egg/moorcroft

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

The chances of them actually turning up then having the strength to take your doorstep is slim but you could send them this little beauty:

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-.html

 

 

fox

[Undercover-Elsa]

As Silverfox so rightly says above, Smiffy, send them the Bog Off letter.

They KNOW they shouldn't pass it on while in default of CCA request, but choose to ignore. Save everything ready for a complaint to OFT and FOS when the time comes.

Elsa x

[zazen.warrior]

I read that as scotch egg, must get my eyes tested, very unlikely they will turn up, on the sole occasion one did arrive at my door I told him that if he didn't leave straight away I would call the police, he literally ran back to his car; seems I can be quite intimidating when I make a special effort…

Edited June 10, 2009 by zazen.warrior

[smiffy66]

thanks for that, is there also aletter i can send them about the account being passed from one debt collector to another?

[silverfox1961]

Here ya go. Letter 17:

 

The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors

 

Bookmark the link as the letters will come in useful at some stage.

 

fox

[smiffy66]

brilliant, thanks for that, it's in the post now

[balster]

Sounds familiar! I had letters from Moorcroft last year in May threatening to send round a doorstop collector...still waiting:D

Its just a load of rubbish, part of their process to get you to pay up.

HOWEVER saying that, I always make sure that I answer the dorr with the chain on8-)

 

B

[smiffy66]

have finally received an answer from egg

any ideas what i should do now?

[militantconsumer]

Well, if you still want to drag this out as long as possible you could take them up on their suggestion of complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months.

 

This will also hit them in the wallet, win or lose.

 

Did we ever establish whether there was any PPI charged on this account?

 

Something else you may wish to do is ask them what "well established point of law" and "recent case law" they are referring to. That is a reasonable question because they are basically saying they will damage your credit rating based on this law, but they haven't said what the law is.

 

It's interesting that they claim that "none of our collection activity breaches any codes, rules or regulations". This is always a good place to check if that is really the case:

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

[seriously fed up]

Yes, write back and tell them they are talking nonsense on stilts.

1. Heading - this is covered - as they do correctly point out - by the 1983 regs (1983/1553), which says in section 2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements - that

"(4) Subject to paragraphs (5) and (9) below, the information, statements of the protection and remedies, signature and separate boxes which this regulation requires documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements to contain,shall be set out in the order given by paragraphs (a) to (f) below under, where applicable, the headings specified below--

(a) the nature of the agreement as set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations;"

So lets go off and see what Schedule 1 paragraph 1 says - it says

"TYPE OF AGREEMENT INFORMATION

(1) (2)

[Nature of agreement

1. All types (1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a headingin one of the following forms of words--

(a) "Hire Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";

(b) "Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";

© "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; or

(d) "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974",as the case may require.

(2) If none of the headings in 1(a) to (d) above are applicable a heading in the following form of words--"Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

 

I have added (2) at the end just for completeness.

Now, whether or not the failure to use the correct heading would be fatal in a court hearing isnt altother clear - its not a prescribed term - but if they cant even make clear that it IS a credit card agreement (and not a shopping list for instance) then there would be an argument that they have a severe problem. But to say, as they do, that the heading is the correct statutory one, is just arrant nonsense. Either they are complete idiots or liars.

Concerning their second point, there is already a good deal of rebuttal of this point that you can find at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024413, but if we go to the regulations it says there

"8. Agreements for running-account credit. The credit limit expressed as:--

(a) a sum of money;

(b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor;

© a sum of money together with a statement that the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum as he may from time to time determine under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor; or

(d) in a case not falling within head (a), (b) or © above, either a statement indicating the manner in which the credit limit will be determined and that notice of it will be given by the creditor to the debtor or a statement indicating that there is no credit limit."

Whether or not "approved limit" is close enough is, of course something that is being worked through in court just now, but it IS certainly nonsense to say "it is a well established point of law that credit limit does not have to be so described. I would challenge them to produce either a reference in the 1983 regs or an authoritative court decision that supports that contention. Just nonsense.

What to do - militant consumer's advice is sound and i wouldnt add or subtract from that, other than maybe to send them a pointed letter showing that you know their letter is just a tissue of lies.

[smiffy66]

sorry i have been without a pc for a few months. thanks for your responses.

by ppi do you mean payment protection insurance? if so i did pay this for a while, it was one of those things where they ring you up & say you can have it for free for a few months, but then it is very difficult to get it taken off.

any ideas how i can put "seriously fed up's" point across in a letter?

[seriously fed up]

You might be able to adapt some of the letter on this thread to your own purposes - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/254345-letter-egg.html

Re ppi, the issue is whether it was mis-sold. For instance it has been sold to people to whom it would never pay out under any circumstances - for instance if you were self employed. You will need to go look at the conditions of the scheme and see how they apply to you. If it has been mis-sold then you should be able to get that money back.

The other thing is their "charges - late payment fee/ overlimit fee. You will need a copy of all your statements - they have to provide this for £1 if you ask them (or it could be part of a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act). These will include such charges, add them up and add interest (at least 8% which is the judicial rate, though there is an argument that it should be the rate of interest on the card - what they charged you. Some would argue it should be the rate of interest on the card - what it cost you - and the judicial rate - interest foregone by you otherwise - you could have put it in a savings account). It may well come to a pretty penny - they owe me about two grand, but wont pay up. This may well have to go to court. Some people find them a bit of a push over re returning charges - I havent. So maybe I will need to push a bit harder. See how you get on.

You can get letters re ppi and reclaiming charges on the site - you can get a subject access letter here - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors.html (11) - for the others if you use search (adjacent to quick links/ new posts etc).

But if they have mis-sold ppi, and you add that to the charges they should return, I'll bet it makes a significant dent in what you "owe" them.

[Bosund]

Subbing

[alisindebt]

Does this mean that Capquest have stopped hassling you and it's gone back to Egg?

 

To answer your question, again it depends what you are trying to achieve. In my friend's (Egg Card) case we have already been defaulted and so have now stopped paying and just complained to the FOS - though we did wait as long as possible:-

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

 

I think Egg's slow response is typical - we have just receive the same letter on our Egg loan account.

 

I had dealigs with CapQuest over an Egg loan-see my thread on here.

 

i claimed a prior dispute with OC and Capquest were forced to cancel the account.

[smiffy66]

thanks for that.

so should i send a leteer similar to the one on thread 16 of your egg/cap quest threats?

[smiffy66]

bump

[seriously fed up]

As militantconsumer observes, it depends on what it is you are trying to achieve here.

 

1. in terms of enforceability, I would have thought it unlikely that Egg would initiate legal action against anyone who seems to have an understanding of the legal situation, prior to the Cardiff case being determined. So, an adaption of the letter I referred to a couple of posts ago might be in order - its a "kitchen sink" one, but if it puts them off its achieved its purpose imo
   
2. re ppi, I would be inclined to try to keep that separate from the enforceability argument. Tbh, ppi isnt something I have a lot of experience of (either paying it or fighting to get it back), but I do think it would be best not to "muddy the waters".
   

[smiffy66]

have adapted sfd's letter as best i could and have received this response

any ideas what i should do now please?

[seriously fed up]

First of all what do you expect them or their legal team to say? Its all they can say and certainly not authority.

1. Points 1 and 2 are part of the case that PT has brought. But I think to argue that the word "limit" is in your T&Cs is pretty pathetic

2. hard to say - which point

3. the 83 regs say that there should be a heading prominently displayed on the first page saying "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act". Is it there? Yes? Is it prominent? Much less than Egg Card Agreement for ???????

4. the relevant section of the Regs (schedule 1, para 22) is headed "Charges on Default" - Egg have it hidden away and dont even refer to them as default charges

5. re UCTR, this is an interesting response, as the exclusion in para 6 (clause 2) says

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate– (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

This isnt an issue about price (value for money), so (b) doesnt apply. The issue is about whether its about "the main subject matter" - or a core provision. The direct debit provision could be said to be core as repayment arrangements are prescribed terms. However, that only applies under reg 6 which is where OFT got caught out in the bank charges case. BUT Reg 5 does not have that limitation - the criterion there is whether the term has been individually negotiated in advance (plainly it hasnt) and if not whether it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations, which is certainly arguable. And that to some extent is the point in itself - there has been no legal determination of this yet - do Egg want to bring their own case and prove this?

5. Re APRs at 4.2 and 4.3, there are in mine. They have got themselves in a bit of a fankle with charging fees and whether these should be reflected in the APR that they quote

6.Re MCGuffick, this is not a satisfactory situation for anyone, but they are arguably right on this given court decisions.

[smiffy66]

any ideas what they will do next?

i'm really worried they'll take me to court.

i could offer to make minimum payments again, but when i did that before they passed the debt to the debt collectors.

[smiffy66]

bump

[victoria_siempre]

Hi smiffy

 

It's your call.

 

You could offer what you can sustainably and reasonably afford from £1 upwards.

 

You could wait and see what they do next.

 

x

 

vic