Reply by Egg to "Approved Limit" point

[FightToTheEnd]

I had drafted this reply which answers some of those points:

 

I refer to your letter of 13th January and, as ever, I still consider the account to be in serious dispute.

As you correctly state, schedule 6 does indeed state the requirement of a term “to state the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined”. Surely one would assume that this statement would, as a bare minimum, require the use of the phase “credit limit”?

As I have already mentioned, your agreement refers only to “approved limits” and “individual limits” which are in no way deemed to be credit limits. I will once again state that I consider this makes your agreement unenforceable due to a missing prescribed term.

Your comments concerning the Hurstanger case are also interesting and looking at this case again, it was stated in relation to the core prescribed terms that: “they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them”.

With the above points in mind, I cannot agree with you that the basic requirements are satisfied.

I also note that you have not advised where the term “approved limit” has been shown to be a “well established point of law” and wonder if this was just an oversight on your part.

Turning to your points about your collection procedures, I did not state that I felt you were breaching any rules, I simply advised that I found your actions to be disingenuous when I had heard nothing from you for months and then started to receive several emails and telephone calls a day once you have replied to my letter without giving me chance to respond.

May I once again reiterate that I will only deal with this matter in writing? I feel this is sensible as it gives us both time to consider our responses and also means there is a written record of anything agreed. I would therefore be grateful if you stop your (twice daily!) attempts to contact me by telephone with immediate effect.

Once again, 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?

 

[seriously fed up]

I had drafted this reply which answers some of those points:

 

I refer to your letter of 13th January and, as ever, I still consider the account to be in serious dispute.

As you correctly state, schedule 6 does indeed state the requirement of a term “to state the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined”. Surely one would assume that this statement would, as a bare minimum, require the use of the phase “credit limit”? Completely agree.

As I have already mentioned, your agreement refers only to “approved limits” and “individual limits” which are in no way deemed to be credit limits. I will once again state that I consider this makes your agreement unenforceable due to a missing prescribed term. Good

Your comments concerning the Hurstanger case are also interesting and looking at this case again, it was stated in relation to the core prescribed terms that: “they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them”. Very good

With the above points in mind, I cannot agree with you that the basic requirements are satisfied.

I also note that you have not advised where the term “approved limit” has been shown to be a “well established point of law” and wonder if this was just an oversight on your part. Or ask them what their legal authorities (eg previous judgements/ OFT guidance etc) are in support of this claim

Turning to your points about your collection procedures, I did not state that I felt you were breaching any rules, I simply advised that I found your actions to be disingenuous when I had heard nothing from you for months and then started to receive several emails and telephone calls a day once you have replied to my letter without giving me chance to respond.

 

May I once again reiterate that I will only deal with this matter in writing? I feel this is sensible as it gives us both time to consider our responses and also means there is a written record of anything agreed. I would therefore be grateful if you stop your (twice daily!) attempts to contact me by telephone with immediate effect. dont justify this - just tell them that in writing is the only way you will deal with them. Otherwise you are giving them the basis of an argument imo

 

 

Once again, 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?

 

 

See comments - hope they are helpful

SFU

[FightToTheEnd]

Very helpful, thank you .

 

As much as anything, it's nice to know I'm heading down the right track...

Edited January 18, 2010 by FightToTheEnd

[FightToTheEnd]

Also, don't you think it's interesting when reading this reply letter from Egg and their points about limits, they make a real effort not to mention approved or individual!

[Bigdebtor]

FTTE

 

I agree with all of SFU's comments - but would add one further point.

 

I am not being "picky" - but I think it is important to use the correct grammar, vocabulary and spelling in any such letters - you use "perusing" where I think you mean "pursuing" - always wise to use a spell checker and grammar checker if you are in doubt an dno one else is there to double check your responses - especially with letters which may end up before a "learned" judge.

 

Hope this does not offend!

 

BD

[FightToTheEnd]

Thanks BigDebtor. No offence taken at all, in fact I'm grateful!

 

I'm a bit of a bug*er for simple typo's and that one looks like it may be a spell check that has mis-corrected a word for me!

 

Thanks again, and yes, I agree about correct grammar etc and so will ask my wife to proof read future letters!

[Bigdebtor]

FTTE

 

Wives are very good proof readers - always trying to find fault with us and showing no mercy!

 

BD (aside) Yes Dear! (got to go - she's got my tea ready!)

[FightToTheEnd]

in fact I also had phase instead of phrase! Well done to Mrs FTTE for spotting it!!

[LB145]

sub - at the same stage

[Guest HeftyHippo]

yes, but what about the points he made. has anyone actually gone through the regs and checked to see if he's right?

 

if he IS right about any of the points eg default charges being allowable on a separate page, then its no use arguing, its a waste of time, and if it does go before a judge, you can look awkward and simply wanting to argue for the sake of it

 

so, has anyone bothered to check if he's right? Lets establish the facts and see where we stand rather than simply arguing with them

[Bigdebtor]

There is a big test case coming next month with PT2537 against Egg which should give us a ruling on Egg agreements. See the relevant thread by PT.

 

BD

[Peterbard]

Hi

Regarding default charges being in a sepperate document. It is perfectly correct as i stated much earlier in this thread for default charges to be in another document in pre 2005 agreements. This is because the regs state that all schedule one section 1-19 must be contained together and as a whole , default charges are in section 22. This changed in 2005 when the ammended regulations came into force.

 

The other points raise in this response are also aablolutely correct as i also previously stated.

 

Peter

 

Peter

[JdeC]

There is a big test case coming next month with PT2537 against Egg which should give us a ruling on Egg agreements. See the relevant thread by PT.

 

BD

 

Cant seem to find the thread - could you point me in the right direction please.

[Bigdebtor]

Cant seem to find the thread - could you point me in the right direction please.

 

It's called "Egg credit agreements - what I think is wrong with them" Beware it is VERY long!

 

BD

[uptoeyeballs]

Here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html

 

uteb

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Hi

Regarding default charges being in a sepperate document. It is perfectly correct as i stated much earlier in this thread for default charges to be in another document in pre 2005 agreements. This is because the regs state that all schedule one section 1-19 must be contained together and as a whole , default charges are in section 22. This changed in 2005 when the ammended regulations came into force.

 

The other points raise in this response are also aablolutely correct as i also previously stated.

 

Peter

 

 

Peter

 

PB do you actually have a genuine copy of the Agreement Regs? A known genuine copy?

 

The copy I have from the web has been amened all over the place and its impossible to actually work out what the pre 2005 Regs were. I think that may be the problem, people are reading what may be the 2005 Regs and think they're the 1983 Regs, so the discrepancies are put down as errors in the Agreement.

[Peterbard]

PB do you actually have a genuine copy of the Agreement Regs? A known genuine copy?

 

The copy I have from the web has been amened all over the place and its impossible to actually work out what the pre 2005 Regs were. I think that may be the problem, people are reading what may be the 2005 Regs and think they're the 1983 Regs, so the discrepancies are put down as errors in the Agreement.

 

 

Hi

 

Yes i have a copy of the orriginal Statutory Instrument.

This particular point is documented on PTs other thread and i think he even acknowledged the point, but it is however a fact unfortunately.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

yes, but what about the points he made. has anyone actually gone through the regs and checked to see if he's right?

 

if he IS right about any of the points eg default charges being allowable on a separate page, then its no use arguing, its a waste of time, and if it does go before a judge, you can look awkward and simply wanting to argue for the sake of it

 

so, has anyone bothered to check if he's right? Lets establish the facts and see where we stand rather than simply arguing with them

 

Hi

 

Yes always check for yourself the regs are all there on the net somewhere.

 

Peter

[FightToTheEnd]

Just had a letter from Egg to advise me that as I haven't complied with their recent DN notice they have now terminated my account. This is most odd as I thought they had already terminated it 2 years ogo!

[mystery1]

PB do you actually have a genuine copy of the Agreement Regs? A known genuine copy?

 

The copy I have from the web has been amened all over the place and its impossible to actually work out what the pre 2005 Regs were. I think that may be the problem, people are reading what may be the 2005 Regs and think they're the 1983 Regs, so the discrepancies are put down as errors in the Agreement.

 

I'm sure i got these off cag somewhere.

 

M1

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.pdf

Edited February 5, 2010 by mystery1

[diddydicky]

Just had a letter from Egg to advise me that as I haven't complied with their recent DN notice they have now terminated my account. This is most odd as I thought they had already terminated it 2 years ogo!

 

i would be inclined to write and point out that they already unlawfully repudiated the agreement a couple of years ago, which you accepted and you are bemused as to their attempt to serve a DN post termination on an agreement which no longer endures

[Peterbard]

Just had a letter from Egg to advise me that as I haven't complied with their recent DN notice they have now terminated my account. This is most odd as I thought they had already terminated it 2 years ogo!

 

Hi

I would guess the earlier termination was under section 98 of the act and meerly terminate your rights uder the agreement. The later one may be a section 87 termination which is nessesary if the creditor is to take proceedings to court.

 

Peter

[FightToTheEnd]

Trying desperatly not to be ignorant here, but surely you can only terminate something once by it's very definition? How can they terminate specific bits they want to and leave others in place, makes a complete mockery of any agreement? They could make it very favourable for the borrower and then later down the line just "terminate" the bits they no longer want to offer?

[Capricorn1601]

I agree, Its either terminated, or not, nothing in between.

[Peterbard]

Hi

You know this is something that has always given me problems. How can you terminate something twice?

I had an argument once with Barclays because they kept trying to debit a terminated account with ppi payments, complained to the FSO and the just backed up Barclays line that I should cancel with the insurer.

Doesn’t make sense to me either,

I asked a legal chum about it once, he said that you should think about the contract as a train, whilst the train is running, so is the contract, once the train has stopped so the contract has terminated. The train still however exits. it just does not function. If it did not exist it would be void.

Not fully convinced by this analogy and have never been able to find anything to support the idea, it does seem to fit some of the facts

peter