CCA from Egg - Help Required

[Mitch524]

Received CCA from Egg today and as far as signed agreements go from what I have read it doesn't look good for me.

Maybe clutching at straws here but if this document was a single piece document the copy they have sent me clearly has folds on the front but none on the back. Also looking at what pt2537 has stated in a post dated 8th March 2009 the wording Approved Limit is used in my agreement can I challenge Egg on this ?

I must admit when I first opened this letter from Egg my heart sank however I think I can see a chink of light to stop these people charging me a fortune in interest.

I will scan and post a copy of this as soon as I can but for now initial thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks Mitch.

[IdaInFife]

i have moved this into the egg forums for you

 

Ida x

[Mitch524]

Scannned documents sent by egg and converted into pdf format but tinypics for some reason won't upload them. Any other way of getting them posted on here ?

[Mitch524]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15122&stc=1&d=1261563377

 

These are the documents egg sent me.

 

Any thoughts.

Egg 1.pdf

[seriously fed up]

Looks to be a typical Egg agreement with the usual list of mistakes - approved limit not credit limit being the main one, but also the heading "egg card" and not "credit card" (though that is technical and whether a court would uphold is questionable). Also their APRs are reputed to be a bit dodgy. The first and last of these would make it unenforceable (credit limit and cost of credit being two of the prescribed terms).

Have a look around here - you will find lots of other discussions. The seminal one is this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024413 - you should have a look.

[Mitch524]

No more payments to be made as of now.

 

Next step Dispute Letter or other course of action ?

[Mitch524]

Next step please advise.

[seriously fed up]

if you look around here you'll find letters that address the same issues as you will be dealing with - your problem with Egg is by no means original. What i sent them in the first instance is this, which you can adapt for yourself. But have a look around and see if you can find other things - sort of smorgsbord :

 

Dear Sir

 

Account number - IN DISPUTE

I refer to your letter of 28th May 2009, and in particular the document headed “Egg Card Agreement for my name”, which I assume is the document you are relying on in relation to your demand for payment. However, I now consider to be in dispute for the following two reasons.

 

In your letter you say that the “signed credit card agreement ... shows you ] agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the agreement”. However, the agreement is improperly executed under section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated regulations.

1. According to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1), this agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact it has been incorrectly headed “Egg Card Agreement for (my name) “and, subsequently, “Credit Agreement”.

2. Additionally, no “Credit Limit” has been stated – this is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states

24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”

As the agreement has been improperly executed, it is only enforceable by an order of the court, by virtue of section 65. However, since it does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of section 127(3).

3. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed.

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and to remove any default that has been registered by yourselves with any credit reference agency, as required by the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

Furthermore, please be aware that from this point onwards I will respond only to written contact. You are now under notice that I will not discuss personal or confidential matters over the phone under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

I trust you are aware of the limitations placed upon you now that the account has been formally disputed. I particularly draw your attention to the legal requirement that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a valid and enforceable credit agreement and the payment protection insurance complaint are both very clear disputes and therefore the following applies:

• You must not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

• You must not add any further interest or charges to this account.

• You must not pass this account to any third party.

• You must not issue a default notice on this account.

• You must not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. To register information with the credit reference agencies, or to issue a default notice, would also be in breach of Section 13.6 of The Banking Code, which stipulates that you can only register such information if the amount owed is not in dispute. I note that you are a subscriber to this Code.

 

Any further actions taken by Egg to collect the alleged debt whilst it is under dispute will be vigorously defended. I am also aware of the law regarding harassment of creditors under these circumstances and will use UK law to defend myself.

 

I look forward to receiving a satisfactory response.

 

Yours faithfully

My name (but no signature!)

[Mitch524]

Thanks SFU.

What response did you get from them and what further action have they taken ?

[seriously fed up]

Well it wasnt "we surrender". You need to understand that pretty much whatever argument you put to them, they wont agree. Someone on here had a letter back from them, having put the "approved limit" point to them, which said "it is a well established point of law" that its ok to use approved limit rather than credit limit. The advice they got was to ask Egg for their sources for this contention (there arent any so they wont get a reply, or just a repetition of the assertion).

Its a kind of never-never land - or a stand-off. They claim the account is enforceable, you claim it isnt and have good enough grounds that they dont want to go to court and run the risk of losing (which is why its important to be clear about what your rights are - if you seem informed, I suspect they are less likely to take you on).

When I got their response, I was involved with the second DCA that they had set on me. This got as far as the threat of taking legal action, which they never followed through on (this might have been because I am outwith the jurisdiction of the court their lawyer would have been heard in). This DCA said they were going back to Egg for further instructions - that was in August and I havent heard anything since. Will it stay like that? No real idea. I hope so, but I suspect not.

[Mitch524]

(this might have been because I am outwith the jurisdiction of the court their lawyer would have been heard in).

Thanks again SFU but what do you mean by the above ?

[seriously fed up]

The solicitor was English, while I live in Scotland so Civil Jurisdiction Act says that any case they might bring against me would have to be brought in Scotland, and that would need a Scottish solicitor. Any action raised by their English solicitor in an English court would be incompetent for that reason alone.

[Mitch524]

The same would apply to me in that case.

[seriously fed up]

In that case, should they set ARC on you, and they in turn set the legendary Trevor Munn - check this guy out in the Egg threads - I wouldnt worry too much. Its the Civil Jurisdiction Act 1982 Schedule 8 Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts, Section 3 paragraph 4, which says "(4) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled or any court having jurisdiction under rule 2(i)." (FYI, 2i relates to property, not credit).So that looks pretty clear to me.

[Mitch524]

 

Dear Sir

 

Account number - IN DISPUTE

I refer to your letter of 26th November 2009, and in particular the document headed “Egg Card Agreement for my name”, which I assume is the document you are relying on in relation to your demand for payment. However, I now consider to be in dispute for the following two reasons.

 

In your letter you say that the “signed credit card agreement ... shows you ] agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the agreement”. However, the agreement is improperly executed under section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated regulations.

1. According to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1), this agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact it has been incorrectly headed “Egg Card Agreement for (my name) “and, subsequently, “Credit Agreement”.

2. Additionally, no “Credit Limit” has been stated – this is a prescribed term set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as required by section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In paragraph 3 of the document you have sent me, the phrase used there - “Approved Limit” - is not sufficient to advise me what the credit limit is or how it will be decided, and therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. On this point, please see Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states

24.” In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and

(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is”

As the agreement has been improperly executed, it is only enforceable by an order of the court, by virtue of section 65. However, since it does not explicitly state the term “credit limit” (rather, it mentions only an "Approved Limit”), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of section 127(3).

3. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable. The document that you have sent to me fails to provide this information, and is therefore deficient in terms of these regulations, making the agreement further improperly executed.

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and to remove any default that has been registered by yourselves with any credit reference agency, as required by the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

Furthermore, please be aware that from this point onwards I will respond only to written contact. You are now under notice that I will not discuss personal or confidential matters over the phone under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

I trust you are aware of the limitations placed upon you now that the account has been formally disputed. I particularly draw your attention to the legal requirement that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a valid and enforceable credit agreement and the payment protection insurance complaint are both very clear disputes and therefore the following applies:

• You must not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

• You must not add any further interest or charges to this account.

• You must not pass this account to any third party.

• You must not issue a default notice on this account.

• You must not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. To register information with the credit reference agencies, or to issue a default notice, would also be in breach of Section 13.6 of The Banking Code, which stipulates that you can only register such information if the amount owed is not in dispute. I note that you are a subscriber to this Code.

 

Any further actions taken by Egg to collect the alleged debt whilst it is under dispute will be vigorously defended. I am also aware of the law regarding harassment of creditors under these circumstances and will use UK law to defend myself.

 

I look forward to receiving a satisfactory response.

 

Yours faithfully

My name (but no signature!)

 

Thanks again SFU the letter template you posted has been adapted accordingly and will be sent recorded delivery today.

[wonkyfunk303]

Thanks again SFU the letter template you posted has been adapted accordingly and will be sent recorded delivery today.

 

 

i had exactly the same agreement sent through via fredrickson international (the egg card agreement) so one would presume that the above letter would apply in the case of me sending it to them, just one thing, im sending to a dca (fredrickson international) and excuse me for being think, what would i need to amend in order to send the above... (if that makes sense!)

 

regards

 

james

[seriously fed up]

OK, Mitch, glad you found it useful. Let us know how it goes with them. There is a test case - Cardiff I think - going on (should finish about March its said) about their use of "approved limit". Keep your ear to the ground on here to keep up with it - best thread is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024413. I would IMAGINE that any outcome would come up on there so probably best to sub to it. Have a read through - start at the beginning, but its really really long, so one night when you have nothing else to do

Wonkyfunk, the disagreement is with Egg - the DCA (unless they own the debt) is just the flunky. Best thing is probably to send a letter to Egg, AND a copy for information to the DCA. Anything you send should fit your circumstances - if anything in the letter is an issue for you, then maybe change it to suit your own style; anything not an issue you wish to raise then leave it out; if you have an issue that's not in that letter, then add it in (have a look through the other Egg threads though as ANYTHING you come up with is unlikely to be unique). Again good luck and let us know how it goes.

SFU:)

[Mitch524]

Does anyone know of a link to a template for a combined harassment letter along with an alternative to a CCA request as MBNA & Barclay card have sent nothing after a CCA request and a Dispute letter other than letters telling me that my accounts are in arrears which were sent second class I may add.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Mitch524]

Received reply from Egg acknowledging my letter and said it had been passed onto their complaints department but also urged me to log in to my alleged account with them .

[Mitch524]

Follow up to previous letter received stating that they will contact me again within 4 weeks with update as they are still dealing with my complaint.

[Mitch524]

Received reply from egg yesterday as follows

 

Dear *************

 

Re: Your Egg Account **********************

 

I am writing to you further to our recent contact regarding your complaint to inform you that we have completed our investigation.

 

We refer to your undated letter, received by us on 12th January 2009. We have considered and taken legal advice on the points you have raised in your letter and we respond as follows.

 

The allegations listed 1-3 in your letter are incorrect for the following reasons (we have applied the same numbering as used in your letter).

 

1. The reference to "Credit Agreement" in your credit agreement complies with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (the "Agreement Regulations").

 

2. "Approved Limit" is specifically defined in Condition 1.3 of the terms and conditions of your agreement as the amount you can borrow from time to time on the account and is therefore clearly understandable. There is no requirement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to use a particular term or phrase when describing the amount of credit. The description of the credit limit complies with paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 1 of the Agreement Regulations. The form of agreement used by Egg contains all the relevant information prescribed both by Schedule 1 and by Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations.

 

3. The list of default charges is included in clause 17.2 of the terms and conditions of your credit agreement in accordance with paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 of the Agreements Regulations.

 

Given the responses to the complaints outlined above, your credit agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable as you allege. Accordingly, we shall continue to apply our normal procedures to your account.

 

Your letter refers to paragraph 13.6 of the Banking Code and the notion that the amount owed by you is 'in dispute'. Your letter then asserts that this 'dispute' in some way prevents us from taking action to enforce debts owed to us by you under your credit agreement and prevents us from passing on your information to credit reference agencies. We trust that, in the light of the above responses to your complaint, you will appreciate that there is no dispute as to the amount owed to us by you. We shall therefore continue with our normal processes in relation to your account which may include reporting you to credit reference agencies. We refer you to High Court decision in McGiffick v Royal Bank of Scotland plc which confirmed that any steps taken prior to obtaining a court judgement against you would not amount to enforcement of the agreement.

 

As a result of the decision reached, your complaint has now been closed. If you want to discuss any aspect of your complaint or provide further relevant information, please contact us using the details provided.

 

You have six months from the date of this letter to exercise your right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If the Financial Ombudsman Service notifies us of their intention to arbitrate on your behalf, we will no longer be able to discuss your complaint directly with you. A copy of their leaflet is enclosed for your information, you can find out more on their website Financial Ombudsman Service

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Got a cheek re undated letter. By the looks of the date they quoted for receiving my letter it's took them over a year to deal with my complaint.

 

Enough triviality thoughts on letter anyone ?

[seriously fed up]

that is really odd, because I got the same thing about my letter being undated - it wasnt) - maybe its their wee joke back at us.

To business though

 

1. they are right about credit agreement - i had been reading a copy of the 83 regs ammended in 2004. Pity, but in any event, even if correct, it wouldnt have put it out of reach of a court
   
2. approved limit. This is one of their variants. As mentioned in an earlier post, one of the strategies is to say that approved limit is well defined in law - of course its not. This is another one, but the precedent is that the prescribed term must be contained in the sig document and not by reference to any other document, even one that is embodied.
   
3. if the default charges are there well, I suppose they are. But they arent in the copy that they sent me. In any event, I dont think this would put the account beyond a court
   

Therefore their assertion that the agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable is just not true imo - even if we forget about points 1 and 3, point 2 kills them stone dead. In respect of killing them stone dead, you might also like to have a look at this one - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what-83.html#post2791269 post #1643 - which appears to do much the same thing, but from a totally different point of view.

Last thing - in terms of going to the FOS - DONT! This is an egg variant on the (Dirty) Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) "make my day, punk" line. Just ask yourself, why are they suggesting you do this? For your benefit? How likely does that seem?

[Mitch524]

that is really odd, because I got the same thing about my letter being undated - it wasnt) - maybe its their wee joke back at us.

To business though

 

1. they are right about credit agreement - i had been reading a copy of the 83 regs ammended in 2004. Pity, but in any event, even if correct, it wouldnt have put it out of reach of a court
   
2. approved limit. This is one of their variants. As mentioned in an earlier post, one of the strategies is to say that approved limit is well defined in law - of course its not. This is another one, but the precedent is that the prescribed term must be contained in the sig document and not by reference to any other document, even one that is embodied.
   
3. if the default charges are there well, I suppose they are. But they arent in the copy that they sent me. In any event, I dont think this would put the account beyond a court
   

Therefore their assertion that the agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable is just not true imo - even if we forget about points 1 and 3, point 2 kills them stone dead. In respect of killing them stone dead, you might also like to have a look at this one - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what-83.html#post2791269 post #1643 - which appears to do much the same thing, but from a totally different point of view.

 

SFD where are you with Egg ?

 

What do you suggest next move ?

 

Cheers Mitch.

[seriously fed up]

I wrote to them in November last year, throwing much the same bombs at them (and certainly the approved limit one) but throwing in a wee hint that I might be interested in a partial full and final settlement, but to date I have not had a reply to that. In fact I feel quite insecure even talking about that as I fear that I may be tempting fate as since then I have not heard anything more from them. I dont know if the Cardiff case has anything to do with it (even being High Court it has no jurisdiction - though it would be influential). Just need to watch the post - gulp!

If it were me, I would be inclined to write back making clear why you consider them wrong about approved limit, and perhaps mentioning the one I referred you to about direct debit payment only. See what they do next. All you can do. I wouldnt do FOS - waste of time for one thing. And I certainly wouldnt be the one to take THEM to court.

[Mitch524]

Received Final Notice from Egg today through Capital Credit Agencies and the threat of a doorstep visit.