Egg CCA Request Response

[Mr Fox]

Hi Everyone,

 

Been reading a while but this is my first post!

 

I sent a CCA request to Egg early in Feb. and received the following response this morning...

 

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/1.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/2.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/3.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/4.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/6.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/5.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/6.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/7.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/8.jpg

 

Now i'm no expert but haven't they just sent me a copy of the T&C and not a true signed copy of the Credit Agreement despite what the cover letter says?

 

The date on the letter is one day before the 12+2 deadline so they had plenty of time to dig out a copy.

 

Has someone in the office just omitted to include a copy of the agreement, or is this standard Egg practice to send just the T&Cs when they can't find the agreement?

 

What is the best course of action in this situation? Should i write to them highlighting their error and again requesting a copy of a signed true agreement (as i did in the first place) or should i just place the account in dispute due to their failure to meet their statutory obligations?

 

Sorry for all the questions in a first post!

 

Regards,

 

Foxy

[eastlondoner]

Write back...the letter states they have sent you a copy of your signed agreement, but it is just T and Cs. I did get a copy of my agreement with Egg.

 

Is it a loan or a credit card? When did you take it out?

 

They could be stalling you with this tactic/could be an error, either way its not a true signed copy of your CCA, although, as you might see from looking around on here, you are not the first person to just receive T and Cs!

[Mr Fox]

It's a Credit Card, taken out a long time ago prob 1999/2000.

 

I think i'll write a letter pointing out that they have failed to comply with my request and asking them to remedy the situation within 14 days.

[basa48]

It's a Credit Card, taken out a long time ago prob 1999/2000.

 

I think i'll write a letter pointing out that they have failed to comply with my request and asking them to remedy the situation within 14 days.

 

That's probably your best move at this stage.

 

If they still don't (can't) produce a valid CCA after 14 days ..... go get 'em !!

 

Incidentally most Egg replies do produce the agreement, mine did... it was from 2002. Not enforceable tho'.

[Mr Fox]

... as you might see from looking around on here, you are not the first person to just receive T and Cs!

 

I've been having a read but i can't seem to find any examples. What was the outcome when only T&Cs were sent, was it just an error and did they send and agreement after a second request, or were they unable to supply one?

Edited March 5, 2009 by Mr Fox

[eastlondoner]

Many credit card companies are sending out T and Cs to try and put you off pursuing the CCA, usually because they either do not have it, know it is unforceable or improperly executed (there is a distinct difference), or simply cannot be bothered to look for it and think you will go away. In my case with Barclaycard, on one account they have sent different versions of the T and Cs four times and no agreement, and on another they have sent an agreement with references to conditions that do not exist. Both of these took four months to receive.

 

With Egg, I got a quick response with an enforceable loan agreement from 2004, but I would say it would be unlikely that they would have something enforceable for an account from 2002. It is up to you how you proceed; you can keep writing to them pressing for the agreement and stop paying them if you want, but they will default you and hound you via phone/DCAs. My experience with Egg is that they are quick to default. There is an alternate strategy for obtaining your agreement:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Best to first go down the CCA request route, and claim back any charges that are on the account via a Subject Access Request. The CPR 31.16 disclosure request is a last resort, but one that will possibly obtain your actual agreement and not a constructed copy. I am using it as Barclaycard has sent me a CCA which fulfils some regulations but is poor quality and missing terms and conditions; without seeing the original I will not know if it adheres to regulations.

 

Definitely write and remind Egg that they are default of your request if 12+2 days are up, and that T and Cs are not a CCA; what they do after that will just depend on circumstance...they may try and hide between a 1983 documents act (not sure the specifics if someone else can help here please) and say they have fulfilled your request anyway, but still send it.

 

Have you stopped paying?

[Mr Fox]

 

Have you stopped paying?

 

No, still paying via dd, although i've reduced it to the minimum payment this month.

[Mr Fox]

Well, i wrote to them pointing out that they had only sent me T&Cs after 12+2 days, not a signed agreement and that they were in direct breach of CCA 74 Section 78(1). I asked them to send me a signed agreement within 14 days.

 

This morning i recieved a standard ' We've recieved your complaint' letter, but still no agreement...

 

They're saying they will resolve it within 8 weeks but i think i will be putting the account into dispute if they haven't come up with anything after 14 days. 8 Weeks may be 'inline with regulations set out by the Financial Services Authority' but they have been in default ever since they failed to supply a signed true copy of the agreement after 12+2 working days as far as i'm concerned

[Mr Fox]

Well i recieved a response to the second letter this morning...

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/9.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/10.jpg

 

It's all just lies and they have closed my complaint...

 

They haven't sent any agreement despite their assertions ?!?!?

[basa48]

Hmmmm, this seems to be a new delaying tactic from Egg possibly, unless some dumbo forgot to put the actual copy agreement in the envelope and they really do think they sent it. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

All you can do now is a Subject Access Request.

[Mr Fox]

Hmmmm, this seems to be a new delaying tactic from Egg possibly, unless some dumbo forgot to put the actual copy agreement in the envelope and they really do think they sent it. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

All you can do now is a Subject Access Request.

 

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me either. I'm going to send them a final reminder and enclose a copy of their original response, which clearly does not contain an agreement, and give them the remainder of the 14 days.

 

Then yes, it's a Subject Access Request. Which was my original intention anyway, i want a clear understanding of exactly what i have spent, what i have paid back and what i have been charged in interest and charges.

 

Without a credit agreement am i right in saying they have no basis on which to charge me interest?

[basa48]

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me either. I'm going to send them a final reminder and enclose a copy of their original response, which clearly does not contain an agreement, and give them the remainder of the 14 days.

 

Then yes, it's a Subject Access Request.

 

Do you not have your own copy of the agreement from when you took it out?

When approximately did you take out the Egg Card (it is a credit card isn't it?)

 

Most (all?) card 'agreements' from between 1999 and 2004/5 are the ones worded 'approved' instead of 'credit' limit.

 

Hey you added a bit whilst I was replying

 

Erm....Not only should they not add interest or charges, they shouldn't expect any payment either !

 

Whilst it is in dispute (I hope you have told them you are disputing the validity of the agreement) the account is effectively frozen.

 

Don't expect Egg to think like that though. In their blinkered opinion everything is as it was except you are in default (assuming you don't pay your monthly repayments).

 

It'll be a bitch to get the defaults removed

Edited March 18, 2009 by basa48

[Mr Fox]

Do you not have your own copy of the agreement from when you took it out?

When approximately did you take out the Egg Card (it is a credit card isn't it?)

 

Most (all?) card 'agreements' from between 1999 and 2004/5 are the ones worded 'approved' instead of 'credit' limit.

 

Hey you added a bit whilst I was replying

 

Erm....Not only should they not add interest or charges, they shouldn't expect any payment either !

 

Whilst it is in dispute (I hope you have told them you are disputing the validity of the agreement) the account is effectively frozen.

 

Don't expect Egg to think like that though. In their blinkered opinion everything is as it was except you are in default (assuming you don't pay your monthly repayments).

 

It'll be a bitch to get the defaults removed

 

Basa,

 

Credit card taken out 1999/2000, i think. No, i don't have my own copy of the agreement, been hunting high and low for it, but i do remember that it used the 'Approved Limit' term, that's why i gave them a poke for it. I was expecting to have to argue the toss with them over that and was a little surprised when only T&Cs turned up in the post.

 

I've not put the account into dispute yet, as i wanted to make sure that they didn't just forget to include a copy of the agreement with the initial response before doing that, but it's the next step. I did send them another letter pointing out their breach of CCA 1974 s78(1) and included a copy of their initial response (with just the T&Cs) to avoid any ambiguity, which they received a week ago and have ignored so far. The initial s78 request was sent 11th of Feb, so they have been in default of my request since the 3rd march i my view despite their insistence to the contrary

 

I am concerned about being defaulted tho if i should cancel the direct debit. Are they likely to keep taking money off me if i put the account into dispute but don't cancel the dd? (or is that a stupid question )

 

Foxy

[Mr Fox]

I think they're ignoring me now, had no response to my letter which included their initial response (just T & Cs), and no response to my 'Account in Dispute' letter which they recieved on friday, not even a 'We're Dealing With Your Complaint' letter.

 

If i cancel the DD and they try to default me can i approach a Lawyer to obtain a court interdict to prevent them from doing so? Just a thought...

[basa48]

I think they're ignoring me now, had no response to my letter which included their initial response (just T & Cs), and no response to my 'Account in Dispute' letter which they recieved on friday, not even a 'We're Dealing With Your Complaint' letter.

 

If i cancel the DD and they try to default me can i approach a Lawyer to obtain a court interdict to prevent them from doing so? Just a thought...

 

Strange that Egg would act like that. They sent me my agreement before the 12 day deadline.

 

You should write something along the lines that the T&Cs they've sent do not constitute a valid agreememnt or indeed an agreement at all and that you are not obliged to make payments to an account you dispute, indeed to date you have no proof an agreement even exists.

 

You can legitimately stop your payments as the account is in dispute. But don't expect Egg to agree.

 

They will default you after you miss two or three payments. They will pester you with secure messages to pay up. The only way to stop them would be to instigate legal proceedings.

 

The court would be asked to rule on whether your agreement is enforceable. If it has the approved rather than credit limit, then popular opinion (and a fair bit of legal argument) says it is unenforceable. It is a risk, but a risk many of us are prepared to take, but I think most are waiting to see what Egg do first.

 

It can appear a little aggressive for you to start legal proceedings this soon. A judge just might ask why if you spent the money why are you going to court to get out of paying it back?

[Mr Fox]

You should write something along the lines that the T&Cs they've sent do not constitute a valid agreement or indeed an agreement at all and that you are not obliged to make payments to an account you dispute, indeed to date you have no proof an agreement even exists.

 

I have done lol!

 

These are the letters they are ignoring. :-?

 

My 3rd letter to them which stated that they had not included an agreement just T&Cs (i included a copy of their initial response with just the T&Cs for their perusal). And my 'account in dispute' letter which states explicitly that 'T&Cs do not constitute an agreement whatsoever' and that i 'had confirmation from a trading standards officer to that effect'.

 

Unless someone forgot to put it in the envelope and they genuinely think they sent me an agreement and I'm trying it on.

[jimhook_uk1]

Probably time to cancel your DD to get their attention?

[Mr Fox]

Probably time to cancel your DD to get their attention?

 

Yeah, i think so, given that they took a payment from me this morning, without even acknowledging my last two letters.

 

I submitted a subject access request at the same time as my 'Account in Dispute' letter so we'll see what that turns up.

[Viscount Stair]

You mentioned an interdict rather than an injunction. Does that mean you are in Scotland? If so, the procedures are different and some of the standard advice (eg the 31.16 letter) won't apply.

 

The "1983 documents act" refers to a set of regulations that some creditors are hiding behind. However, they usually mis-state what the relevant provision says or, at the very least, mis-interpret what it means. If they do play that card, I can give you a reply with chapter and verse to send.

[Mr Fox]

You mentioned an interdict rather than an injunction. Does that mean you are in Scotland? If so, the procedures are different and some of the standard advice (eg the 31.16 letter) won't apply.

 

The "1983 documents act" refers to a set of regulations that some creditors are hiding behind. However, they usually mis-state what the relevant provision says or, at the very least, mis-interpret what it means. If they do play that card, I can give you a reply with chapter and verse to send.

 

Yes Viscount, that's correct i am in Scotland, and i'm aware that the CPR do not apply up here, proceedings are governed by the Act of Sederunt i think?

 

A copy of that letter would be grand, although they're still ignoring me (no response to my 3rd letter or my 'Account in Dispute' letter)

 

The last i heard from them was this:

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...ndy_Bean/9.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...dy_Bean/10.jpg

Which was in response to my second letter which pointed out that their initial response did not include an agreement just T&Cs.

[Viscount Stair]

Here is some wording for you to tweak:

 

Contrary to assertions made by X in a letter dated X, X has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated X from X. However, X did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

However, it is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlooks both the distinctions between the wording regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

X would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (ie to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, X was (and is still) obliged to provide a true copy of the terms and conditions referred to in the application form in their original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if these could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that X is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account.

[Mr Fox]

Magic stuff Viscount, many thanks

[Mr Fox]

I've had a read of the regs and that response just to make sure i understand what i'll be getting at, basically arguing that T&C only constitute an agreement in limited circumstances (reg 9) and in all others the T&Cs must be included in an agreement and not comprise one.

 

Minimal editing (cheers Viscount Stair! )but i'm thinking of firing the following off:

 

-------------------------

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I see from my recent bank statement that Egg Banking Plc debited the sum of £*** from my account on the **/**/** having ignored my letter to you dated **/**/** placing my account in dispute due to your continuing default of my legal request pursuant to section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Contrary to assertions made by Egg Banking Plc in a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. EGG/********), Egg Banking Plc has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. *******) from Egg Banking Plc. However, Egg Banking Plc did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

 

The documents supplied to me only constituted the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

It is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlook both the distinctions between the wording in regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

Egg Banking Plc would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (i.e. to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, Egg Banking Plc was, and is still, obliged to provide a signed true copy of the executed credit agreement in its original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if this could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that Egg Banking Plc is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account. Therefore while your default of my legal request continues:

 

• You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
  
• You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.
  
• You may not pass the account to a third party.
  
• You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.
  
• You may not issue a default notice related to the account.
  

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Have i got my facts straight? I'd be greatful of any comments.

 

Foxy

Edited April 24, 2009 by Mr Fox

[Viscount Stair]

Looks fine, if I say so myself.

[Peterbard]

I've had a read of the regs and that response just to make sure i understand what i'll be getting at, basically arguing that T&C only constitute an agreement in limited circumstances (reg 9) and in all others the T&Cs must be included in an agreement and not comprise one.

 

Minimal editing (cheers Viscount Stair! )but i'm thinking of firing the following off:

 

-------------------------

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I see from my recent bank statement that Egg Banking Plc debited the sum of £*** from my account on the **/**/** having ignored my letter to you dated **/**/** placing my account in dispute due to your continuing default of my legal request pursuant to section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Contrary to assertions made by Egg Banking Plc in a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. EGG/********), Egg Banking Plc has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. *******) from Egg Banking Plc. However, Egg Banking Plc did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

 

The documents supplied to me only constituted the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

It is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlook both the distinctions between the wording in regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

Egg Banking Plc would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (i.e. to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, Egg Banking Plc was, and is still, obliged to provide a signed true copy of the executed credit agreement in its original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if this could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that Egg Banking Plc is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account. Therefore while your default of my legal request continues:

 

• You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
  
• You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.
  
• You may not pass the account to a third party.
  
• You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.
  
• You may not issue a default notice related to the account.
  

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Have i got my facts straight? I'd be greatful of any comments.

 

Foxy

 

HI

 

I hesitate to comment being currently out of favour. But the intension is to help i assure you.

The bit about enforcement was an issue in the current Rankine case.

 

Unfrotunately his lordship decided that the enforcement process started in the court so the creditor was quite within his rights to issue default or pretty well do what ever else he wanted to up to that time.

 

The reasoning he gave was i belive that if the intension was to stop proceedings then the act would have said that, as apparently it does in another simallar piece of legislation.

 

Peter