Egg PPI Claim Issued-Advise Needed

[citizenB]

hi citizenB, thanks for your advise,

 

I cannot remember how the application was completed, i went directly through the court without involving the FOS,..,,

 

Ah, I see.

 

Again, I am not absolutely certain, but I think online applications for credit before a certain date still required a hard copy with signature. I think steven4064 might be able to help you with that one.

[skeptic]

Super,

 

Thanks for posting the Defence. It is a very, very helpful document for anyone considering a PPI claim.

 

I've read through it and had a chance to think about it. At the risk of becoming the resident harbinger of doom, here's what I think.

 

The Defence

The Defence is generally well drafted and raises some important issues, as far as your claim is concerned.

 

You are currently facing about as robust a Defence, as could reasonably be expected in a Credit Card PPI claim of this size. Whilst the legal mountain you are facing is may not be Everest or the North face of the Eiger, it is perhaps more like a trek up Ben Nevis in freezing fog while wearing the wrong shoes.

 

I have assumed for the purposes of the rest of these comments, that what is contained in the Defence is factually accurate and can be proved by the Defendant to an evidential standard (where it needs to be). This is not because I believe the Defendant or that you are wrong... its just the only sensible way to assess, what you need to think about when formulating your response/amended POC.

 

I have also assumed that you will be amending your POC as, having seen the Defence, I think your realistic prospect of success is zero, if you do not.

 

I'm going to deal with matters on a very general level (rather than wading into the specific legislation or case law or the technicalites of the arguments they raise) because at this stage, you need to really get hold of the fundamentals; and for the same reason, I'm not going to complicate this post with any detailed consideration of your potential responses to it.

 

Para 2 - The Limitation Issue

 

On the face of the Defence, your claim is out of time.

 

They say your agreement to pay for PPI was made in 2001, that this was the relevant date when any cause of action arose and that:

 

1. the claim is based in contract and therefore you only had 6 years to start the claim; (by actually issuing proceedings) which you did not do until December 2008. OR
   
2. the claim is based in equity and therefore you are prevented by the doctrine of laches from claiming any equitable remedy.
   

If the Court accepts this, you LOSE (irrespective of any other merit in your claim). Accordingly, you must address this point effectively.

 

Once the Limitation point is made and established on the face of the documents, the burden of shifts to you to prove that your claim is not statute barred.

 

You will need therefore to prepare, issue and serve a further pleading called a REPLY (to the Defence). Strictly, you are under time pressure to do this because the rules of the Court require you to do this within 14 or 28 days of the Defence being served on you. However, because you are amending your POC, the Defendant will in due course be amending its Defence and therefore you will be able to REPLY to the Amended Defence (which will raise the same limitation issue). In those circumstances, there is no tangible benefit to either you or the Defendant in you preparing a REPLY to a pleading which you know will be superceded, and the Courts generally accept that to do so is just a waste of money (and thus contrary to the overriding objective).

 

Your Reply, in due course, would, I expect, seek to attack their Limitation argument by stating facts that support the application of s.14 and or s.32 Limitation Act to your claim and or the relevant case law. There may also be gounds to attack their supposition that the date of your alleged agreement to pay for PPI, i.e. was the *relevant date* for Limitation purposes.

 

On the secondary limitation point. As drafted, I don't think your POC raises any claims in Equity, so this is a real "belt and braces" bit of pleading...

 

However, if you're unfamiliar with the term, "Laches" is an equitable concept that effectively means delay. Equity is concerned only with fairness; and the doctrine of laches at its simplest can be said to assert that fairness cannot be done, if one party unfairly delays the course of justice.

 

I note they have not pleaded an exact date for limitation purposes. This may seem stange; given that they do plead an exact date for the date of your application @ para 4... but, I think, this is just tactical non-specificism.

 

Para 3 and 4

Nothing in these paras seems to be in issue. (Unless you deny the Agreement per se).

 

Para 5

The questions raised by Para 5 are largely evidential; i.e. can the Defendant prove what they say.

 

They are saying that you expressly consented (by ticking the box in their online application) to pay for the PPI and that you were required to confirm that you had read the terms governing the policy as part of the application.

 

If the Court accept this, you LOSE. This is because as a matter of law, conduct (e.g. ticking a checkbox in an on-line application) is capable of amounting to contracual acceptance, the principle of Caveat Emptor applies and it will be difficult for you to argue (unlike in other PPI claims, where the PPI is sold over the telephone by salesmen) that was actively "sold" to you as being a good thing.

 

If you haven't already, check out the "Scrambled Egg" thread which helpfully lists the potential pitfalls and possible lines of attack.

 

From a pleading point of view, its probably enough to put the Defendant to strict proof of the matters they refer to in para 5.

 

And continue to press for disclosure of any documents etc they have that support it.

 

Para 6

Once you amend your POC, the issues raised by para 6 largely evaporate...

 

Perhaps the only thing of note, is that they specifically plead that it was an OPTION to purchase PPI. Therefore, if you can show that it wasn't (or require the Defs to show that it was and they are unable to...) or the option Defaulted to Yes, this will help your case immensely. The Scrambled Egg thread suggests that it is possible that the true situation is that the "option" to purchase PPI was indeterminate i.e. you could select yes, no or make no selection.

 

Para 7

Generally, as para 6.

 

But, try as I might, I cannot make sense of the last sentence of Para 7 (from the Defendant's pov). This is, on the face of it, an admission... but it looks to me like they've omitted an important "NOT". If I thought this was actually important to your claim, I wouldn't have said so on a public forum; because whilst non-lawyers get terribly excited by stuff like this, in practice, it just gets amended under the slip rule or on an application at trial.

 

Para 8

We dealt with this earlier; but it does bring home the importance of:

 

1. Using legal terminology correctly and
   
2. Citing references to Statutes and Case Law correctly
   

Para 9

 

This is a problem... because this, to a District Judge, is a very seductive argument.

 

Let me illustrate this by analogy.

 

Say, you're in London and you hail a taxi. You get in and say to the driver, "Take me to Swanage". The taxi driver looks at you a bit surprised and says "Swansea, you sure, guv'?, it'll cost you. I'll need a monkey up front". You're tired from a long day interviewing lingerie models, its raining and not really paying attention, so you say alright and hand him the cash and the driver sets off. The cab start to wend its way out of London and after a while you fall asleep...

 

Next thing you know, the Taxi driver wakes you up and says "We're here mate, the meter says £482.10, but call it square including the tip." At which point your bleary eyes look around and it begins to dawn on you, that you're in Wales, rather than deepest, darkest Dorset.

 

So, who should pay? You or the Taxi driver?

 

Can't the Taxi driver justifiably say, "I asked him if he really wanted to go to Swansea, he said yes and I took him there. If he didn't want to go there, he could have said so at anytime before we got there. It's not my fault he fell asleep."... and isn't the Judge entitled to conclude therefore that the Taxi driver fulfilled his part of the contract?

 

Now, of course, even on this hopelessly artificial analogy, you have your own counter arguments in law... but putting them aside... pragmatically, the Taxi Driver did drive you to Swanage and you didn't object until after you got there, by which time it was too late...

 

Paragraph 9 effectively says you choose to buy something, paid for it and used it (albeit without deriving any tangible benefit) and that it was for you to ensure that it was suitable for you. Once the contract is fulfilled it is irrelevant whether or not it was objectively suitable for you.

 

This is simply an exposition of Caveat Emptor.

 

 

The critical distinction between this, and other PPI mis-selling claims, is that the Defendant has, it says, created a process via its online application which

1. does not positively "sell" the benefits of its PPI
   
2. renders the purchase optional and
   
3. provides the buyer with enough information to make an informed choice i.e. a full copy of the terms and conditions...
   

whereas in other PPI mis-selling claims the sale arises from a sales call instigated by the Credit Card Company, during which relatively untrained phone operators are expected to stick to a script and not [positivley or inadvertently] provide any advise to the buyer and copies of any terms and conditions are only supplied later (if at all).

 

If I can stretch my analogies again, the 1st scenario is like someone saying "I have an Elephant for sale", you saying cool, paying them the price and then complaining that it doesn't fit in your living room: whereas the 2nd scenario is like someone saying "Are you worried about home security? if you are, we have the ultimate home security product for you, shall I add the price of it to your account", you saying OK and them sending you an Elephant... despite them being under a duty not to sell Elephants to people who don't need them.

 

Paras 10 and 11

Nothing unsurprisingly or noteworthy here, except the inevitable requirement that YOU are being required prove the extent of your losses as per your schedule and thus its accuracy is vital.

 

The ss.77-79 CCA request.

The last page of the your posts to photobucket, doesn't zoom enough for me to be able to read... but it looks like it might be a CCA and it looks like it incorporates some T&C's and has been signed by you(?) and by them(?)

 

Was this exhibited to the Defence? If so, is it a copy of your CCA? and does it appear to be enforceable?

 

The pleading of Interest

You, and other Caggers, may disagree, but the form of interest claims contained in your POC @ paras 6(i) and 6(ii), in my view, does more harm than good.

 

If District Judges' award interest, they do so in line with s.69, period. Their roles is to do justice, pragmatically. They aren't impressed by arguments about "fair" rates of interest... because they have a simple, almost universally adopted and applicable statutory provision which lays down what interest rate should be paid to compensate litigants for being deprived of monies... and currently there isn't a bank in the land that'll give you 8% on deposits... so at the moment its a hugely generous to the Claimant.

 

Tomlin Orders

I don't think I can usefully add anything to Tomlin order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

My Conclusions, so far...

Your claim is far from guaranteed to be successful. You should carefully consider and actively pursue Without Prejudice negotiations to find a commercially sensible settlement.

 

Any settlment is, by definition, a compromise and a compromise is, by definition, a solution that neither party actuall wants.

 

Once you have your head round that; and dismiss any notion that you're going to get everything you claimed as a settlement; the process becomes easier and more productive.

 

I assume you know what I mean by "Without Prejudice" negotiations and what the significance of them is. If not, let me know.

 

One point which cannot be over-stressed is that, if you do not accept a debt (because you do not accept that the amount the apparent creditor alleges you owe) you must be extremely careful not to acknowledge or admit it; even in "Without Prejudice" correspondence.

 

This is because the case law draws a distinction between evidence of an admission and the admission itself.

 

So, whilst a "Without Prejudice" letter or conversation cannot generally be adduced as evidence of matters referred to in it; where a "Without Prejudice" letter contains an acknowledge of a debt, it can be adduced because it is not adduced as evidence of the admission; it is the admission: per House of Lords in Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] UKHL37

 

Simply stated; NEVER say something like "My outstanding account is currently £x,xxx.xx" or "The amount owed on my account is £x,xxx.xx": because this is a clear acknowledgement of debt and the other side would be entitled to rely and produce this admission in in any proceedings relating to the debt.

 

Such and admission could be devasting, if your debt was otherwise unenforcable e.g. under s127(3) CCA. or if you were seeking to rely on a Limitation Act defence.

[militantconsumer]

The critical distinction between this, and other PPI mis-selling claims, is that the Defendant has, it says, created a process via its online application which

1. does not positively "sell" the benefits of its PPI
   
2. renders the purchase optional and
   
3. provides the buyer with enough information to make an informed choice i.e. a full copy of the terms and conditions...
   

 

Here is a document which Egg sent me. They say it is what was displayed on the webpage at the time of an online credit card application (in 2002).

 

I struggle to accept that this "does not positively "sell" the benefits of its PPI" or that Egg are acting, as they claim, as an "information only" provider.

 

Maybe there is a link to the full terms and conditions in the "legal information" (small faint print). But why is there a big bold box on the left hand side of the page detailing "Benefits of taking out payment protection" but nothing to explain the disadvantages?

 

It looks like a sales pitch to me, albeit a robotic one.

 

[skeptic]

 

I struggle to accept that this "does not positively "sell" the benefits of its PPI" or that Egg are acting, as they claim, as an "information only" provider.

 

Maybe there is a link to the full terms and conditions in the "legal information" (small faint print). But why is there a big bold box on the left hand side of the page detailing "Benefits of taking out payment protection" but nothing to explain the disadvantages?

 

It looks like a sales pitch to me, albeit a robotic one.

 

 

I agree. I think it is a sales pitch... and an unfair one.

 

I'd hoped that in my earlier post I'd made it clear that to some extent, I'm playing Devil's advocate, because it's only be examining the Defendant's case at it's strongest that we can guage the prospects of a claim's success.

 

...and if I continue on in that manner... isn't almost all advertising conducted in such a way that it extols the virues of a product/service without explaining the disadvantages? ...and insofar as the big bold box on the left hand side is concerned isn't this, as a matter of law, a mere invitation to treat... rather than something of contractual significance.

 

In any event, that I think we have to acknowledge that Caveat Emptor does ordinarily apply to contracts, on-line or otherwise, and the Courts will apply this rule in such a way that it not necessarily enough for a consumer to say "I didn't realise what I was buying was unsuitable for me".

 

I am sure that the Courts would apply Caveat Emptor if the best a consumer is able to say is "If I had read the terms and conditions, I would have realised the product was unsuitable for me, but I didn't, because I could not be bothered."

 

Accordingly, I think that Caveat Emptor effectively shifts the onus on the consumer to prove that the product was mis-sold; rather than simply mis-bought... and that the starting point of any claim, has to be how do I prove this?.

 

The legal issues for Credit Card PPI claims thus seem to me to centre around:

 

1. Breach of implied terms as Satisfactory quality etc.
   
2. Suitability for purpose and the actual/constructive knowledge of the Seller at the time of sale.
   
3. In cases were payments were taken without any involvement of the account holder; whether an effective contract was formed at all (this does not seem to be relevant to Super's claim).
   
4. What the precise process was by which the Buyer bought the PPI; because it is this process which supports or negates the mis-selling aspect of a potential claim.
   
5. Misrepresentation.
   
6. Mistake (as in the legal term of art, not in the everyday sense of the word).
   
7. Whether any or part of the contract was unfair; in the UCTA and the subsequent SI's sense of "unfair".
   
8. Whether any or part of the contract was unfair; in the sense of unfairness imposed on the Banks by the FSA rules and the FSMA 2000.
   
9. Whether the doctrine of uberrimae fidei assists. (Anyone any views?)
   
10. Whether the position of the Bank as fiduciary assists and whether there was any breach of a material duty owed by them as such.
    

This list is not exhaustive, but any one of these matters could (at least in theory) represent a way of a consumer avoiding the application of Caveat Emptor to his/her claim.

Edited February 2, 2009 by skeptic

[skeptic]

 

Whether the doctrine of uberrimae fideiassists. (Anyone any views?)

 

 

The point I'm referring to here is:

"Ordinarily the failure to disclose a material fact which might influence the mind of a prudent contractor does not give the right to avoid the contract. The principle of caveat emptor applies outside contracts of sale. There are certain contracts expressed by the law to be contracts of the utmost good faith, where material facts must be disclosed; if not, the contract is voidable. Apart from special fiduciary relationships, contracts for partnership and contracts of insurance are the leading instances. In such cases the duty does not arise out of contract; the duty of a person proposing an insurance arises before a contract is made, so of an intending partner." (per Lord Atkin,

Bell v Lever Bros

[1932] AC 161 at 227.)

This is trite law and a whole bunch of authorites rely on it.

 

However, most of the "uberrimae fidei" (aka utmost good faith contract) case law relates to insurers avoiding claims on policies they have written because the insured has not disclosed a material fact.

 

The question I'm posing is, Does this cut both ways?

 

In other words, if the contract is "uberrimae fidei" as far as the insured is concerned, which it is... surely it is "uberrimae fidei" as far as the insurer and/or his agent is concerned.

 

I'd be hugely interested on any case-law that supports/refute this point.

Edited February 2, 2009 by skeptic

[angry cat]

was yours a straight forward egg card or, one of these?

 

BOOTS ANNOUNCES LOYALTY AND CREDIT CARD POWERED BY EGG

 

AC

[skeptic]

 

In other words, if the contract is "uberrimae fidei" as far as the insured is concerned, which it is... surely it is "uberrimae fidei" as far as the insurer and/or his agent is concerned.

 

I'd be hugely interested on any case-law that supports/refute this point.

 

To answer my own question: (Doh!)

 

Uberrimae fideicontracts create mutual obligations of utmost good faith on both parties.

 

MANIFEST SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED -v- UNI-POLARIS SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS - House of Lords (2001] UKHL 1

 

"The principle of utmost good faith is not confined to marine insurance; it is applicable to all forms of insurance (London Assurance v Mansel (1879) 11 Ch D 363, Cantiere Meccanico Brindisino v Janson [1912] 3 KB 452 ) and is mutual..." per LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH @ para 47

 

Any breaches of such obligations of utmost good faith do not (of themselves) give rise to a claim in damages, because the arise by rule of law, rather than in consequence of the contract.

 

"Whether there was a remedy in damages for a failure to observe good faith was finally and authoritatively considered by the Court of Appeal in Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Ins Co [1990] 1 QB 665, affirmed by your Lordships' House at [1991] 2 AC 249 at p 280... Having concluded on the authorities that the correct view was that the requirement arose from a principle of law, having the character I have described, the Court of Appeal held that there was no right to damages." per LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH @ para 46

 

Where the want of good faith, has preceded and been material to the making of the contract, the contract is void ab initio and any financial claim lies in restitution; rather than contract.

 

"[The right to avoid referred to in s.17 is different. It applies retrospectively. It enables the aggrieved party to rescind the contract ab initio. Thus he totally nullifies the contract.] Everything done under the contract is liable to be undone. If any adjustment of the parties' financial positions is to take place, it is done under the law of restitution not under the law of contract. This is appropriate where the cause, the want of good faith, has preceded and been material to the making of the contract." per LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH @ para 51

 

N.B. The reference here to s.17 is to s.17 Marine Insurance Act 1906, and thus irrelevant to PPI claims, but is a necessary to place the remainder of the quote in context.

[SupermanX]

Further to my letter, they have now agreed for me to amend the POC. I have 14 days to do so, in the meantime i've submitted my AQ nad have received theirs.

 

I will redraft my POC and post it here by Sunday night .

 

Super

[steven4064]

Ah, I see.

 

Again, I am not absolutely certain, but I think online applications for credit before a certain date still required a hard copy with signature. I think steven4064 might be able to help you with that one.

Before December 2004

[SupermanX]

Hi Skeptic

 

Apologies for the late posting of my amended POC; kindly let me know what are your thoughts:

 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Egg Banking Plc on xxx. The account number is [number], which was a Running Account Credit Agreement. I will refer to this as the "Agreement".

 

2. The Agreement apparently included Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) which was taken out at the same time. The premium charges stopped on xxx once I realised the account was being charged without my knowledge and asked Egg to cancel the payments. I’ve been writing to the defendant since 2006 to obtain a refund.

 

3. On xxx I sent a subject access request to the Defendant on xxx, the defendant has replied by sending copies of the account statements along with an application form without any signature nor any reference to a Payment Protection Insurance agreement.

 

4. The Defendant has negligently misrepresented the PPI attached to the agreement in that there is no reference to the Claimant agreeing to PPI.

 

5- The Defendant has failed to inform me that PPI was available from other sources, provided no comparative costs of similar PPI products and whether it was suitable for my situation, my employer at the time offered a generous employment and sickness compensation scheme, therefore it was mis-sold.

 

6- The Claimant contends that contends that if the PPI was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

7- The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to the Claimant by the Defendant, the company failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

8- In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on [the company], under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

 

 

9- The Claimant seeks damages and other sums, as listed below:

 

A)

i) xxx- being the amount of all premiums paid plus compound interest charged applied thereon to the Claimant’s account at 25.9% This is the rate applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract. The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

ii) In the alternative to i), if the Court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to the contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the Claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the Claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 25.9 % per annum.

iii) In the alternative to i) and ii), if the Court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

 

 

B)

i) Further and or in alternative Damages not exceeding £5000 for Breach of Contract;

ii) Further and or in alternative Damages not exceeding £5000 for Misrepresentation under section of 2 the Misrepresentation Act 1967;

ii) Further and or in alternative removal of default notices entered for this account with the relevant credit agencies;

 

C) Costs

[SupermanX]

Hi

 

I also realised that you asked me a Q on thread 27 which i didn't reply to:

 

"

The ss.77-79 CCA request.

The last page of the your posts to photobucket, doesn't zoom enough for me to be able to read... but it looks like it might be a CCA and it looks like it incorporates some T&C's and has been signed by you(?) and by them(?)

 

Was this exhibited to the Defence? If so, is it a copy of your CCA? and does it appear to be enforceable?"

 

The last page is not a CCA or T&Cs, it is simply their signature at the end of their defense statement.

 

Please note that I also made a CCA request over 2 weeks ago and so far I have not received a reply, do you think i should add this to my POC?

 

Thanks

Super

[skeptic]

Super,

 

Dealing with the easy bits, first

 

The last page is not a CCA or T&Cs, it is simply their signature at the end of their defense statement.

 

This was what I was talking about. It looks like a CCA application form. However, I've now noticed that the title of the image suggests that it is not connected to the current lender. Am I right?

 

Please note that I also made a CCA request over 2 weeks ago and so far I have not received a reply, do you think i should add this to my POC?

 

No. See my post of 30 Jan 09.

 

Apologies for the late posting of my amended POC; kindly let me know what are your thoughts:

 

I will do... and I'll try and get them to you sooner rather than later, given the time pressure you're now under.

 

However, in the meantime, can I ask you to go back thru the whole of this thread and re-read it a couple of times. If you do, I'm sure, that you'll find that there are a number of matters which have previously been mentioned that still apply to your draft.

[SupermanX]

Hi skeptic

 

I confirm that the application you are referring to belongs to another case.

 

I will reread the whole thread again, i've now thought of a few changes that i can make to improve it. But please note however that i' not very experienced in the field.

Tks

Edited February 19, 2009 by SupermanX

[SupermanX]

Hi skeptic

 

can you kindly let me know what are thoughts on the amended POC, I have to file it with the court by the end of business tomorrow.

 

Tks

Super

[skeptic]

Hi skeptic

 

can you kindly let me know what are thoughts on the amended POC, I have to file it with the court by the end of business tomorrow.

 

Tks

Super

 

 

I thought the Defendant's solicitors had agreed an informal 14 day extension of time and that there had been no Court Order about this.

 

If so, hold fire, even if it theoretically runs out today. There's very little they can do in any event and they won't be able to do anything at all, until next week.

 

A bit of a day isn't realistically long enough for me to sort everything out. I've been working on this for about 5 hours since my last post and I'm only about half way there still... I think it'll be worth the wait.

[BigBilly]

Hi there,

 

I'm at the beginning of a claim against Egg for PPI sold over the phone for PPI on my Egg credit Card Essentially I was never sent any t's and C's. Egg were fined in December 08 for mis selling over the phone. I'm trying to get a thread going on this so please post on the link below if you any experiences of telephone misselling. Your helpwould be much appreciated

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/181836-egg-card-telephone-selling.html#post2002769

 

Cheers.

[SupermanX]

Egg have now offered to settle the claim in full but they are only willing to do so by crediting the credit account which is in default, the refund would be eaten by the debit on the card.

 

They are saying that if i don't accept the settlement and pursue my claim. they would request costs against me for unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14 (2) g.

 

Super

[SupermanX]

Egg have now fully settled the account.

 

Thanks everyone for your help

 

Super