCA'd all creditors including Egg (who are the only ones to respond) can someone please look at the attached which was sent - and confirm if its enforceable.

 

Thanks

 

roors

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5302&stc=1&d=1231265063

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5303&stc=1&d=1231265063

egg.0135r.arc_Page_1.jpg

egg.0135r.arc_Page_2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

Unfortunately they are too small for my delicate eyes to see :)

could you use photobucket to post your scans.

That aside, Egg are one of the few that tend to have valid agreements

 

fox

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another agreement that says "limit" instead of "credit Limit".

 

SI1983/1553 clearly says it must credit.

 

Weve had this one before. has anybody got any closer???

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for response - what does that mean - is it enforceable or what?

 

And what should my next step be - sorry for being so niave - but I've never not paid anything and just struggling big time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a standard Egg agreement. On the face of it, it has the prescribed terms on ones side (p1) and the signature on the other (P2).

 

However, the title says 'Credit Agreement....' where it should say 'Credit Card Agreement...'. It also talks about an 'Approved Limit' (p1) where it should talk about a 'Credit Limit'. Since this is a prescribed term and the creditor has no leeway whatsoever under the regulations to vary what is put, we think that is enough to make the agreement unenforceable.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have had one of the above aswell so am curious as to weather it is enforcable or not , as i just took it as it was ????????? :)x

[email protected]

 

Morgan & Stanley/ Goldfish / Barclaycard : F & F Offer accepted , appealing Default on CRA's-ongoing:!:

HSBC : Managed Loan .F & F Offer accepted , appealing Default on CRA's-ongoing:!:

Littlewoods: No CCA , PPI INsurance claim. Took to court. Charges refunded. WON :D appealing Default on CRA's- ongoing :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Just wondered if anyone could advise what if any course of action I should consider taking - do I go for the CCA being uneforceable and if so is there a suggested letter - sorry for asking but this is all new to me and need to keep any hounding phone calls to a minimum.

 

roors:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Can someone let me know if the agreement I was sent is enforceable or not and if so is there a standard letter to be sent - sorry for being a pain but need to move on this

 

roors

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to have a good read of this thread:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements.html?nojs=1#post1747470

 

and this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html#post1048109

 

You can find one of the standard letters you send out after 12 + 2 days or 12 days after confirmed delivery by recorded delivery by using the site search feature. Then adapt one of the standard letters you get more out of the forum the more reading you do before acting.

Here is a post you could use.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/167584-barclaycard-no-cca.html#post1805429

Edited by Ragtaggeorge
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear Anyone who is reading this - received letter from Egg this morning advising that what has been sent is enought to satisfy CCA - and that if I'm not happy I can report them to FSO - any ideas on how to progress?

 

roors

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi - not much movement at the moment with Egg - they have passed both my CC and Loan over to Moorcroft who continue to phone and send letters advising that I am responsible for payments etc and that Egg have complied with my request for a correct agreement - I only ever received an agreement for the card and have continued to pursue them for the loan agreement, but to-date have had no joy. However, following my last response to MDR advising that Egg had failed to comply, I received their response this morning (for the loan)- advising that I am liable for the debt and I should phone to make a repayment arrangement - any suggestions. I have never been given a copy of this agreement and don't know if its enforceable or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

roors

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are getting harassed by Moorcroft I suggest familiarising yourself with this:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

The OFT clarified to me that if a s77/s78 CCA request is in default, as appears to be the case with your loan, that the creditor is "not entitled to enforce the agreement AT ALL with or without a court order", until which time the provide you with a copy.

 

As such that's the legal state of the loan taken care of.... though it is possible that Egg will operate it as normal, and continue to enforce it which obviously could have implications for your credit file. In this instance I would recommend complaining to the OFT, and letting Egg know it. Likewise if Moorcroft attempt further collections on the loan then they should back off if you inform them you are complaining to the Office Of Fair Trading.

 

Your credit card application, from what I remember it has to specify "Credit Limit" as one of the prescribed terms, if it doesn't anywhere within your executed agreement then one of the prescribed terms is missing making the agreement unenforceable through a court.

 

Egg have complied with the your request for the credit card executed agreement, and as such have completed s78(1) CCA. No doubt they will continue to harass you, phone you, put pressure on, threaten in an attempt to get money out of you, but what they have is a document which is not legally compliant.

 

I would suggest looking on a number of other Egg threads to find someone knowledgeable on this and getting a second opinion but I am pretty sure that the agreement you have is unenforceable.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was with Moorcroft for a while. I pointed out to them that the agreement was defective and after a while they passed it back to Egg. No doubt I will have to go through the same charade with Capquest who are the current DCA. They did send me a nice letter with someone's name on it, so I suppose I should reply to them sometime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi - lack of movement from Egg for sometime now - however have just received letters from Fredricksons who have clarified my address and are chasing me for payment - any suggestions on what I should do? thanks roors

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...