Jump to content


FightToTheEnd

Reply by Egg to "Approved Limit" point

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3556 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


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

Share this post


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!!

 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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!!

 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dancing around words because they can't establish their rights and precedents as facts


To those who give me reputation points, thanks. I don't usually pay attention to how much rep I receive, so I don't acknowledge it but I appreciate the favourable comments I receive when I sometimes talk sense.

"The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while"Albert Einstein

 

"One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others".

Moliere (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)

Share this post


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!!

 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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:

Share this post


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...

Share this post


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!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...