Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First begging letter received from Overdales   ;Blah blah blah, our client's are going to win this blah blah blah we supplied all your documents under CPR   PS you can stop all this by paying £1200 less in a lump sum
    • Right,  so the court hasn't send out the Directions Questionnaires/N180s yet. PE's one is a false one, meant to intimidate you into thinking your defence was rubbish and they are confident with their claim. This is par for the course.  The PPCs do this regularly. However, PE have gone further and written that "a copy has also been filed with the court" which is a lie as the court haven't even sent out the papers yet. Keep a screenshot of MCOL, later on in your WS you can draw attention to their lying and abuse of court procedure. If you've got time on your hands, then complain to the BPA about one of their members lying.    
    • We need documents to be uploaded in PDF format. Uploading in Microsoft Word format discloses personal details relating to you which you should not be sharing. Click upload – to understand what to do. How did you pay for the vehicle? You start by saying that you should have walked away – yes you should. Not only because of the reputation of this company but also if the transaction isn't perfect you shouldn't get involved and you certainly shouldn't be taking the word of some used car dealer. Big fail! Why are some of your letter in black and some the in red? When you get some of the ideas in there – have you use a template from somewhere else? They aren't interested in a delay caused by some fire alarm or something. They certainly aren't interested either by the distress you are suffering. They have hundreds of customers who become victims of this kind of thing. All of those customers suffer distress. Big Motoring World don't seem to be very bothered. What are the faults which exist with the vehicle now? Is it just the splashing? Where is the splashing? What is it that is splashing?   Do I also understand that you purchased the vehicle without trying it at all and the first time you were in it and had splashing was after you had made the contract?
    • A claim was issued against you on 22/04/2024 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 06/05/2024 at 13:28:08 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/05/2024 at 01:05:18 Your defence was submitted on 23/05/2024 at 21:20:03 Your defence was received on 24/05/2024 at 08:05:43
  • 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

Help with Egg Please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5224 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

ERR!

 

The above relates to a 2006 agreement.

 

According to the Egg website the following applies to Egg Credit Card Agreements 2001 through October 2006:

 

Egg Card new credit agreement

 

Even though your agreement was an internet application; tick the box as opposed to signing. I would be requesting a screen dump of the application, the egg card coditions applicable at the time of application and the separate cancellation rights, that would have been required under the distance marketing Regs.

 

Nit picking perhaps, but then I am a bit of a nit picker!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So, why have egg sent you what appears to be a post Otober 2006 agreement?

 

Hopefully, your SAR information will reveal the actual online application screen dump, together with the inception Card Conditions and all other data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello HP!

 

Sorry to bother you again, but what year are these dates:

 

19/10- £16 Over limit charge

19/11- £16 Over limit charge

19/12- £16 Over limit charge

19/1- £16 Over limit charge

 

19/2- £16 Over limit charge

19/2- £16 Late charge

19/3- £16 Over limit charge

19/3- £16 Late charge

19/4- £16 Over limit charge

19/4- £16 Late charge

 

Just need to know for the Spreadsheet.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Honeypot!

 

This is a PDF of the Spreadsheet:

 

[ATTACH]10565[/ATTACH]

 

I've used the last Monthly Max Card Interest Rate of 1.941 to work out the Contractual Interest that you can Claim.

 

I regret that I am no mathematician, so if anyone can spot any flaws, let me know and I'll fix/correct them.

 

I make it that Egg owed you, on the date that the Default Notice was issued, a total of £170.01. That is hardly de minimis, so should rat up their figures, especially in view of the double whammy effect that any sum they owe you, has to be deducted from both the Arrears and the Overlimit amount they also seem to have wanted.

 

The sum is not as big as I was hoping, as I had it in my head that the dates were earlier than 2008/2009. Even so, £170.01 is a nice fat figure to dump all over the accuracy of the default sum(s) they wanted.

 

As of today (10/07/2009) the total they owe you is now £181.41. Just add 15p a day from 20/04/2009 (11p plus 4p) to work out what they owe you currently.

 

Background

 

Just to explain some of the calculations...

 

The Spreadsheet works out the number of days between two dates, so I don't have a formula for that. If doing this manually you'll just have to count them off from a calendar.

 

I've worked out the Annual Rate from the Card Monthly Rate just by multiplying it by 12, so it's not compounded, i.e.:

 

1.941 x 12 = 23.292 % Annual

 

The Daily Rate I have worked out from the Annual Rate, for example:

 

Just to get a decimal to work with...

 

23.292 Annual divided by 100 = 0.2392

 

Divide 0.2392 by 365 gives the daily rate of = 0.000638137

 

Multiply that by the number of days between the Unlawful Charge and the Default Notice gives you the Interest due as of the date of the Default Notice.

 

The daily rate thereafter is based on the total due as of the date of the Default Notice, one calculation for each of the two rates that Honeypot can claim.

 

Taking the Contractual Rate alone as an example, the total due at the date of the Default Notice is £167.45.

 

So, divide that by 100 and multiply it by the Contractual Rate of 23.292%.

 

£167.45 /100 = 1.6745

 

1.6745 * 23.292 = £39.002454

 

£39.002454 / 365 days = 0.106856p per day, or 11p rounded up.

 

Same goes for the s69 8%, just do the same calculations and insert 8% instead. That ends up with a 4p per day that can be added from the date of the Default Notice until the day that Egg pay out.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Minor Fix to PDF. Can't Type either!
Link to post
Share on other sites

HI BRW

 

THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Do I now send this to Egg or DLC or both and say I want a refund?

 

Can I then tell them that the DN is therefore invalid or do I keep it to myself?

 

I am not sure how to apply all the ammunition you have kindly supplied me with to the best effect.

 

Love

 

Vicky

xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Honeypot!

 

At the moment, I would keep quiet, just let them have more rope to hang themselves with.

 

They seem to be doing a pretty good job, so far!

 

Keep your power dry for now, and discuss it here what to do, and when best to do it.

 

I'd advise holding back on anything for now, because going off at them half-cocked is not a good idea.

 

Plan, then pounce!

 

What do others think...please discuss.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why the d/d charges can't be reclaimed. Does it really cost that much to process a bounced DD that arives as a computer file from BACS? [No it doesn't!]

 

I am unsure about charging the contractual interest unless that is charged to the OP first.

 

I used the 1.527 rate and my totals were

charges: 192.00

interest: 7.03

8% interest 3.06

 

Total £199.03 plus 10p per day

or £202.09 plus 14p per day if it goes to court

 

Daily statutory 8%: 4p

Daily contractual: 10p

 

Remember that the statutory interest can only be added if it goes to court, but then the D/N implies that they are ready to do that ...

Edited by 2Grumpy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 2Grumpy!

 

I think Honeypot said the DDR Charges were OK/not unlawful, so I based the total on just the others, i.e. £160 rather than the £192.

 

That may explain the difference, and the fact that I just used the 1.941% non-compound.

 

Either way, I think it's more than enough to screw the pooch on the accuracy of that Default Notice, especially with the clear overlap of Arrears and Overlimit figures.

 

Let's hope many other Caggers have similar Egg Default Notices!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Honeypot!

 

At the moment, I would keep quiet, just let them have more rope to hang themselves with.

 

They seem to be doing a pretty good job, so far!

 

Keep your power dry for now, and discuss it here what to do, and when best to do it.

 

I'd advise holding back on anything for now, because going off at them half-cocked is not a good idea.

 

Plan, then pounce!

 

What do others think...please discuss.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I agree, hold back on the DN for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 2Grumpy!

 

I think Honeypot said the DDR Charges were OK/not unlawful, so I based the total on just the others, i.e. £160 rather than the £192.

 

When it comes to actually using the numbers let egg show that they are not reclaimable rather than underclaiming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello Everyone

 

I sent a SAR last month so I could confirm the unlawful charges amount and it is the amount that has been stated on previous posts.

 

While I have been waiting for the SAR to come through I had a letter from DLC saying that they are holding back on collection activity until their client (egg) get back to me. The letter also asks what amount of charges am I disputing.

 

My question is now I have the SAR should I contact DLC and ask them to deduct the amount charges of my debt or wait for them to write to me ?

 

(I always panic about not doing anything)

 

Thanks

 

Vicky

xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi Everyone

 

I would like to update this thread and kindly ask for some more advice.

 

As a quick recap-

 

Had a Egg Visa, which I couldnt pay so sent letter asking for reduced payments etc. They said no and defaulted the account then terminated it.

 

I CCA them and it has been checked on here and is enforceable.

 

Now a couple of CAGers think my default notice was wrong in respect of the amounts they were claiming of me and also that those amounts quoted on my DN contain quite a lot of charges. (See Previous threads)

 

The account was passed to DLC (Hillsden Securities) who were acting on behalf of Egg to collect. I sent them a 'Account in Dispute' letter saying that there was masses of charges on the account.

 

I never heard a thing back for months until I received a nasty letter from ARC this morning (see attached) who say they will not hesitate in going legal if I dont pay the money back.

 

What would be the best course of action now? Should I try speak to them about a possibly dodgy DN?

 

Love

 

Vicky

xxxx

arc 001.jpg

Edited by Honeypot
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...