Egg Credit Card CCA Agreement - help

[basa48]

Lollipop, remind what year your Egg agreement dates to.

 

I am now looking feverishly into this 'APR variable' thing everyone seems to be ignoring and the 'charges'.

 

I might have ballsed up with this as the Regs I was basing it on are 2005 amended ones (it wasn't clear from the source ). I've ordered the unamended version from TSO. Should arrive in 2 days.

 

Fingers crossed.

[lollipop73]

Hi Basa,

 

 

April 2003.

 

Sorry, I haven`t been ignoring your comments-I have been trying to read up on it-and to be honest also trying to look after my Mum in Laws stuff aswell.

[basa48]

Hi Basa,

 

 

April 2003.

 

Sorry, I haven`t been ignoring your comments-I have been trying to read up on it-and to be honest also trying to look after my Mum in Laws stuff aswell.

 

Hey no problem, I can't respond at all during the day anyway, my works PC isn't allowed to access forums at all

 

My agreement is 2002.

 

I've ordered a copy of the original CC (Agreements) Regs 1983....should arrive tomorrow or Fri. I can then check exactly what was required in 2002.

 

Fingers crossed.

[Fingers60]

Hi ya All - An update

 

So I sent a letter off to egg following receipt of copy of my cca.

 

In the letter I challenged the "approved limit" not being a prescribed term etc.

 

I received a blah blah reponse not responding to the points that I have raised. Copy attached below:

 

http://i44.tinypic.com/11cgvmw.jpg

 

So where do I go from here, I am still paying my minimum payments.

 

Do I write back quoting legal argument as pointed out by pt2537 in thread Egg Card CCA

 

"Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, HHJ Overend states

 

24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

 

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is"

 

Do I engage Egg into written comunication of the argument here that has been succesfully used by pt2537 ? I suspect that I will get the same standard letter back ignoring my specific points?

 

Because I am still paying my cards I dont know how to go on the offensive here. Many caggers seem to stop paying their cards and then defending agaisnt the card company when they try to collect the debt.

 

So I am confused as to how to take this one forward ??

 

HEEEELLLLLPPP !

 

Fingers

[moneytalks237]

has anyone seen this Information request form it's a data subject information request form provided by EGG, they ask or a signature, from what I've read anyone using this form DO NOT SIGN! Is it EGG pretending to be helpful and really getting your signature? Just a thought...anyone else got a view?

[pennypenny]

Hi Fingers,

Thats exactly the same letter I received last week and I am also unsure what to do next. They have totally ignored the point I raised about the lack of the word credit and have obviously just sent out a standard templated letter which they send to everyone. I doubt they have even read our letters.

[basa48]

Hi ya All - An update

 

So I sent a letter off to egg following receipt of copy of my cca.

 

In the letter I challenged the "approved limit" not being a prescribed term etc.

 

I received a blah blah reponse not responding to the points that I have raised. Copy attached below:

 

http://i44.tinypic.com/11cgvmw.jpg

 

So where do I go from here, I am still paying my minimum payments.

 

Do I write back quoting legal argument as pointed out by pt2537 in thread Egg Card CCA

 

"Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, HHJ Overend states

 

24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

 

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is"

 

Do I engage Egg into written comunication of the argument here that has been succesfully used by pt2537 ? I suspect that I will get the same standard letter back ignoring my specific points?

 

Because I am still paying my cards I dont know how to go on the offensive here. Many caggers seem to stop paying their cards and then defending agaisnt the card company when they try to collect the debt.

 

So I am confused as to how to take this one forward ??

 

HEEEELLLLLPPP !

 

Fingers

 

Basically Egg have totally avoided the point.

 

Explain to them that your complaint is not about them providing a copy agreement, or that you have used credit.

 

Your complaint is that the agreement does not comply with CCA 1974 in that the term approved limit is not a prescribed term blah, blah, then cite hhj overend at them, as such the agreement is unenforceable and they can't DN you or DCA you etc. i.e. as there is no contract you have no contractual obligation to pay. (more stuff here

Extract from OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

ON THURSDAY 10 JULY 2003

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Para 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with.

 

In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3).

 

Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.

Para 49. I consider, however, that there is no relevant restitutionary remedy generally available to a lender in the circumstances now under consideration. The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan.

That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable.

True, the Consumer Credit Act does not expressly negative any other remedy available to the lender, nor does it render an improperly executed agreement unlawful. But when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.

Para*50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order.

In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions.

It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

This opinion was further endorsed by:

 

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

 

 

 

Plus:

 

Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, His Honour Judge Overend states

 

Para 24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

 

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is.

 

Plus:

 

Court of Appeal

 

WILSON v THE FIRST COUNTY TRUST LIMITED

 

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK

and

LORD JUSTICE RIX

 

Para 26

 

In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;

[lollipop73]

Unless you have already done so, I would put the account in dispute formally, and remind them of their obligations whilst the account is in dispute.

[Al1971]

Hi all

 

I don't want to hijack a thread here, but I have a similar situation.

 

My wife's outstanding egg credit card balance was passed to DLC last year after we have been paying vastly reduced monthly amounts to all her creditors including dlc/egg.

 

I CCA'd DLC and they placed the account on hold and this morning I received a copy of the original agreement (pretty much the same as the original poster's) also with the same Credit Limit details (or lack of).

 

This was opened online in 2006 so I imagine that's why the signature boxes are blank.

 

We are not trying to avoid the debt here but what we want to do here is try to get a better FFS figure. The balance right now is £4K

 

Should we dispute the debt as described previously in this thread?

[Al1971]

oops - our agreement differs by saying:

 

" 1. Credit Limit.

We shall set and tell you the Credit Limit from time to time. We will carry out appropriate checks before increasing your Credit Limit and we will tell you if we increase your Credit Limit. You may tell us not to raise your Credit Limit , and may also tell us to lower your credit Limit at any time"

 

I take it this means they're covered?

[basa48]

oops - our agreement differs by saying:

 

" 1. Credit Limit.

We shall set and tell you the Credit Limit from time to time. We will carry out appropriate checks before increasing your Credit Limit and we will tell you if we increase your Credit Limit. You may tell us not to raise your Credit Limit , and may also tell us to lower your credit Limit at any time"

 

I take it this means they're covered?

 

Sure looks like it. It would be stretching it a bit to find anything else much wrong with Egg's agreement. There is the matter of 'default charges' and maybe if you got a 'termination letter' last year, but that would REALLY be pushing it.

 

In your situation I don't think there's much to do except keep negotiating a better deal.

[Al1971]

Sure looks like it. It would be stretching it a bit to find anything else much wrong with Egg's agreement. There is the matter of 'default charges' and maybe if you got a 'termination letter' last year, but that would REALLY be pushing it.

 

In your situation I don't think there's much to do except keep negotiating a better deal.

 

 

That's what I feared. Looks like I better get negotiating. Any suggestions for an opening offer? Balance is £4k.

[basa48]

......... Any suggestions for an opening offer? Balance is £4k.

 

Dunno really ... it's generally accepted that DCAs buy in debt for around 10p in the £1.

 

I would open a double that, say £800.

[Al1971]

its worth a try!

[Fingers60]

Hi All

 

I am still confused here and not sure of the best path to take.

 

Do I really continue to get into written dialogue with egg about whether their CCA is enforceable or not ?

 

I think they will just come back with the same standard letter rebuffing my points and ignoring my points?

 

How do you go on the offensive vs a credit card company without cancelling your DD payments?

 

The standard practice is that everyone cancels their payments and then defends against the card company. What is the offensive tactic?

 

Has anyone on here had success with just simply written dialogue with a card company?

 

Cheers

[basa48]

Hi All

 

I am still confused here and not sure of the best path to take.

 

Do I really continue to get into written dialogue with egg about whether their CCA is enforceable or not ?

 

I think they will just come back with the same standard letter rebuffing my points and ignoring my points?

 

How do you go on the offensive vs a credit card company without cancelling your DD payments?

 

The standard practice is that everyone cancels their payments and then defends against the card company. What is the offensive tactic?

 

Has anyone on here had success with just simply written dialogue with a card company?

 

Cheers

 

OK Fingers, just to recap:

 

You've received the usual Egg agreement, the one with 'approved limit'?

 

You sent them your 'disputed' letter explaining that 'approved' is not a prescribed term and the agreement is therefore unenforceable?

 

They've written back with the letter in your post#29?

 

I would suggest you write back saying, whilst they may feel they have discharged thier obligation under CCA1974 78(1), but point out 78(1) asks for a copy of the executed agreement. The egg agreement cannot be executed without all the prescribed terms (i.e. credit limit). This is the basis of your dispute.

 

(Actually the agreement also lacks any reference to 'charges on default' pursuant CC (Agreements) Regs 1983 Schedule 1 para 22).

 

Remind them again they cannot enforce the agreement (CCA 78(6)) or request payment or default you whilst in dispute (DPA s10 & 12 and DPA Sched 2(1)) (basically the agreement is your permission to egg to process data, without a valid agreement the consent disappears).

 

Tell them no more payments until they resolve the dispute (how I don't know :grin: ). You need to decide what you want from them (write off the debt, just stop payments and defaults, etc).

 

STOP YOUR DDs!! (That gets their attention !! )

 

Threaten them with the FSO and ICO if they place defaults on you. Also remind the CRAs they shouldn't process data from disputed accounts (see the ICO technical guidelines)

 

Your only route after that is small claims court.

Edited March 19, 2009 by basa48

[Fingers60]

thanks basa gonna fire another letter off to them today

 

My biggest concern in all of this is that i work in financial services and my employer does a credit search on me every year. I guess at the end of the day I am excercising my consumer rights here but is just noth something i would want to get into with my employer explaing myself !

All new employers would do a credit search on me also.

 

And despite the fact that the CC companies should not process adverse info against you and pass you to recovery all the posts on this forum suggests they do whatever they like unless ordered by a court!

 

Lets see what my next letter does.

 

Cheers

[Fingers60]

Killer letter sent to egg !

 

will keep you updated

 

cheers basa

[SusieQ33]

amended to suit should put the cat amongst the pidgeons

 

Further to your letter dated........ , the documents enclosed provided in response to my CCA request was a two page document – the signature document and the document containing the rate of interest and a repayment schedule. However, I do not believe they meet the necessary legal requirement of a true credit card agreement for a number of reasons which I have clearly outlined below

 

I would like to draw your attention to the prescribed terms contained within the document sent to me. The page (unsigned page) states “we will tell you from time to time the approved limit we have set and if different the individual limit you have chosen for the account.” This does not conform to the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act, as although the limit may be advised from “time to time,” the wording must be: “Credit Limit” and not merely approved Limit or such like. To clarify, the use of the term “Credit Limit” is essential in order for the agreement to be in the prescribed form and to contain all of the prescribed terms. On these grounds the agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act and is therefore unenforceable under section 127(3) of the same act.

 

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the following statement on the signed page, “This agreement will only be binding on us when we have completed and are satisfied with our final checks and other searches, and you have signed and returned the credit agreement to us”.

 

This clearly shows that the alleged agreement lacks equal consideration. After you completed your final checks and other searches you failed to provide me with a copy of a valid contract binding both parties as required to do so under regulated agreements and contract law.

 

 

In view of the above, as well as your omission on the agreement regarding a valid explanation of default, I do not acknowledge this agreement as having been properly executed and as such do not accept it as a valid contract binding both parties under section 59 of the CCA 1974An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement'

 

 

Finally, in my request for a true signed copy of a CCA you responded by sending me a 2 page document. However, in your obligation to service my CCA request you failed to enclose the relevant Terms and Conditions which are linked to the CCA you sent.

 

In light of the above flaws I am very confident that you (Lowell) and your client (Egg) will agree with me when I say that the ‘so called’ True Signed Copy of a CCA requested by me (..........) has not met the legal requirements and thus would be unenforceable if you wished to be peruse this matter further in a Court of Law. I look forward to hearing your response on this matter, and hope to hear from you within 14 days unless you consider this matter closed

 

 

Hi there

I wonder if you can help... Don't know if I can jump in on this thread but here goes. I have received a NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY from DLC for an Egg loan that I am still making agreed payments on. This was in response to a letter from me saying their Egg agreement was unenforceable due to the words ' approved limit ' in the prescribed terms.What can I say in reply to this? Would the above letter be OK? DLC also wanted a financial statement from me to increase the repayments but I refused to send it. The outstanding balance is £1300

Any help would be gratefully received. I do not want debt collectors on my doorstep.

 

Susan

Edited January 12, 2010 by SusieQ33
WRONG AMOUNT ENTERED

[RoadToRecovery]

Any updates on this case guys?

 

I have the same agreement and have been informed solicitors will be preparing court action as the next step!

[SusieQ33]

Any updates on this case guys?

 

I have the same agreement and have been informed solicitors will be preparing court action as the next step!

 

Hi there

I have just posted a letter to DLC saying that I was confused as to why they were sending a Notice of Debt collection as I am not in arrears and am still making payments. I also included the template letter found on this site referring to doorstep collectors.

I will let you know what they come back with. I still think the original Egg agreement cannot be enforced.

Susan

Edited January 12, 2010 by SusieQ33
spelling error