Response to our Egg CCA request - Please Help !

[cosalt]

Received this today after a long wait, would appreciate any comments.

 

http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp152/cosalt/REGG2.jpg

http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp152/cosalt/REGG1.jpg

 

Thanks

 

Cosalt

[steven4064]

Typical Egg agreement. It is unenforcable becasue it doesn't have the prescreibed terms. It should have a term telling you what your credit limit is. Instead you have an approved limit - whatever that is. That is meaningless and does not comply with teh Consumer Crdit Act 1974 and its associated regulations.

[cosalt]

Typical Egg agreement. It is unenforcable becasue it doesn't have the prescreibed terms. It should have a term telling you what your credit limit is. Instead you have an approved limit - whatever that is. That is meaningless and does not comply with teh Consumer Crdit Act 1974 and its associated regulations.

 

 

Thanks so much, TBH I thought it looked ok, I did notice the heading was wrong - should read 'Credit Card Agreement' not 'Credit Agreement'

 

Any idea what sort of letter I should send in response, or should I do nothing. This account is now with 'Collect Direct' not egg.

 

Cosalt

[steven4064]

I would write and tell Collect Direct that Egg have "provided you with a copy agreement which does not compply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and te associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)".

 

Attach a copy of the agreement that Egg sent.

 

You could offer them a few quid in full and final settlement as a gesture of goodwill (they wil have bought it from Egg for about 20p in the £1). If you have a default associated with this, you should add that you expect that CD will remove the default as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between you and Egg. Tell them that, ifthey refuse, you will commence court proceedings against them undser s14 of the DPA 1984.

[cosalt]

How about this:-

 

Dear CD

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not compply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

As a measure of goodwill I would be prepared to offer the sum of £2000 in full and final settlement of this account on the basis that you remove any default that you have registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between you and Egg. If you refuse, you will commence court proceedings against them under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next seven days.

 

Cosalt

 

 

The a balance is actually about £12.5K I just though we would offer them that. If they accepted it would I then be able to offer them say £100 for 20 months ?

 

Thanks

 

Cosalt

[cadencealex]

How about this:-

 

Dear CD

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not compply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

As a measure of goodwill I would be prepared to offer the sum of £2000 in full and final settlement of this account on the basis that you remove any default that you have registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between you and Egg. If you refuse, you will commence court proceedings against them under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next seven days.

 

Cosalt

 

 

The a balance is actually about £12.5K I just though we would offer them that. If they accepted it would I then be able to offer them say £100 for 20 months ?

 

Thanks

 

Cosalt

 

 

Might it be better to state you will pay them monthly? Instead of saying 2k as a goodwill gesture, which suggests you will pay them a lump sum of 2k

 

I could be wrong..

[steven4064]

I thik cadencalex is correct. If they refuse the gesture of goodwill, you could probably not pay them anything at all. Don't take that course without advice though and certainly not on mine alone.

[cosalt]

Ok, so are you suggesting it would be best that I not offer them anything at present, and maybe see what they come back with in defence of my claim that the agreement is not enforceable ?

[steven4064]

That mihgt be best

[kirklanw]

Sorry to barge in on this thread but I think its also relevant to mine a little further down. I think my agreement is unenforceable for the same reason but would like some advice if possible. My debt is still with Egg, would the letter above be suitable for me to send them if I adapt it slightly?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/175717-egg-cca-questions.html

 

There is also a thread for my Egg loan if anyone is able to check the agreement and see if it looks ok (pretty please)

[steven4064]

Yes kirklanw

 

Your agreement is identical so you could send Egg the same letter suitably modified

[cosalt]

How about this ?

 

Dear CD

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and remove any default that you have registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between me and Egg. If you refuse, I will commence court proceedings against you under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next fourteen days.

 

Cosalt

[Mistermind]

deleted

Edited January 14, 2009 by Mistermind

[cosalt]

DNs are issued and notified to CRAs by Egg. CD have no involvement in this. Some go after Egg, others tackle the CRAs for publishing allegedly untrue info. Far from easy.

 

Thanks so should I say they should ask egg to remove the default markers or just not bother mentioning that at all ?

[cadencealex]

Thanks so should I say they should ask egg to remove the default markers or just not bother mentioning that at all ?

 

If I were you, I would definitely be mentioning that you want the Default removed by EGG - the debts aren't half as much as a problem as the Defaults. In my humble opinion, anyway

[cosalt]

Thanks everyone, no amended to this, any good ?

 

Dear CD

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and request EGG to remove any default that has registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between me and Egg. If you refuse, I will commence court proceedings against you under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next fourteen days.

 

Cosalt

[Mistermind]

deleted

Edited January 14, 2009 by Mistermind

[cosalt]

You write in a tone suggesting you almost believe CD are gentlemen.

 

 

Not sure what you are reffering to?

 

What do you suggest I send then, something along the lines of-

 

' get stuffed, I am not paying you a penny, I hope you suffer a nasty accident '

 

[militantconsumer]

We also have a "Credit agreement" for an Egg card with an "approved limit".

 

So little time, so many credit agreements to challenge.....!

[cosalt]

Hi, could somebody possibly confirm that this part of the letter as underlined below refers to the incorrect heading on the agreement.

 

If so I think we have established in other threads that this only applies to post 2005 agreements ?

 

Thanks

 

 

Dear CD

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and request EGG to remove any default that has registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between me and Egg. If you refuse, I will commence court proceedings against you under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next fourteen days.

 

Cosalt

[militantconsumer]

cosalt

 

Am I missing something, or do you mean "pre 2005", not "post 2005"?

[cosalt]

cosalt

 

Am I missing something, or do you mean "pre 2005", not "post 2005"?

 

 

Hi, no I do mean 'post 2005'

 

I think we have established on another thread that the heading 'credit card agreement' is only required on agreements after 2005. Earlier ones can say 'credit agreement'

 

Here is the link-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/173059-credit-agreement-credit-card.html

 

Bit of a bummer as I was depending on that in defence of some of my agreements

[steven4064]

Davefirewalkers poston that thread is the important one. Having the wrong heading would make the agreement not properly executed but it would not make it unenforceable.

 

Enforceability (for agreements signed before Dec 2006) depends on only 2 things - having an agreement with your signature and having an agreement with the prescribed terms. After 2006, you have to persuade a judge on a case-by-case basis.

[cosalt]

Davefirewalkers poston that thread is the important one. Having the wrong heading would make the agreement not properly executed but it would not make it unenforceable.

 

Enforceability (for agreements signed before Dec 2006) depends on only 2 things - having an agreement with your signature and having an agreement with the prescribed terms. After 2006, you have to persuade a judge on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

Thanks Steven, I understand it pretty clearly now.

 

In the case of my agreement, it means that CD would have to take me to court in order to enforce the agreement because the heading is wrong, however the court can not enforce it because it is missing a prescribed term ie: nowhere does it say 'credit limit' 'approved limit' could mean anything, a limit to how many times I can use it, a limit to the types of things I can buy with it, a limit to when I can use it etc etc etc.

 

I will now send the letter as per earlier post and see what argument CD come back with.

Edited January 16, 2009 by cosalt
Spelt your name wrong, sorry !

[atwozee]

Hi cosalt – it would refer to any error in the agreement – no credit limit or statement to that affect would make it improperly executed as well because a prescribed term is missing or incorrectly stated. It just so happens that the term ‘Credit limit’ is a prescribed term regarding s127(3) as well.