Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Reply by Egg to "Approved Limit" point


FightToTheEnd
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5144 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

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

 

I would suggest that your legal chum is not fully conversant with contract law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

you could also think of it as a train and when the driver pulls the lever to stop it (the termination) the lever does not work so whilst he tried to stop the train and pulled the lever- it didn't actually stop

 

a creditor who issues a defective DN cannot legally terminate the agreement - so if he writes a termination letter following a defective DN he has not in fact (legally) terminated the agreement - it still endures

 

he is therefore at liberty to correct the DN issue and then terminate the agreement

 

in which case he only actually terminated it once

 

(unless of course the debtor accepts the FIRST attempt to terminate as an UNLAWFUL repudiation- in which case there would then be no agreement left for the creditor to serve a valid DN against or legally terminate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Ok Lets talk about law and contracts. Firstly there is no reason why a creditor cannot terminate an agreement for running account credit any tie he wants.

He can terminate it in total in part reinstate it terminate it again why cant he.

The notion that because it doesn’t say he can in the ac he cannot terminate is absurd,

The act does not work like that, in fact no act works like that. Law doesn’t work like that.

Legislation isn’t a list of things that you can do, it is a list of things you cannot.

The reason section 98 is significant is because it states that the creditor has to give notice prior to termination under certain conditions.

This then acknowledges that the creditor can terminate under all other conditions.

If there was a law saying you can’t walk your dog on Saturdays, wouldn’t it be sensible to assume that it was safe to walk it on the other days of the week.

To difficult

The OFT don’t seem to think so.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well Ive had a further letter from Egg which clarifies everything - apparantly they had previously terminated my agreement but more recently they have terminated my account!! Err, thanks for that. At least they have confirmed that they did indeed terminate my aggrement in March 2008!

 

eggnonsense1.jpg?t=1267182588

 

eggnonsense2.jpg?t=1267182640

Link to post
Share on other sites

A "repayment only facility". They even try and make it sound good! :)

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally interesting is that they tell me they have the right to assign an aggrement (not account) that has already been terminated?

 

I cant imagine this one will see a courtroom anytime soon, can you? :)

Edited by FightToTheEnd
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're waiting for a court date i'd suspect you're in for a very long wait lol

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ive had a further letter from Egg which clarifies everything - apparantly they had previously terminated my agreement but more recently they have terminated my account!! Err, thanks for that. At least they have confirmed that they did indeed terminate my aggrement in March 2008!

 

eggnonsense1.jpg?t=1267182588

 

eggnonsense2.jpg?t=1267182640

 

well now, there's an interesting proposition, they can cancel an agreement but the account (which is created by the agreement) remains!!

 

i don't think so

 

clearly, they intended to restrict the use of the card

 

what they actually did -for reasons best known to themselves- was to cock up and terminate the whole agreement

 

i think that the admission in that letter is dynamite

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it appears to me that Egg are thinking of themselves as your bank rather than a credit card company/facility, and saying that 'although we are taking your credit card off of you, we still remain as your bank (the account) until we say otherwise'.

 

Sort of rings true as to how/where they consider themselves. When they used to phone my work they would always tell the Receptionist that "it's his bank" on the phone lol.

 

All pure fantasy of course.

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Ok Lets talk about law and contracts. Firstly there is no reason why a creditor cannot terminate an agreement for running account credit any tie he wants.

He can terminate it in total in part reinstate it terminate it again why cant he.

The notion that because it doesn’t say he can in the ac he cannot terminate is absurd,

The act does not work like that, in fact no act works like that. Law doesn’t work like that.

Legislation isn’t a list of things that you can do, it is a list of things you cannot.

The reason section 98 is significant is because it states that the creditor has to give notice prior to termination under certain conditions.

This then acknowledges that the creditor can terminate under all other conditions.

If there was a law saying you can’t walk your dog on Saturdays, wouldn’t it be sensible to assume that it was safe to walk it on the other days of the week.

To difficult

The OFT don’t seem to think so.

Peter

 

Peter, in relation to this letter that FTE has just received, this troubles me somewhat. I fully take your point that if something isnt specifically ruled out that doesnt mean its unlawful.

However, lets look at the letter that FTE has just received, and consider what termination means. My problem is

 

  1. Egg themselves have made use of the word termination - in other words this is their description, not ours
  2. The fact is they seem to have terminated it twice - first in 2008 and then again in 2010 (they admit this in the letter) - which sounds a bit to me like killing someone, digging them up and shooting/knifing them again, but lets allow that to pass for now at least
  3. where i have real problems is that they say that the only difference the termination would make is that the card couldnt be used for further borrowing. However, Chambers online dicitionary defines termination as "termination noun 1 someone or something that terminates. 2 an abortion (sense 1). 3 the ending or a result of something." Thus termination has a finality to it - sort of "that's that" which leaving the remaining balance as repayment only does not seem to me to be consistent with. Leaving the remaining balance as repayment only just doesnt seem to me to be consistent with any meaning of termination that I can think of. if we focus on the second definition above, the phrase that comes to my mind is "you cant be a little bit pregnant". So what is it they have done?
  4. I think that a better description of what they did in 2008, casting various people adrift by cancelling their cards, was not a termination - in the sense above (or I suspect in the sense intended in the CCA) - but actually a variation of terms such that the credit limit (which I think I am right in saying was the description they used by that time rather than approved limit ) would always be equal to the balance of the account. So for instance, if my account showed a debit balance of £1000 and I repaid £100 in any month, then the new credit limit would be £900 + the interest charged that month - the effect being of course that I couldnt spend anything on the card, only make repayments. But what they did was not a termination. That it seems to me is a serious misuse of English.
  5. Lastly, as others have pointed out, how can you terminate something twice. As I said above its a bit like you knifed someone to death in 2008, and then you dig them up in 2010 and stick the knife in again. I am not sure what description one would give the second act (necrohomicide?) but it sure as hell cant be murder. Same thing?
  6. But what does the Act say, I hear you cry. Well lets follow this through. Section 87 makes it clear that "87.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—
    (a) to terminate the agreement," But we could I think all agree that not everyone who got roped in to the 2008 termination was in default. I can remember letters to the press at the time from people screaming holy hell because they had been terminated because they didnt, in Egg's view, use the card enough. It wasnt that they were "delinquent" - Egg just werent making enough money out of them. So that cant be right.
  7. But there is a further problem for Egg, I think, because s88 requires the default notice to be in the prescribed form - "88.—(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify—
    (a) the nature of the alleged breach;
    (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;
    © if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid." But as already pointed out, many whose cards were "terminated" had not committed a breach at all, or if they had in the past, werent in breach at the time that the account was terminated. Moreover, as I recall, there was no "get out" possibility as required by paragraphs b and c. It was "card terminated. End" - though it wasnt if you were still in debt. It was a variation of terms, wasnt it? But they didnt use that description and it seems to me that its quite legitimate for them to have to bear the consequences of that action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only did they use the word terminated, but also ended: and they gave a specific date.

 

This recent reply, though, even agrees that it was terminated.

 

They are either not using legal professionals when dealing with this, or they are not using very good ones.

 

I can't imagine that any of these accounts disputed over the termination will go to court. There is just no conceivable way that Egg can get out of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie, I have a friend who used to work in the credit card trade (but he's got changed jobs, so he's alright now), and I was asking him how it could be that the credit card industry could have made such a horlicks of all this - I mean the 74 Act and Regs are, if anything, overly determined and certainly not vague about what lenders must do. He said "oh, but that's all down to Legal, and no one ever listens to Legal". :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie, I have a friend who used to work in the credit card trade (but he's got changed jobs, so he's alright now), and I was asking him how it could be that the credit card industry could have made such a horlicks of all this - I mean the 74 Act and Regs are, if anything, overly determined and certainly not vague about what lenders must do. He said "oh, but that's all down to Legal, and no one ever listens to Legal". :eek:

 

It's clear that they are ill-advised at best here.

They're stuffed.

 

I think there has been an assumption that they can do whatever they like as they were dealing with the puny consumer.

 

Anyone that has seen a credit agreement for business lending will see the clear difference in approach. Far more secure.

 

This oversight is going to cost the industry big time.

Hang, on that means cost the taxpayer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie, I have a friend who used to work in the credit card trade (but he's got changed jobs, so he's alright now)
:D:D:D Glad he got better

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...