Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Beachy's OH v Egg Card


beachcomber60
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3558 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • 6 months later...
  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

After a long fight it looks like the end of the road in chasing compound interest :-x

 

Had a call from the FOS this morning concerning my complaint, EGG WILL NOT refund contractual interest as PPI premiums DO NOT attract interest (think they do as statements show monthly 'spends' then PPi premium THEN monthly interest.

 

Second SAR to EGG reveals that the FOS had requested copies of account details & letters as they (FOS) had 'lost' my file.

 

Back to the phone call from FOS, they state that although I started my complaint & the FOS hadn't started to investigate EGG changed their mind & agreed to refund PPI (initially refused more then 6years but again changed their mind when reminded about Limitation Act), FOS sent acceptance letter & stated EGG would contact me with details of the refund - they didn't and just refunded premiums + 8% simple.

 

Complained to EGG & the reply was 'you signed the acceptance form with the FOS and we have refunded the premiums'.

 

Asked the FOS to reopen the case & hence the call this morning, FOS have informed me that they are willing to reopen the case BUT if they find that EGG hadnt mis sold the PPI then I will HAVE TO repay EGG what has already been paid out - I find this intimitating & forcing me to withdraw my complaint, the sum involved is about £1,400 (Egg have refunded £3,000 premiums so cant afford the risk of losing & having to repay them the three grand).

 

A warning to others EGG play dirty ! DONT sign any FOS acceptance form UNTIL you are aware of what is being offered.

 

Beachy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure PPI attracts interest on Egg cards. Will do a few calculations later to prove this. You have a card, not a loan, right?

 

But you know what? Even if PPI didn't attract interest you should still be entitled to reclaim compound interest, because,

 

"The minimum payment will be allocated to interest due, any card repayment protection premium, and charges (in that order) and then between the Revolving Balance and any Transferred Balances (where applicable)." - taken from a copy of an Egg statement.

 

Had you not been mis-sold the PPI and made the same repayments then your Revolving Balance would have been reduced faster, thereby reducing the compounding interest. I thought the FOI believed in this kind of restitution.

 

I have a complaint with Egg at the moment. If they try and pull these tricks on me I will go ballistic.

Edited by igglepiglet
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Egg said they sent sent me two documents, A and B. A is 'a copy of the original agreement, and B is the current terms and conditions'. But there were three unlabelled documents - a copy of a signed dated, Egg card agreement (probably a microfiche), and two photocopies (unsigned, undated, and clearly not of the same provenance as the Egg Card Agreement) headed ' Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'. They've still not told me which is 'original' and 'current'. Also, the Egg agreement refers to signing and returning the credit agreement - which from their letter, must be one of the other two documents. Direct Credit Collections has given up, Egg've just moved it on to ARC.

 

The Egg Card Agreement also says it's not valid until they've carried out their final credit checks - my recent Subject Access Request shows no sign of checks ever being carried out. Egg also never replied to my letters last summer saying they hadn't answered my letter regarding the 'agreements', and that if they didn't reply with four weeks, then they were agreeing by default that they had no agreement and would set the balance on the account at 0 and remove any negative references to credit agencies etc. The SAR shows they received these letters and did nothing. Also no record of notifications of changes to the credit limit, or any credit checks ever - breaches the banking code, and some of the terms and conditions. No sign of any notification of change of interest rates in the documentation either. Egg don't seem to realise they need to keep records...

Wonder how long it'll take to get ARC off the case?

Oh, and the Financial Ombudsman Service is a waste of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 year later...

My partner had an Egg card which defaulted in 2008, been chasing Egg for the agreement but received nothing so it's been very quiet no contact no payments & no demands for payment.

 

About 12-18 months ago partner received email from Egg stating Barclaycard was to take over Egg accounts, shortly after a letter arrived from Barclaycard with a completely different account number, just stating that they now have the Egg accounts & that payments should continue to be made to Egg until further notice.

 

Have not heard anything further until today when a letter arrived from Marlin Capital Europe stating they are collecting on behalf of Barclaycard & my partner should telephone them to discuss payment options.

 

Apart from the balance outstanding is the same as the defaulted Egg card account the Barclaycard account number is completely different, my partner is quite worried as we have a joint account with Barclays.

 

Surely the Egg & Barclaycard account number should be the same, unless a new agreement had been sent/signed (which it hasn't).

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the prove it letter, you can legitimately say you have no knowledge of this and wait to see what they come back with.

Have you had a letter from barclaycard or marlin, if it's from barclaycard i'd wait until marlin contact you then send it.

Marlin are idjits, you need to keep the pressure on them.

 

Also see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?215961-EGG-gt-gt-A-Quandry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them a CCA request. If they cant produce one, they cant enforce the debt. Since Egg were in default already, you could tell marlin and sharkleys where to go.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it stil on your cra file?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

then i wouldn't even bother with the CCA to marlin

they cant fo anything they dont OWN the debt.

 

i'd be more concerned about offset by BC from your joint account.

 

there is little chance BC will have the EGG CCA

 

i'd CCA them IF you must fo anything

.

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

then i wouldn't even bother with the CCA to marlin

they cant fo anything they dont OWN the debt.

 

i'd be more concerned about offset by BC from your joint account.

 

there is little chance BC will have the EGG CCA

 

i'd CCA them IF you must fo anything

.

dx

 

I'll double check the letter from Marlins to my partner as to whether they are collecting agents or its been assigned.

 

Can Barclays 'raid' a joint account where I am first named account holder? I dont owe Barclays a penny (now :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

if BC show on the CRa file they own it beachy.

 

yes they could offset this. becareful

 

is this the 1st or 2nd egg card

 

looking at your old threads.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the second card, other card is with Apex, they've failed to provided the cca & written to the other half stating that no further payments need be made until such times as the agreement can be provided - strangly enough they've aldo removed the DN.

 

(Haven't been around for a long time - health issues).

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea good to see you back

 

 

 

i'm thinking for history it might be an idea to merge this with the other threads on this card.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry about marlin they are lowlife

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry about marlin they are lowlife

 

dx

 

Have just checked the letter OH received yesterday, it is an assignment letter from Barclaycard to Marlin, also states that the default on the CRA will change from BC to Marlins name.

 

OH seems to think theres PPI on this card (original account number with Egg) & knows for sure there are late/overlimit charges - Does OH chase EGG for these? Have never acknowledged any letter from BC as they always refer to a different account number.

 

Also been reading about defaults being removed due to late payments & PPI making DN inaccurate - is this now possible?

 

Got lots of catching up to do, fallen way behind :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever sar'd egg to get all the statements beachy

 

you'll need them.

 

what sort of bal are we talking about.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever sar'd egg to get all the statements beachy

 

you'll need them.

 

what sort of bal are we talking about.

 

dx

 

Have almost all statements, balance approx £5K, penalty charges approx £200, not sure how much ppi could be £1,000 to £1,500

 

Have the Egg DN

 

No agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

then cca marlin first

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be interested to know CCA's are starting to appear from Apex owned ex egg debt from out of the blue.

 

But are they enforceable with the approved limit issue?

Also i'll start my own thread later but it might be relevant to others, now it's been sold I could claim ppi back of about 8k but if I do will that harm my defence? The alleged balance s about 15k.

I've posted my claim for a Barclaycard that Lowells got stitched with as it was stat barred when they brought it. Just been waiting for Barclays to sell the Egg account as I guess they could have offset any refund,also interest increased everyday!

Marlin are lowlife and must be reported to the oft if they step out of line, the oft were very intereseted in 2009 following the despatches documentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...