Broken EGG ( redundant )

[raydetinu]

I have, out if the blue, been made redundant; wlll maybe not exactly unexpected, work slowing down etc.

Anyway not much notice and with very little cahance of another job have decided to retire; so now have very little income, pension to survive on. I have an egg card which now has no chance of being paid off.

I have written to them explaining circumsatances etc. and also requested CCA etc. using principles obtained from here. I am not actually in default yet as next payment not due for another month, but told them not going to pay ( cancelled DD ), but may be willing to negotiate.

What happens if they do not respond to my request, which I undersatnd has to be within the 12+ 2 rule, does the account automatically go into dispute?

How do i respond?

Also if they do send it and it does not comply ( I have my copy of the original agreement 2003 and from what I understand it does not ) what is standard resonse.

thanks in advance.

[Mistermind]

A test case verdict in the Commercial Court 3 weeks ago ruled that the creditor can pursue repayment in every other way except enforcement through the court where the agreement has not been proven enforceable or looks likely to be unenforceable, i.e. with DN, black marks, debt collectors.

 

Hard luck that your employment situation has gone sour as it has for millions. Egg knew from the start that to lend money is to incur risk of default, they made a calculated gamble to earn profit and it has backfired.

 

Reading many threads it seems extremely unlikely Egg will settle for a fraction of your balance. Most likely Egg will pass sell your debt onto DLC to see how much they can squeeze out of you. If you own a house then they will come after that. Doubtful if your template letters will stop Egg's activities.

 

As you have no hope of paying, then your priority would be to minimise pain. On no account give Egg or DLC your phone number. Any callers dropping by, tell them you have a howling hungry dog indoors not averse to human meat. If they want the money they can see you in court, where the judge will decide what you can afford to repay monthly.

 

Good luck, and chin up!

[raydetinu]

Thanks MM, I am aware of the ruling about the debt continueing etc. but I want to able to cause them as much diffilculty on the way as they ars gonig to cause me. So I want to put tha account into dispute as early as possible. hence asking for advice on what and when to write the respective letters etc. I do have two large GSD's who are always hungry;)

[lollipop73]

Hi Mistermind-I have been very ill recently and haven't been on the ball about this stuff lately. Do you have a link to the thread discussing this please?

 

 

Hi Ray- Whwne the 12+2 days elapses and they haven't sent you the CCA then they are in default of your legal request but this doesn't put the account in dispute formally. As soon as they send it out they will have acted according to regulations. In my experience Egg pay very little attention to the CCA Act and DPA act anyway.

[Mistermind]

A mixture of recent verdicts over at Forum/Legal-Issues including the second link, tried as a Test Case in the Mercantile Court. Court opinion seems to be edging towards the cardholder on PPI disputes now.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/179069-stebiz-cabot-appeal-5.html#post2469499

 

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

 

What A Day In Court-help Help

 

Why aren't more people using the CCA2006 Unfair Relationships Provisions? Am I missing something?

 

The second thread comprehensively focused on the recent Test Case ruling, that even if a debt has not been proven enforceable in court, the creditor may still pursue repayment via DCA, DN, black marks etc, i.e. any activity outside of court goes, with OFT anti-harassment regulations separately covering the limits on DCA action.

 

In the words of the Test Case judge, that debt has not been proven irredeemably unenforceable. This even applies to cases where the creditor has not produced the original agreement to date, but has not definitively owned up they cannot ever produce same. The general consensus is that, if a creditor sees he cannot secure legal enforcement in court he will not try and risk an adverse ruling. He will instead bypass CCJ and use alternative modes of persuasion.

 

The recent ruling does not apply to cases where an agreement has been adjudged by court to be irredeemably unenforceable. Another Test Case will have to rule on the consequences. It is a vast thread, for anyone interested in reading same. To follow the ongoing Test Cases, read Legal-Issues forum.