Reply by Egg to "Approved Limit" point

[FightToTheEnd]

Quick summary. Egg card taken out in 1999 with a balance of approx £5K, no payment since June 2009 and the standard "apporved limit" CCA and complaint on this basis made to Egg.

 

Had a couple of letters from Egg and also CCA (Egg's DCA) and now had this reply:

 

I feel the way forward is to refute their claims as follows:

 

The Heading being a statutory correct heading at the time? No it wasn't. Not a prescripted term re CCA 1974.

 

Well establish point of law that "Approved Limit" satisfies regulations. Again, not a prescribed term. Request examples where point of law proved?

 

Central Trust -v- Spurway Not sure - advice appreciated.

 

All thoughts appreciated and some kind of direction to of reply would be good. I'll leave it a few days but will post up my intended reply before sending.

 

Heck, it's all go this week!

 

Edited November 18, 2009 by FightToTheEnd

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[thirty-n-fat]

sub

[postggj]

Pt Has Already Delt With This In Court And Egg Know It

 

Smoke Screen And Mirrors

 

IF PT IS ABOUT PERHAPS HE COULD DISSECT THE REPLY

[FightToTheEnd]

Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?

[MandM]

Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?

 

mmm. Sums it up really. These are standard answers cut and pasted into a response to whatever letter they may receive. We probably all get the same paragraphs sent back to us, just based on whatever order our letter goes to them.

 

On a brighter note it would mean we could come up with standard responses to their reponses (if you catch my drift). Hopefully someone'll be along soon that's already gone that next step and can help you further.

 

M

[exasperated]

Whether the agreement is fixed or running both are governed by the CCA 1974 are they not? I would like to know the answer to this FTTE as I am in the exact situation as your self and have a thread asking similar questions.

I am sure PT would not have used that in a court of law if it was not applicable or was it fixed sum credits he was reffering to.

[angry cat]

: ...there is clear authority, arising from recent case law, that the lodging of adverse information with credit reference agencies in relation to an agreement which is in default does not amount to enforcement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA")."

 

Keep up EGG, the McGuffick judgement is being appealed!

[diddydicky]

the correct response to this churned out "stock reply" IMO is

 

dear sirs

 

thank you for your letter of XXXX and i note the contents

 

we clearly disagree

 

 

yours sincerely

 

XXX

 

this IMO shows far more strength than being drawn into a long drawn out repudiation of their points

[angry cat]

Totally agree DD!

 

AC

[militantconsumer]

Subbing

[Bigdebtor]

If Egg are actually lying in their letter is that not fraud or another criminal offence for attempting to extort moneys under false pretences?

[angry cat]

they all distort the truth;

Egg are no different to all the rest.

[diddydicky]

If Egg are actually lying in their letter is that not fraud or another criminal offence for attempting to extort moneys under false pretences?

 

they will box clever but i think suggestions of fraud tend to be over emotive

[exasperated]

Could someone clarify whether the points raised by PT in his thread are relevant to running or fixed credit or both

Thanks

[exasperated]

Hi,

No need to reply as PT clarified the situation in another thread in which he was adamant that he had not lost a case at the time of writing.

Sorry to the OP for cluttering this tread up

[seriously fed up]

Another point is that this is perhaps a "standard" reply as at one point their letter refers to "your client" as if perhaps replying to a solicitor when my complaint has only been dealt with by me?

 

Spot on - I got practically the same letter just this morning. It related to a letter that I sent to them in July, so it has taken them the best part of 4 months to reply. Waving or drowning

I see the point about strength DD and AC, but I have replied restating my opinion. I have always been of the view that if you seem to know your position they are going to be that wee bit wary of you.

Agree fully with all the other points - just noising us up (or trying to!)

[A+]

quickly chipping in here, have been reading for a while with interest.

Regarding DD's point of "allegations of fraud can be over emotive" or words to that effect, can i just say something very humbly here. I agree that we have to keep the moral highground and be careful to act professionally and avoid anything which makes us look silly especially in court.

However, THERE IS NO EMOTION ATTACHED TO AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD. The LAW is the LAW.

 

If someone deliberately deceives someone with a deliberate intent in mind to extract money by way of transfer from that person based on that deception, (just as an example) then emotion ASIDE, they are committing offences under the Theft Act, namely Obtaining Money by Deception.

 

Emotion is definitely something to steer clear of, but don't on the other let that statement steer you away from the TRUTH (As defined in law) just because you THINK it SOUNDS emotional. Its all about how you present it, but present it you must IF the evidence or arguments stack up under the legislation.

 

I am NOT in any way referring to whether there is any case of fraud involved HERE, just trying to point out that the nature of Englishness is so much geared towards being mr nice guy, stiff upper lip and all that that many people shy away from clear offences sometimes due to feeling they sound a bit dramatic!

 

Just read the STATUTE LAW BOOKS, see what fits, and if it fits, TELL EM!

 

ONLY if it fits though, else you could look like a pratt as well as get sued!

[diddydicky]

quickly chipping in here, have been reading for a while with interest.

Regarding DD's point of "allegations of fraud can be over emotive" or words to that effect, can i just say something very humbly here. I agree that we have to keep the moral highground and be careful to act professionally and avoid anything which makes us look silly especially in court.

However, THERE IS NO EMOTION ATTACHED TO AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD. The LAW is the LAW.

 

If someone deliberately deceives someone with a deliberate intent in mind to extract money by way of transfer from that person based on that deception, (just as an example) then emotion ASIDE, they are committing offences under the Theft Act, namely Obtaining Money by Deception.

 

Emotion is definitely something to steer clear of, but don't on the other let that statement steer you away from the TRUTH (As defined in law) just because you THINK it SOUNDS emotional. Its all about how you present it, but present it you must IF the evidence or arguments stack up under the legislation.

 

I am NOT in any way referring to whether there is any case of fraud involved HERE, just trying to point out that the nature of Englishness is so much geared towards being mr nice guy, stiff upper lip and all that that many people shy away from clear offences sometimes due to feeling they sound a bit dramatic!

 

Just read the STATUTE LAW BOOKS, see what fits, and if it fits, TELL EM!

 

ONLY if it fits though, else you could look like a pratt as well as get sued!

 

a written allegation of fraud is a VERY serious matter and if you cannot PROVE it, is extremely defamatory

 

why give a creditor another stick to beat you with?

 

if you allege fraud or wrongdoing in a civil court you will immediately be put you to proof of your allegations

 

please do not confuse being able to prove your allegations in court or in a libel action with what you THINK is proof- because in 99 cases out of 100 you will struggle to prove the necessary INTENT , without which you would fail

 

i can only repeat the advice NEVER when dealing with your creditors accuse them of fraud or dishonesty

 

your letters, will be read by the judge - it is hard enough for LIP's to start with, if you want the judge offside from the off then by all means make such accusations

[N.P]

Could someone clarify whether the points raised by PT in his thread are relevant to running or fixed credit or both

Thanks

 

 

Hi,

No need to reply as PT clarified the situation in another thread in which he was adamant that he had not lost a case at the time of writing.

Sorry to the OP for cluttering this tread up

 

 

Exasperated,

 

Could you possibly point me to the relevant post you are mention please? I`m also interested in wether our arguement would be suitable for fixed credit, as I have a Egg Loan.

 

 

 

N.P

[A+]

a written allegation of fraud is a VERY serious matter and if you cannot PROVE it, is extremely defamatory

 

why give a creditor another stick to beat you with?

 

if you allege fraud or wrongdoing in a civil court you will immediately be put you to proof of your allegations

 

please do not confuse being able to prove your allegations in court or in a libel action with what you THINK is proof- because in 99 cases out of 100 you will struggle to prove the necessary INTENT , without which you would fail

 

i can only repeat the advice NEVER when dealing with your creditors accuse them of fraud or dishonesty

 

your letters, will be read by the judge - it is hard enough for LIP's to start with, if you want the judge offside from the off then by all means make such accusations

 

I fully appreciate everything you said, and much of it comes down to the fact of our system which is really that even if you can prove something its best not to say so! This a sad but yes very real feature of our system. Its a 'don't rock the boat' type of thing.

 

However on a point of principle, if i felt i COULD prove beyond reasonable doubt that i had an honest held belief of an intent and material evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive, i have no problem saying so. Remember the cookie crumbles both ways. Yes you MUST be sure you can do this, but IF YOU ARE, there is little they can do to sue you for it unless they can PROVE that you DID NOT have a reasonable and honest held belief that this was the case.

 

In general i totally agree, and don't want to sound like i am arguing that DCAs should be accused of fraud. I can't actually see how thats possible in any of the cases i am dealing with or have read, but indeed the point stands that if ALL the evidence stacked up, i would NOT avoid saying so just to be a good boy or conform to some sort of Britishness or system of institutionalised 'obedience' where my own legal right to have representation under statute law is swept under the carpet by MYSELF!

 

The overall truth is that if you don't have a 100% concrete case, keep your mouth tightly shut. if you do, its up to you, but i for one have no problem using the laws which were passed for my benefit as well as others, to see those guilty answerable for their actions.

[BeauBrummie]

: ...

Keep up EGG, the McGuffick judgement is being appealed!

 

 

Angry Cat---can you elaborte on this ---- forgive my ignorance--- as you may well know, I lost a case against Cabot based on the McGuffick judgment.

 

Thanks

 

Beau

[Pipster2797]

I got this letter yesterday too. My complaint is from March so it took them 8 months to respond to the complaint. FOS guidlines is 6 months

 

I'd be intrested in PT's thread too

[tortilla]

Bump

[FightToTheEnd]

Considering sending this and would appreciate any comments:

 

I refer to your letter of 12th November. Once again I do not agree that my complaint is settled and I still consider the account to be in serious dispute.

I am surprised that you consider the term “credit limit” not being a prescribed term to be a “well established point of law” and would be interested in your references of when this has shown to be the case.

Although I agree the Central Trust –v- Spurway was indeed in relation to a fixed loan agreement, I feel the point being made is that the prescribed terms should leave no doubt or confusion to the lay-reader as to what the term relates. An “approved limit” does in no way imply “credit limit” and could easily relate to a limit of transactions, a limit of value of individual transactions, or indeed many other items, none of which are required prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition, your agreement not only refers to an “approved limit” but also to an” individual limit”. Are these one and the same? Why are they renamed if they mean the same thing? Again, as a layperson, I feel this only adds confusion to an already confused point which should be exact and clear if it a correct prescribed term?

I also note that Egg chose to change this term in later agreements which surely suggests you feel the agreement as issued originally is not compliant? I also understand you have a case in the High Court in the early part of next year relating to this point exactly and on this basis I would consider your comment that this is a “well established point of law” is far from accurate.

 

You may also wish to consider the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger as both these binding judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are misstated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

(cont…..)

Coming on to your comment about default charges and your comment as quoted “With regard to the allegation that the agreement fails to correctly detail the default charges which may be payable by your client….” I would be grateful if you would explain who my client is? I have only dealt with matter personally and have had no legal representation. Please clarify.

Your comment that the charges are clearly set out in clause 17 and that these terms are these terms are referenced in the agreement is interesting, however I have to inform you IT CANNOT BE! The reasons for this is that Regulation 2 (4) Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (SI1983/1553) requires that the statutory information set out within Para 3-19 of schedule 1 and 2 SI1983/1553 should be shown as a whole and not interspersed with other information if the agreement is to be properly executed and compliant with section 61 CCA 1974

Finally I wish to point out that I am quite disappointed with Egg’s behaviour in this matter; you took over 4 months to reply to my complaint at which point you advise this is your final response and to refer anything further to the FOS. I find this attitude somewhat disingenuous and I also note that your collection process has now recommenced with earnest! I would be grateful if you would cease sending me your daily emails requesting that I telephone you to save us both time – yours in sending the email and mine in deleting it. I would also be grateful if you would advise Damian of Credit Collections Agency that I do not “need” to phone him urgently and if he wishes to communicate with me he should do so by letter, as I have previously requested.

I trust this letter makes my position perfectly clear and I look forward to hearing that you will not be perusing this matter further. May I also respectfully remind you of the restrictions placed upon Egg being as this account is still in serious dispute?

Yours faithfully