Help with Egg Please

[Honeypot]

Respectful BUMP please x

Edited December 1, 2009 by Honeypot

[Honeypot]

Respectful BUMP please

x

[vint1954]

Hi Honeypot. Have they paid your charges back yet: AC and BRW have covered this in great depth earlier in the thread.

 

They have already advised that the DN is faulty, where the arrears is made up of charges and arrears.

 

You say that your agreement is enforcable, however the regulations surrounding electronic signatures only, ( I am fairly sure but you need to check ) came in to force during 2006, so for this agreement they would have needed a signature as well.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Honeypot!

 

Further to vint1954's comments, I would not get too upset by the latest letter.

 

These cretins are only in business to harass and intimidate, it is what they do, so no need to get spooked when ever one pops up on your scope.

 

I regret I can't read the letter, it is just a bit too small. But take a good look at it, and see if ARC are now the owners of the alleged Debt, or if they are simply a gob on a stick being pointed at you by Egg.

 

If they do not own the alleged Debt, then they have no way to take you to Court themselves, and any threat to do so is nonsense.

 

It is also a likely breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

I would keep the Default Notice issue to yourself, and never mention that until someone does take you to Court. That is the Ace up your sleeve, and the last thing you want to do is warn them they have trouble ahead if they wish to push the issue.

 

I do appreciate you feel the need to tell them the good news, but I regret it does not work like that in reality.

 

Egg will keep bothering you, but they will also keep bothering many other people too. If they do not do it themselves, then they will employ the pond life DCAs to do it for them. They may threaten Court, but taking that step is a big jump for them too, they incur Costs, and they will only do so if they are sure they have a chance, or if they think you are likely to think they are in with a chance.

 

Maybe send the latest DCA a CCA Request, just to make it clear you are informed, and while you are at it, maybe direct them to the above Act (CPUTR 2008 ). The point there, is many people they deal with have no idea about CAG, CCA or CPUTR 2008, so letting them know you do, might just be enough to make them wander off and seek a softer target.

 

In the interim, have another look at that Agreement, and see if it is really as water tight as all that. Even if someone on CAG thinks it might be enforceable, that is likely to be an opinion, however well considered. They may have missed something, so having another look might be productive.

 

You also have the Charges to fire back at them, and I would hold back on them until you need to bring them out of your bottom drawer in order to exploit to your full advantage.

 

In summary, no need to rush a response to ARC, take your time.

 

Make sure you kept the Envelope in which the ARC letter came, because that may help you one day. Keep all Envelopes no matter what, and pin them to the back of the letter.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited December 15, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Smiley Zap!

[wacka006]

Hi folks,

 

Im newly registered but have been reading the site and views for a while.

My problem lies with 2 credit cards I hold.........1 with EGG and 1 with BARCLAYCARD.

 

Ok so here goes, BARCLAYCARD failed to lift a payment after i phoned them with my bank details, i dont know why they failed with this but they did. Ever since I have been being charged with interest and late payment charges as i have refuased to pay them, this has went on for about 5 months now so I used a letter to request my agreement and also told them of my worries that they were wrong in charging me as initially it was their fault! So they replied but have sent me my "Terms & Conditions" and didnt even answer my queries about the charges??

 

Are they correct or should they send me my initially signed agreement.

 

EGG have been fair, never missed payments but im getting nowhere fast with my payments so i advised them i was struggling to pay and requested my agreement aswell. No return as yet and i sent it about 2 weeks ago.

 

Thanks in advance folks, i really appreciate all your help and advice.

[Honeypot]

Wacka

 

You're better off starting your own thread for this...

 

Honeypot

[king123]

Sorry to jump in, but Honeypot directed me here from her newer thread.

 

Can I just ask on what basis in law does the inclusion of penalty charges make a default notice invalid? I would say pretty much all of my defaulted accounts had charges on them and if what you're saying is correct this could be very useful to me! For reference, this is my Egg thread.

[Honeypot]

Hi King123

 

I'd be interested to know the answer to your question too. Many people state this on here but I cant find any legal info to back it up.

 

Can anyone more experienced help?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

Can I just ask on what basis in law does the inclusion of penalty charges make a default notice invalid?

Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998 )

 

This part is useful...

 

It is worth remembering that very often these type of contracts are, in fact, complicated in themselves, quite apart from the question of any default, that those who draw up the contracts, that is to say, the finance companies, have necessarily the obligation of being able to calculate what is owing thereunder.

 

As Mr Hodgkinson points out, the words of Section 88 (1) require the lender to "specify" not only the nature of the breach - which in this case was adequately described as failure to pay the rental specified on their due dates - but also what action is required to remedy the breach. In the context of this case that meant specifying accurately what sum of money had to be paid.

And this...

 

Here we are dealing with a statute which, for good and obvious reasons, requires a lender or owner to set out precisely what needs to be done to put right the alleged breach of contract. If a sum of money has to be paid it needs to be "specified". And if the figure given is more than the sum which the giver of the notice is entitled to demand, the notice, in my judgment, must be invalid.

Cheers,

BRW

Edited February 22, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Added bold

[Honeypot]

 

Here we are dealing with a statute which, for good and obvious reasons, requires a lender or owner to set out precisely what needs to be done to put right the alleged breach of contract. If a sum of money has to be paid it needs to be "specified". And if the figure given is more than the sum which the giver of the notice is entitled to demand, the notice, in my judgment, must be invalid.

 

 

'the giver of the notice is entitled to demand' seems important here to me.

 

If they are entitled to add penalty charges to the account then doesnt the above fall apart as the figure quoted on the DN will be higher?

 

Vicky

xxxx

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Vicky!

 

If the charges were unlawful, then I can't see how they would be entitled to demand them.

 

So, yes, their Default Notice would indeed fall apart if the default sum they wanted included sums they had no right to claim.

 

Beware the de minimis argument, but nothing in the above Case actually says that an error is acceptable. The Judge simply comments that a very small error may, I repeat may, be overlooked. He was clearly thinking along the lines of a few pence I would think, but the Judge only mentions this in passing.

 

The banks and DCAs are using the de minimis tactic to try and get them out of all sorts of problems with their Default Notices, and it's rubbish. Jump all over anyone who tries to evade real problems by trying to lump them under this vague Latin phrase.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Honeypot]

Thanks BRW !

One last question are late charges & overlimit charges actually unlawful?

That is the crux of the matter now.

 

Vicky

xxxx

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Vicky!

 

One last question are late charges & overlimit charges actually unlawful?

 

I'm not that experienced with Credit Card Charge re-claims, but I think if you read the Threads on CAG, you'll see that Credit Card Charges are unaffected by the the bank Account charge issue.

 

I won't embarrass myself by saying more, but read the Threads, and I think you will see that it is still Open Season on Card Charges!

 

They are still a safe Claim, and you will get that money back. If so, then they had no right to demand any payment that included them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angry cat]

Seems to me that, EGG & DLC have been attempting to mislead you!

[angry cat]

Agreement date: 2nd August 2005:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2789397.html

 

Looks like EGG have cocked up, again

[hackedoff007]

Agreement date: 2nd August 2005:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2789397.html

 

Looks like EGG have cocked up, again

 

 

What in laymans terms does this mean? (excuse my ignorance) My EGG agreement is dated Feb 2005? I assume if an agreement after may 05 it must conform to the new layout and terms? As mine is pre may 05 and as far as i can see has more flaws than a couterfeitors template!!!!

Edited February 24, 2010 by hackedoff007

[angry cat]

The Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

[hackedoff007]

Thanks Angry Cat

[Honeypot]

What in laymans terms does this mean? (excuse my ignorance) My EGG agreement is dated Feb 2005? I assume if an agreement after may 05 it must conform to the new layout and terms? As mine is pre may 05 and as far as i can see has more flaws than a couterfeitors template!!!!

 

Hi Hacked Off

 

My mate has a card dated feb 05 and hers has the words approved limit not credit limit (like mine). They must have rectified their errors after Feb 05. I've read these agreements are more likely to be flawed than the later ones. Check yours again.

 

Vicky

xxxx