Jump to content


Response to our Egg CCA request - Please Help !


cosalt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5330 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

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

From Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983:

 

 

Just gets better and better-thanks for pointing that out for me Basa-I have been dredging through it to find this part cheers.

 

The agreement does go on to say "In working out APRs, we have ignored any changes we may make to the interest rates, handling fees or any other charges which we introduce or vary at any time by giving you notice under condition 12"

 

Kind of owning up to the fact that they haven`t put the word variable in there.

 

 

Another question, it may have already been answered-if so sorry.

 

 

The agreement says at the end"agreement will only be binding on us when we have completed with our final cheks and other searches, and you have signed and returned the credit agreement to us"

 

I truly don`t understand how it can be binding on me but not them upon signing the agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I truly don`t understand how it can be binding on me but not them upon signing the agreement

 

Agreeing to the contract puts the cardholder under no obligations to spend any money whatsoever and under no risk to lose anything. The T&Cs stipulate that the cardholder is free to terminate the agreement at any future date (then pay the outstanding balance if any). The cardholder is thus not bound to the agreement either.

 

After Egg receives the cardholder's signature I understand they make a final check with the alleged employer to verify the claim of employment. From the moment Egg makes themselves bound to the agreement they stand the risk of losing money, but not so the cardholder. The two positions of risk are not symmetrical.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bit of an admission here folks :oops:

 

The term 'variable' is only a requirement for agreements after 31 May 2005.

 

Sorry. :oops::oops::oops:

 

But there was still the requirement for any 'charges' to be stated (which they aren't. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There`s another two lifeboats gone then, nevermind-I still don`t have the money to pay them.

 

We still have the 'Approved Limit' and (I believe) no mention of 'charges on default' terms to go with. :)

 

Chin up :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wifes card has now been passed to ARC, looks like CD UK have given up !

 

I think I have seen on here a 'bemused' letter, anyone know where its is so I can send it to ARC ?

 

Cosalt

 

Is this it:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/174170-mrs-creation-2.html#post2002854

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading threads on EGG CCA, I have one and it is the same as other CAGGERS, with an approved limit???

 

Is it valid or not?? Straight answer as there seems to be some confusion over this, and I want to get a letter back to the DCA;)

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I`m told that the judgement on this case-ie "credit" and only the word "credit" will suffice etc wasn`t about a credit card. The financier involved doesn`t supply credit cards and never has. (source The Penalty Charges forum). Is this true?

 

 

I know there are an awful lot of very bright people on here-I can`t seem to find anything except a brief paragraph which tells me nothing.

Edited by lollipop73
Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m told that the judgement on this case-ie "credit" and only the word "credit" will suffice etc wasn`t about a credit card. The financier involved doesn`t supply credit cards and never has. (source The Penalty Charges forum). Is this true?

 

I know there are an awful lot of very bright people on here-I can`t seem to find anything except a brief paragraph which tells me nothing.

 

If you have another look on that thread you will see that PT has added some more information - and claimed to have won 5 cases in court against Egg using a combination of the Central Trust vs Spurway case plus one of the Wilson cases (not sure which one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who is fighting Egg based on the "approved" vs "credit" limit arguments, please note that we are bringing this issue into my friend's case, which was originally only concerned with PPI allegedly bought online:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/178357-militant-consumer-challenges-egg.html

 

They have just responded to say that they are investigating our complaint - I will let you know the outcome of their deliberations!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I send the "not an enforceable agreement", and point out the approved limit bit. or should I wait and see the outcome of your fight first:confused:

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...