Me Vs Egg Loan

[ANDREAMOUR]

what made me think it was unenforcable was this that i found when i was browsing the forum

 

Multiple Agreements

 

If an agreementhas more than one part and those parts are for different categories of credit, then section 18 of the CCA 1974 says that the different parts must be treated as seperate agreements. In particular, this means that the prescribed terms for the different parts of the loan must be listed seperately.

Quote:

18.--(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement”) if its terms are such as--

 

(a) to place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

 

(b) to place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

 

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

 

(3) Where an agreement falls within subsection (1)(b), it shall be treated as an agreement in each of the categories in question, and this Act shall apply to it accordingly.

[Mistermind]

 

Multiple Agreements

 

If an agreementhas more than one part and those parts are for different categories of credit, then section 18 of the CCA 1974 says that the different parts must be treated as seperate agreements. In particular, this means that the prescribed terms for the different parts of the loan must be listed seperately.

 

"Different categories of credit" could be fixed-term loan, fixed-interest loan, variable-interest loan, revolving credit topups, non-topups, credit card etc. In all such cases the lender makes dosh available to you up front, but will have different T&C for each product, just like separate agreements if you open a deposit account and a current account at the same bank. It would be unacceptable to fudge the two lines of credit to concoct one halfway agreement.

 

PPI, like other insurance will pay out in case of unemployment or illness, as a protection against distress not as dosh in hand to facilitate consumer spending. Although PPI can result in modest payout to cover payments which a sick or unemployed subscriber cannot make, this payout is clearly not a "category of Consumer Credit". When the lender pays you upfront, that is credit. When you pay the insurer upfront, that is insurance. If the day ever comes when PPI will pay you upfront regardless of illness or unemployment claim then PPI could become identifiable as a "category of credit".

 

The total Egg loan payable after say 7 years would comprise the principal borrowed, the interest, and the PPI premiums. If Egg sold you the loan then also stood the PPI, they have not sold two separate "categories of credit" mixed together in one agreement. It is one category of credit combined with one category of insurance, I think.

[ANDREAMOUR]

Mmm...

Looks Like It Could Be Enforcable Then... :-?

 

Im Going To Send Them A Sar Today

As That Agreement Was For A Loan That Should Have Ended In 2008 But I Consolidated My 2 Egg Cards In That Loan

I Dont Remember Signing A New Agreement

So I Will See What They Send Me.....

[militantconsumer]

ANDREAMOUR,

 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Your agreement is indeed the same as my friend's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

 

Both are from 2003 and both have Payment Protection Added to the Principal Loan but then the two categories of credit do not have the prescribed terms split out separately.

 

pt2537 started this thread about "s18" multiple agreements

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

 

I brought my friend's agreement into the discussion as I felt it could be unenforceable. pt2537 and Josie8 agreed with me. I now that pt works for a law firm, and I'm pretty sure that Josie8 has a lot of legal experience as well.

 

steven4064 (of the CAG site team) then wrote a summary about how to tell if Consumer Credit Agreements are enforceable

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements.html

He used my friend's agreement as an example of an unenforceable agreement.

 

Given the above, I would be very disappointed if my friend's agreements (and yours by extension) are enforceable.

 

That doesn't mean that Egg will refrain from using debt collectors and other nasty tricks to scare us. We have already been defaulted so they no longer hold that sword over our heads, and we intend to try and avoid making any further repayments.

 

"Different categories of credit" could be fixed-term loan, fixed-interest loan, variable-interest loan, revolving credit topups, non-topups, credit card etc. In all such cases the lender makes dosh available to you up front, but will have different T&C for each product, just like separate agreements if you open a deposit account and a current account at the same bank. It would be unacceptable to fudge the two lines of credit to concoct one halfway agreement.

 

PPI, like other insurance will pay out in case of unemployment or illness, as a protection against distress not as dosh in hand to facilitate consumer spending. Although PPI can result in modest payout to cover payments which a sick or unemployed subscriber cannot make, this payout is clearly not a "category of Consumer Credit". When the lender pays you upfront, that is credit. When you pay the insurer upfront, that is insurance. If the day ever comes when PPI will pay you upfront regardless of illness or unemployment claim then PPI could become identifiable as a "category of credit".

 

The total Egg loan payable after say 7 years would comprise the principal borrowed, the interest, and the PPI premiums. If Egg sold you the loan then also stood the PPI, they have not sold two separate "categories of credit" mixed together in one agreement. It is one category of credit combined with one category of insurance, I think.

 

Mistermind - are you saying that pt's, Josie8 and steven's opinions of these agreements are wrong? I was under the impression that what made these different categories of credit was something set out in the CCA1974 in s18, with the types of credit all listed. And that a PPI premium paid up front is a "debtor-creditor-supplier" type of credit? We are not talking about the payout of PPI but the amount of credit supplied by Egg to pay the premium on the PPI policy.

 

On the PPI front:

Egg tried to sell PPI on all its loans sold over the phone. Their credit card division has already been fined for this by the FSA and told to start refunding. I suggest you get the SAR and see what that reveals. If you have a PPI complaint then there is always the Financial Ombudsman Service before Court - free of charge win or lose.

[Mistermind]

Mistermind - are you saying that pt's, Josie8 and steven's opinions of these agreements are wrong? I was under the impression that what made these different categories of credit was something set out in the CCA1974 in s18, with the types of credit all listed. And that a PPI premium paid up front is a "debtor-creditor-supplier" type of credit? We are not talking about the payout of PPI but the amount of credit supplied by Egg to pay the premium on the PPI policy.

 

 

I made a specific comment in response to Andreamour one specific point.

 

thanks mistermind...

the reason why i was querying the payment protection was because it was Added To The Principle Loan And My Re-payments Are Only For 1 Amount Each Month..

i thought this just made the agreement uninforcable....

 

Andreamour made no mention of combining two credit agreements to me and I made no comment about combining two different credit agreements. Andreamour mentioned ONE category of credit and ONE category of insurance.

 

If I sign a house insurance cover with my local insurer how does insurance become a category of credit? Is General Accident a moneylender in disguise? Most people expect to lose their insurance premiums just so they are covered if the worst came to the worst. If a house burned down and insurance paid out it is the general guidance in the industry that they will insure up to but not beyond the value of the house, so no-one obtains a credit advantage in case of a fire.

 

No doubt two monthly payments have been combined (what is the Egg fine print signed at inception of account), a payment towards the credit loan and a payment towards the insurance.

 

Has Egg loaned money as a credit arrangement upfront for the customer to pay the PPI monthly? If the account is paid up ahead of termination date are the unused premiums refunded to the customer without question? If so this refund proves the PPI was an insurance.

 

An even clearer criterion comes up if an account is hopelessly defaulted with no chance of recovery and Egg goes to court to claim the balance owed, does Egg claim for the totality of PPIs frontloaded but part unused, or just the PPIs yet to be paid? If the first then for those who love legal text there will be the additional complication of whether the customer had signed up for an irrecovable period of insurance with no getouts.

 

Another criterion would be a customer who chooses to drop out of PPI subscription while keeping the loan account open. If PPI frontloaded by explicit agreement, then the customer will be liable to an Egg demand for return of the unused portion of PPI premiums ringfenced for the purpose of paying PPI premiums only. There was of course no agreement for Egg to lend and administer a separate pool of funds for PPI. Egg lent extra to the customer. The customer chose to pay PPI monthly by signing on the dotted line. The customer could also stop paying PPI by choice. How is the existence of this second unnamed "category of credit" to be proven to the judge, if stopping PPI is as straightforward as stopping a D/D?

 

Outcome precedents are available to be checked. Click SEARCH in the top blue bar, ADVANCED SEARCH, set keyword UNENFORCEABLE, select SEARCH TITLE ONLY. Most winning threads will have "WON" inserted into the title.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Mistermind

[militantconsumer]

Mistermind - I was probably trying to cover too many points in one post, and I apologise for misinterpreting your comments.

 

I think the key issue here (and also with my friend's identical agreement) is whether this type of Egg agreement from 2003 is unenforceable as it is a multiple agreement under s18 of the CCA 1974, so should be treated as two seprate agreements, but lacks the prescribed terms for each separate part of the agreement.

 

This is not an idle technicality. It is extremely misleading to sell a five year insurance policy by lending the customer the money for this and charging interest over the period, without detailing this information in the agreement (not the small print). That is presumably why it wasn't allowed, and why the rules were made even stricter when 2 signatures were required with the "2004" regulations.

 

I really can't explain the arguments any more clearly than in these two posts from pt and steven:-

 

Multiple agreements within section 18 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This is just my view and interpretation of s18 CCA and therefore I would advise anyone reading this bear that in mind

 

Section 18 can be very useful concerning agreements where there is a main loan and payment protection insurance.

 

Firstly lets look at what section 18 says

 

18.Multiple agreements.

 

—(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as—

 

(a)To place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

 

(b)To place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

 

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

 

Ok so what does this mean, well, lets say you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp, the loan is for you to use as you like and therefore you would have fixed sum credit See s10 (1)(B) CCA, unrestricted use credit See s11 (2) CCA and finally it would be a debtor-creditor agreement as defined within s13 CCA

 

Now if you add PPI to the loan, this changes things slightly, why? Well in my view if you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp and then you add a PPI policy for example adding another £1500 of credit you are turning it into a multiple agreement

 

The PPI is fixed sum credit as set out in section 10 CCA but it is not unrestricted use, instead its restricted use credit ( See s11 CCA) as you do not have any say over its use, it is in effect only credit for the purchase of the PPI policy and additionally it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement as it would be undoubtedly underwritten by another specialist insurer and not the creditor and therefore it falls within the definition given in section 12 CCA

 

So in effect what we have with the £6000 loan and the £1500 PPI is a multiple agreement with “part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned”

 

This is because the £6000 is fixed sum, unrestricted use debtor creditor and the £1500 is fixed sum, restricted use Debtor-creditor-supplier

 

Therefore since this type of agreement falls within s18, it means that as defined in s18 (2) CCA that the document is to be treated as 2 separate agreements and each agreement must have its own prescribed terms for each part

 

Therefore each piece of credit must have its own term stating the amount of credit, repayments and all other statutory info, in addition the PPI policy would need to have a term stating the Cash Price of the policy, due to it being a restricted use debtor creditor supplier agreement.

 

In essence there should be the following

 

Loan

 

Amount of Credit £6000

Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXX

Total amount payable £XXXXXXXX

 

APR 16.9%

 

 

 

PPI

 

Amount of credit £1500

Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXXX

Total amount payable £ XXXXXXXXX

 

Apr 16.9%

 

Cash price of policy £1500

 

 

the agreement may not be set out exactly as above but that is to give you an idea of what it must contain

 

 

If the agreement fails to correctly set matters out in accordance with s18 then the lender risks falling foul of the form and content requirements of section 60 CCA and could be improperly executed as set out within section 61(1) (a) CCA 1974 thus becoming unenforceable

 

the main thing to remember is that you have two agreement within one document, so there must be a set of prescribed terms for each piece of credit, it is permissible to add the prescribed terms together and then state them as total amounts BUT they must be also stated in their separate parts.

 

Multiple Agreements

 

If an agreementhas more than one part and those parts are for different categories of credit, then section 18 of the CCA 1974 says that the different parts must be treated as seperate agreements. In particular, this means that the prescribed terms for the different parts of the loan must be listed seperately.The different categories of credit are defined in sections 8-15 of the CCA 1974:

 

1. 'Personal credit agreement' or 'Consumer credit agreement' (Section 8 )

2. 'Regulated agreement' or 'Exempt agreement' (Section 8 )

3. 'Hire purchase agreement' (Section 9)

4. 'Running account credit' (eg credit card, overdraft) or 'Fixed sum credit' (eg bank loan) (Section 10)

5. 'Restricted use agreement' (eg PPI, car purchase) or 'Unrestricted use agreement' (eg cash loan) (Section 11)

6. 'Debtor-creditor-supplier agreement' (eg PPI) (Section 12) or 'Debtor-creditor agreement' (eg cash loan) (Section 13)

7. 'Credit token agreement' (eg credit card) (Section 14)

8. 'Consumer hire agreement' (Section 15)

 

So, a regulated, consumer credit agreement for fixed sum credit falls into three categories and the terms relating to all three must be in the agreement.

 

For our purposes though, where section 18 may render an agreement invalid is where the loan itself has two 'bits' which fall into different categories. For example (probably the most common example), a cash loan with PPI fall into different categories of credit:

 

Cash loan: ' unrestricted use credit' and 'debtor-creditor credit'

PPI: 'restricted use credit' and 'debtor-creditor-supplier credit'

 

Both fall into the categories 'regulated agreement' and 'consumer credit agreement'.

 

Such an agreement would fall under the scope of section 18 and require that the two parts of the loan be regarded as seperate loans. This in turn requires that the prescribed terms for each part must both be listed on the agreement: Loan amount, regular repayments and APR for both seperately.

 

Therefore, if, as is quite common, the monthly repayment is lumped together without the repayment amount for the loan and PPI listed seperately, the agreement would not be properly executed nor would it be enforceable under s65 as it wouldn't have the signature and all the prescribed terms on one document..

 

Another example is where a 'top-up loan' is arranged on a mortgage. Here the loan again has two bits - a bit that pays off the original mortagage and a bit that can be used by the borrower for other purposes as (s)he wishes. The first bit is 'exempt' and 'restricted use'; the second 'regulated' and 'unrestricted use (This example is worked through in detail in Bennion's article - see below)

 

Examples of Properly Executed and Unenforceable Multi-Part Agreements

For further information, have a look at Francis Bennion's article. In the article, Bennion gives the example of a multiple (multi-part) loan - a 'top-up' loan where part goes to pay off an existing mortgage and the other is for the debtors free use. He says this is covered by s18 as a loan with restricted-use and unrestricted-use parts. This has now been overruled in a High Court judgement. The PPI example above still holds.

 

(Thanks to PT2537 for this information)

[Mistermind]

I have not gone into the fine print, so just to consider the alleged concept of PPI premiums paid out of an "implicit" loan arranged for that purpose. Say £1500 frontloaded for PPI, on top of a £4,000 loan.

 

(1) IS the £1500 loaned for payment of PPI only? Those in the front line can tell us:

 

Can you voluntarily cease subscription to PPI say after only 2 weeks?

If yes, will Egg accept your PPI bow-out?

If yes, do Egg have arrangements to claw back their "loan" of £1500 for PPI only?

Are there clauses in the agreement to enforce this claw-back?

If none then where is the restriction on the use of the £1500 loan to finance PPI premiums?

 

Say if Egg lends you £4,000 over 5 years, not only will there be PPI on top, there will also be interest on top. To ensure you can meet payments AND obtain use of true nett liquidity of £4,000 Egg could offer you a loan of £8,000 upfront. Are you saying there is one explicit agreement hiding two implicit agreements - PPI financing and interest financing? By what device does Egg ensure your spending does not encroach on the pot of money ringfenced for PPI and interest?

 

For me the acid test on whether there is a hidden PPI financing agreement will hinge on what happens when you abort the PPI but not the loan. If you have such separate paperwork then it is a different story.

 

As for the different issue of TWO genuine credit agreements such as an old loan account and a new loan account merging into one -- what actually happened in the case? Did Egg agree to a separate new loan, and out of it spot cash was transferred from the new loan account into the old account closing the latter with finality? If so I cannot see any difficulty about two financial products masquerading as one because they did not.

 

All this, of course, subject to Egg doing it with the customer's agreement. Exactly what paperwork was generated at the switchover? Most people do not want to read such paperwork when they are after dosh.

 

And the answer shortly due in court:

 

Just came back from court... I was lucky to make it out alive the DJ (he was good but) was definitely on the side of the egg , but somehow he deciding to adjourn the hearing so that the egg can get some answers to the issues I raised.

..........................

 

4. Is agreement a multi part agreement?

 

We didn't get time to address this issue but outside the barrister tried to say that the PPI and loan were in the same category, I set him straight on that.

 

So there it is folks the show goes on. If anybody can point me to any case law that could support my views I would be grateful, the next time we meet it is going to be game over and it’s not looking to good for me.

 

Thanks for reading.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Mistermind

[militantconsumer]

I have been following that case, but it is not so straightforward because there are a LOT of other issues involved - the s18 argument is just being tagged on, and obviously hasn't even been brought before the judge yet.

 

What happens with the agreements is that Egg never passes the 1,500 of your example to the customer, but starts charging 'notional' interest on it from Day One. Egg then (presumably) pays the full(?) PPI premium directly to an insurance company.

 

The customer is then sent policy documents separately through the post. As the customer never sees this PPI premium, they do not have the option of using the funds for a different purpose, whether for a PPI policy with a different supplier, or a holiday, or whatever.

 

The PPI element is (we argue) classified as a restricted use Debtor-creditor-supplier category under CCA 1974, and should have prescribed terms clearly set out for each of the two parts to the multiple agreement.

 

Otherwise the cost of the PPI finance charge is unclear. Indeed, the very fact that it is attracting interest at all is hidden.

[militantconsumer]

As for cancelling PPI part way through the loan.

 

I believe there is always an option to cancel the insurance, though this might not be made obvious - and, of course, you wouldn't know how much you were paying for it unless you had managed to calculate this.

 

If you do cancel it then there would be a 'notional' refund of your initial premium. (The refund is a very complicated figure to work out because it is not a linear calculation - as risk is higher at the start of the loan when a higher balance is outstanding.)

 

The refund is made to Egg, who originally paid the premium. The customer just sees lower monthly interest repayments going forward.

 

An interesting question is what happens to the loan agreement if a customer does this - does a new one need to be signed? We have recently tried to cancel the PPI on our loan, and certainly don't intend to replace an unenforceable(?) 2003 style agreement with a proper one!

[ANDREAMOUR]

now im really confused..

what stage are you at now miltant with your friends case, have you got a court date??

[Mistermind]

 

If you do cancel it then there would be a 'notional' refund of your initial premium. (The refund is a very complicated figure to work out because it is not a linear calculation - as risk is higher at the start of the loan when a higher balance is outstanding.)

 

The refund is made to Egg, who originally paid the premium. The customer just sees lower monthly interest repayments going forward.

 

 

At PPI cancellation time if there ever had been a hidden PPI financing loan, this would be the time for Egg to unwind te loan. The purpose of such alleged loan having been cancelled, if Egg does nothing then to unwind the "loan" then where is the indication there never was a hidden PPI loan restricted in its purpose. The purpose having gone the loan was not recalled, but is used for other spending instead.

 

The basic loan was informally boosted to ensure the customer has enough to pay for PPI. Egg acted like an insurance broker or PPI stakeholder ensuring monthly PPI premiums are paid to the insurer. If Egg charges a little more premium that they pay the insurer, that would surely fall within the remit of insurance legislation not money-lending legislation. Upon unwinding the insurance the premium payments stopped, but there was no unwinding of the alleged loan, so where did that loan come from and where did it go?

[ANDREAMOUR]

EGG RETURNED MY SAR TODAY AS IT WASNT SIGHNED!!!

 

IVE SIGNED IT AND SHADED AROUND MY SIGNATURE...

SENDING IT BACK TODAY...

 

CAN EGG TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST ME WHILE I WAIT FOR THEM TO SEND ME MY INFO???

[danson79]

Never sign! Ever!

 

Write back to them and state they don't require your signature and the original statutory timeframe still applies - the clock is still ticking!

 

I'm interested in the fact you extended your loan, but only have an agreement for the original amount - i'm in a similar boat. Does this not render the agreement unenforceable as it's therefore wrong? They will be trying to claim far more money etc from you than the agreement states...

[ANDREAMOUR]

This Is What I Thought...

 

When I Consolidated The 2 Cc's It Was All Done On The Phone And Im 100% Sure I Never Sighned A New Agreement..

 

If I Did Im Sure They Would Have Sent It Instead Of The 1 They Did Send...

 

Hopefully When They Finally Send All My Info It Will Shed Some Light....

[danson79]

I've sar'd egg and they don't have an alleged agreement for the loan extension... just the original amount.

 

I'm in the middle of waiting for a complaint response, i'll keep you posted.

[ANDREAMOUR]

thanks danson..

 

are they supposed to send you a new agreement when you add to your original loan?

[militantconsumer]

now im really confused..

what stage are you at now miltant with your friends case, have you got a court date??

 

We are at the stage of about to dispute and stop paying on the grounds of 1) PPI mis-selling and 2) unenforceability due to s18 arguments.

 

My thread is here:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

[militantconsumer]

At PPI cancellation time if there ever had been a hidden PPI financing loan, this would be the time for Egg to unwind te loan. The purpose of such alleged loan having been cancelled, if Egg does nothing then to unwind the "loan" then where is the indication there never was a hidden PPI loan restricted in its purpose. The purpose having gone the loan was not recalled, but is used for other spending instead.

 

The basic loan was informally boosted to ensure the customer has enough to pay for PPI. Egg acted like an insurance broker or PPI stakeholder ensuring monthly PPI premiums are paid to the insurer. If Egg charges a little more premium that they pay the insurer, that would surely fall within the remit of insurance legislation not money-lending legislation. Upon unwinding the insurance the premium payments stopped, but there was no unwinding of the alleged loan, so where did that loan come from and where did it go?

 

The loan to finance PPI is not exactly 'hidden' as the price of the PPI is stated in the agreement. But what is not made clear is that it is not an insurance policy with monthly premiums but a loan which attracts interest on the full price of the PPI policy from day 1. It is only clear if you have a calculator or a spreadsheet to hand (and you are know how to work out such things). This is why there has been such a furore about front-loaded PPI on loan agreements.

 

As Egg have (presumably) paid the full policy premium up front on behalf of the customer and are now charging the customer interest and capital repayments for that element of the total loan, it is clearly accommodation of credit rather than simply within the remit of insurance legislation.

 

You raise an interesting point about what would happen if the PPI was cancelled early - would there be a cash refund to the customer, or an extension to the unrestricted pool of credit? I don't know the answer to this as I am not involved in any cases where it has happened. However, I would just comment that this does not seem to me to be the main issue - as it is entirely hypothetical in cases where there has been no such refund.

[Mistermind]

The debate hinges on whether there is a prohibited merging of two separate categories of credit into one single agreement, or whether Egg simply lifted the amount of the loan to enable the payment of PPI premiums. If a borrower calculates his requirement with great precision and finds he needs £2000. Egg agrees to a loan of £2000, but can see immediately that £2000 will be insufficient if on top of it the borrower needs to pay monthly PPI premiums not previously entered into his calculations. Egg now grants a loan of £2800 instead.

 

The question is, did Egg grant an £2800 loan for convenience? If so there can be no objection to interest being charged on the entirety of the £2800 loan - a loan is a loan is a loan.

 

If there is some hidden secret understanding, that whereas the £2000 can be spent by the borrower, the £800 can at no time be spent by the borrower, then that will constitute evidence of a restrictive clause, as will the clawback of £800 by Egg is after one month PPI subscriptiion is ended by the borrower's choice. Without such evidence it seems hard to make out there were two separate loans dressed up as one.

 

I have not seen the paperwork. If it were the case that PPI terms were not made clear to the consumer, then that will be covered separately by insurance legislation, rules and regulations. PPI mis-sold? Sure, but that is a separate action. PPI with separate loan restriction and interest terms disguised unwritten inside the main loan carrying different terms? The evidence of such existence if any, will be exposed at the extinction of the "PPI loan". It is not as if it has never happened before. The judge will likely insist on ascertaining this position. If it does not walk like a duck, it does not swim like a duck, it does not quack like a duck, is it a duck?

 

Any way e_inspired's final court hearing on this very subject comes up within 3 weeks, and this question will be categorically answered by the one who counts - the judge.

[ANDREAMOUR]

HAD THIS RESPONSE TO MY SAR

IS THIS NORMAL FROM EGG??

 

[militantconsumer]

If you sent a full SAR then they should be sending you a 1 inch thick pack of EVERYTHING they hold on you - not just statements.

 

At least you are getting the statements - we have been waiting months for them as they never came in the pack.

[ANDREAMOUR]

If you sent a full SAR then they should be sending you a 1 inch thick pack of EVERYTHING they hold on you - not just statements.

 

At least you are getting the statements - we have been waiting months for them as they never came in the pack.

 

hi millitant

 

Did they charge you the standard £10?

[militantconsumer]

Yes they did charge £10, but it was worth it for how revealing the information is - not just about our own account, but about how these companies work in general.

 

Every time my friend called them, even for something innocuous like an enquiry about savings rates, they transfered her to another department and tried to sell her a loan. The staff were obviously on commission as they always noted down "loan belongs to Mrs XXX" and they always mentioned how much PPI they'd managed to sell with the loan.

 

It was also interesting to find that Egg have three standard letters to put people off reclaiming credit card charges. The letters are called "OFT1", "OFT2", and "OFT3".

 

It's so cyncial.

 

What they didn't provide was loan statements, calculations of PPI refunds when the loan was topped up, and default notices.

[ANDREAMOUR]

Mm

Sounds like they are just going to send me my statements then..

I definately sent them a sar....

 

So if they havent sent you everything then have they defaulted?

 

this was the letter i sent

 

The Recon Ops & Clearance (DSIR) Team

Egg plc

Point North

Waterfront West

Brierley Hill

West Midlands DY5 1LU

06/02/09

 

Data Protection Act 1998

Subject Access Request s7(1)

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):

 

 

Please send me the information which I am entitled to under section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to detailed occurrences relating to the above account number.

 

 

The following is by no means an exhaustive list but in the main this is what I require.

 

 

Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to ALL accounting history with your organisation. Alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period will be acceptable.

 

 

Additionally, all records you hold on me relevant to these accounts, including but not limited to:

 

 

1. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments and both the original amount of the loan and any repayments made to the accounts.

 

2. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company

 

3. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response

 

4. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notices that you may have sent to me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

 

5. Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted.

 

6. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

 

7. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of these accounts and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

 

8. A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or proof that you have a legal right to this money.

 

9. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

 

10. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

11. A copy of all account statements for the duration of the agreement.

 

12. Please would you also advise me of the logic involved in any automated decisions taken by you about me pursuant to section 7(1) (d) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

13. A True copy of the original consumer credit agreement section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act of 1974.

 

14. If it is contended you do not hold such data before such a date, please confirm this by providing the Certificate of Destruction.

 

15. Any Other information relating to these accounts

 

 

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10 by postal order. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee.

 

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable for the previous XX years.

Furthermore, such a request for specific information to confirm my identity will not deviate or inhibit the 40 days time limit allowed for compliance with my Subject Access Request.

 

 

Please note - If I do not receive all the data I have requested within the timescale specified above, I shall seek a Court order obliging you to do so, together with damages at the discretion of the Court and without any further notice.

 

 

Finally, I would appreciate your Company's due diligence in this matter and look forward to receiving the documentation requested.

Yours Faithfully,

Yes they did charge £10, but it was worth it for how revealing the information is - not just about our own account, but about how these companies work in general.

 

Every time my friend called them, even for something innocuous like an enquiry about savings rates, they transfered her to another department and tried to sell her a loan. The staff were obviously on commission as they always noted down "loan belongs to Mrs XXX" and they always mentioned how much PPI they'd managed to sell with the loan.

 

It was also interesting to find that Egg have three standard letters to put people off reclaiming credit card charges. The letters are called "OFT1", "OFT2", and "OFT3".

 

It's so cyncial.

 

What they didn't provide was loan statements, calculations of PPI refunds when the loan was topped up, and default notices.

[ANDREAMOUR]

Had A Threatening Letter Through Today Off Moorcroft..

Gonna Scan It Up But My Brand New Scanner Wont Turn On!! Grrr