Egg and their Trevor Munn muppets

[stevehatesbankers]

I asked a CMC to have a look at my Egg agreement regarding enforceability. They use a traffic light system for their audits ie green is enforceable, red is unenforceable and amber is marginal in that there are breaches but not prescribed breaches. They have decided that they dont think its a strong enough case to take Egg on. The copy of my agreement is poor and has the approved limit and has no mention of the credit limit. The agreement is from 2004. These thieves increased my rates to over 20% which I was unable to pay. Any thoughts and help please

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Have you considered up-loading the agreement, after removing any personally identifiable information I am sure someone will advise

[stevehatesbankers]

I had an agreement with Egg started in 2004. They advised me last year that they had terminated the agreement. Moorcroft harrassed me then Arc. I CCA'd them and had a CMC check it out. Originally they said the agreement had breaches but not prescribed breaches and wouldnt be pursuing my claim. (Agreement has Approved limit rather than Agreed Credit Limit of) I was thinking of passing it to one of the bigger CMC's as I am convinced its unenforceable. Days before Christmas (Arc) sent me an offer (25% reduction) to settle within a week. Naturally it was totally unaffordable. Trevor Munn has now sent me a threatening letter stating court papers are being prepared etc, etc. I would appreciate any help. I will also post up a copy of the agreement but need to know how to do it. Thanks in anticipation

[seriously fed up]

I dont know that i would worry too much about Trevor. The next letter you will get in about seven days will appear to take it a bit closer to court but without actually going to court. I suspect the one you got said something like "we are about to start preparing court papers". The next one will say "we are preparing court papers". I suspect he must have taken someone to court at ARC's instigation at some point, but I am at least as sure that the threat is made a great deal more often than it is carried out. Some here suspect that Trevor's main function is to mainly the provision of headed notepaper intended to frighten more than anything else.

I would have a look around here for some of the letters of the that have been sent to Egg in the last few weeks/months, alleging fault in their agreements. Make a note of aspects that might apply to you, and use the relevant parts to put together a letter of your own. Sort of smorgesbord approach - you know Scandinavian cold buffet - eat (or take) what you want. Fire that off to Egg with a copy to ARC. There is a decent likelihood that the next you will hear from ARC is that they are reverting to their client for further instruction.

[dx100uk]

phishing trip ignore it

 

dx

[gazab41]

look at gazab v egg

[stevehatesbankers]

I am wanting to post up a copy of the agreement hopefully for some of you kind knowledgeable folk to have a look at it. Is this easily done? Thanks

[dx100uk]

use photobucket

 

dx

[stevehatesbankers]

I will try and attach a copy of my agreement. (If this works, I'll be amazed) If it does I would appreciate any help or guidance in relation to whether or not it is enforceable.

Egg.pdf

[stevehatesbankers]

Afternoon caggers. I presume its ok to attach the pdf file as above

[seriously fed up]

usual stuff from Egg - main defect is use of Approved limit, though if you dig around you will find others referred to by others. The approved limit problem is the subject of a court case at Cardiff right now for which judgement should come down some time March.

There are a good many letters that cover this ground with Egg. For what its worth, this is what I sent to them. If you want to adapt it, please feel free

Egg

Riverside Road

Pride Park

Derby

DE99 3GG

Dear Sir/Madam

Without prejudice

Account (your account number)

I refer to your letter of 7th September in which you intimate that in spite of eight weeks of your investigation you have been unable to reach a decision. I have to say I am very concerned about this as I think I have made my position quite clear in my letters to you, DLC and most recently ARC, which is that the copy agreement that Egg have supplied does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations for the following reasons:

· The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Schedule 1) require that this agreement should have been given the heading “Credit Card Agreement”. In fact the agreement supplied to me by Egg has been headed “Egg Card Agreement for (your name Steve) “.

· Additionally, no “Credit Limit” has been stated – which 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).

· 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.

As the agreement you have sent has been improperly executed in each of the above three respects, 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 set out in my point 2), as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court is explicitly prevented from granting such an order by virtue of section 127(3).

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Scrapper]

Sorry to butt in, but I sent ARC (ARSE) and Trevor Munn (Mug) this and they pased my mates account straight back to Egg, Who inturn ignored all the other issues that had been raised and harped on about Approved Limit.

 

You will need to change to suit your own needs. Hope it helps

 

Thank you for your letter dated 27th November 09. I am somewhat bemused as to why you have prepared a County Court Claim against me?

 

As I have pointed out in my previous letters this account is totally unenforceable and can only be deemed enforceable in a court of law, but just so there isn’t any doubt whatsoever I would like to draw your attention to the following:

 

Firstly, the word Approved Limit is used, case law is that the word 3.Limit which is set out in the margin and the word Approved limitis not sufficient to advise you what the credit limit is or how it will be decided. Therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated.

 

The case I refer to is Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, where HHJ Overend states:

 

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.

 

Following HHJ Overend’s view, the agreement should make clear to the consumer, who is likely to be a lay man, what the credit limit is or how it will be determined. It is not possible to say with any certainty that the documents EGG have provided are clear, unambiguous or that a consumer would understand that the approved limit would be their credit limit.

 

An agreement cannot be enforced unless there is a term stating the credit limit, the term must be easily recognisable to the layperson as being a term setting out the credit limit (Egg agreements do not clearly set out a term stating the credit limit as required by schedule 6 col 2 para 3 SI1983/1553)

 

Secondly, the agreement fails to state the rate of interest for cash withdrawals.

 

The agreement only states an APR which is not sufficient for cash purchases as cash purchases includes a 1.25% handling fee which is included in the APR so it cannot be an accurate reflection of the rate of interest. Again a prescribed term is missing.

You will try to tell me that the missing information is set out within Egg’s terms and conditions, 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.

 

I would also bring your attention to; Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and Egg Agreements DO NOT

 

Finally,there is nothing regarding the 14 day cooling off period and the actual agreement says nothing about agreeing to the processing of my data through credit reference agencies.

 

I would also like to draw your attention the following which initially brought this account into dispute.

 

Condition 12 is not contained within the signed copy means it may not be part of the signed agreement. Notwithstanding this upon looking at condition 12 in the attached sheets this condition is headed ‘Changes’.

 

12 Changes – ‘we can change this Agreement to make it fairer to you or more easily understandable, or to correct a mistake (provided that this correction would not adversely affect you), or to cover a development in, or the introduction of, new services and new ways in which you can use the card or to reflect a change in the law or any code of practice (or the way in which they are applied). We may also at any time add a card fee and vary the charges and interest rates for the following reasons:

 

- to reflect a change in the law or any code of practice (or the way in which they are applied)

- to reflect a change in technology, to cover an improvement or change in our services or in the facilities that we provide;

-to ensure the good management or competitiveness of our business

-or for any other valid reason.’

 

12.1 refers to not altering the agreement to make it unfair. You then state the grounds which would give rise to changes in the interest rate. These grounds are to reflect a change in the law or any code of practice etc. etc. or for any other valid reason. You do not define ‘valid’ - taken in the context of your claim not to unfairly prejudice the customer in 12.1 it could be assumed interest rates will be altered and will follow decreases in the base rate.

 

12.2.1 refers to advantageous interest rates 12.2.2 refers to disadvantageous rates and provides that if all money is repaid and the account closed then the disadvantageous rate will not apply. This seems a peculiarly odd condition as how can any rate of interest apply if the sum is repaid?

 

 

However the ethos or basis of raising or lowering interest rates is contained in 12.1 and the reasons you give to vary interest would be if there is a change in market conditions or banking practice or changes in technology which improves the efficiency of the business, to ensure good management or competitiveness of the business or reflect changes in law or codes of practice. Ignoring any ‘other valid reason’ (as it is meaningless) the specific grounds for altering interest rates appear to be in improving competitiveness or reflect a change in market conditions etc thus the general implication is that they would be reduced wherever the opportunity arose in competing with others, in improving efficiency, and any legal or code of practice.

 

'Legal or banking’, ‘legal or code of practice’ implies that bank base rates are covered by this - interest thus following base rates – almost all downwards since 02.

 

Furthermore the reasons and grounds for altering interest rates seem to imply they will be under review wherever possible to the customers advantage e.g. if any efficiencies and competitiveness can bring such change about. The grounds do not state whether they will rise or fall and how, if, and when, only that they could vary. As you state you ‘will not alter the agreement to make it unfair’ it follows that your interest rates will follow bank base rates.

 

Thus from condition 12 that you have raised interest rates contrary to your own conditions and the principles of natural justice.

 

The inference I draw from this is that rates will generally be kept under review to ensure a competitive and efficient edge thus in an era of hugely declining interest rates being reduced if anything.

 

Therefore given the grounds for varying interest rates this rate should by condition 12 be lowered not raised to 26.9% and increase of 7% in the current economic climate. However your current and past interest rates have risen and thus contrary to any legal or code of practice.

 

The attempted right to unilaterally impose interest rate increases is contrary to natural justice. Audi alteram partem = let the other side be heard’ – nemo iudex in causa sua = no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause. The right to advance warning and procedural fairness.

 

These ancient legal principles still permeate the legal reasoning and jurisprudence today and recent examples of them at work include many reforms enacted to codify these principles hence the CCA 1974 and many other Acts.

That they still pertain in civil law is a safety net in the event of unscrupulous actions on the self interested part of others.

 

Taking all the above factors in consideration I would ask that you stop all collection activity for this account, and should reduce the balance to £0 to stop the balance from being passed to any further companies. As an agreement not containing the prescribed terms is only enforceable by a court, any further collection activity will be viewed as unlawful and may lead to legal action against Egg.

 

Also, I am asking you to remove all defaults issued on this account by you or your client which have been registered with ANY credit reference agency as is required by the Data Protection Act 1984, since these are obviously incorrect as no enforceable agreement exists between myself and Egg. Failure to remove these default notices will be seen as Egg being in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984, and will be reported to the relevant authorities.

 

I will give you 14 days to respond to this letter to confirm your intentions in regards to collection activity stopping and also the correction of incorrect data held about me. If I should not hear from you within the 14 day time period then I will advise my solicitor to begin legal proceedings against Egg. As well as making my complaint known to the Information Commissioners Office, the Financial Services Authority and any other parties as I see fit.

 

 

Scrapper Coco

Edited January 16, 2010 by Scrapper

[seriously fed up]

Did they actually produce a court claim, or just threaten this (in my experience there are two stages of this - "we will prepare", and "we are preparing"? What happens next I really dont know)

What you do set out about what happened between you and ARC and Trevor is pretty much exactly what happened to me. I went through (in rather less detail than your very impressive missive) much the same sort of argument (twice once in response to "we will..." and once in response to "we are ..."), and got a letter back from ARC saying they were reverting to their client for further instructions. That was in August last year and I havent heard from them since. My suspicion is that they are waiting for the decision in PT2537's case at Cardiff to see how that goes. Life could get a bit more difficult whichever way that goes - for them for us, or for us for them.

At the moment, anyone getting letters from Egg are being told that "it is a well accepted point of law that approved limit can be used instead of credit limit". The standard advice is to ask what their legal authority for this might be.

[stevehatesbankers]

Thanks sfu and Scrapper for you help. A solicitor told me it might be enforceable. Having read thousands of posts on here, I thought it would be unenforceable. Arc, Munn and Egg will be receiving their letters early next week

[mikexlr8]

Any update?

[stevehatesbankers]

Hi Mike, nothing yet but no doubt I will be receiving something soon.

[seriously fed up]

For what its worth, I wrote to them middle November and got a reply last week (had to look back through my own letters for this - I had forgotten). So on the basis that mine is typical, and you wrote to them in January Steve, it could well be May before you get anything from them

[stevehatesbankers]

Hi sfu. Was there anything significant in their response?

[seriously fed up]

Nothing new really.

 

1. They still maintain that approved limit is ok - i think they always will.
   
2. perhaps more interesting is that they refer to Carey and the argument there (para 178) that is the sig page and T&Cs are presetned as a package then that constitutes an agreement. However they are being a wee bit economical with the truth here. First of all 178 is where Waksman deals with the Carey case only - and thus those particular issues/ facts are what determines his view in this case. Its not a general statement that he is making here. Moreover, this judgement was a prelimnary judgement based on "assumed" facts (can someone tell me what an "assumed" fact is?) and is still to go to full trial, so its hardly complete. More interesting is para 173 (agreed by all sides in the case) which says "(5) Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form. (the emphasis is my own, but if I interpret this right then what is being said here isnt much more than "it depends"). So the certainty that Egg have placed on this does seem to me to be somewhat misconceived.
   
3. they have concluded their letter by advising me that i hae 6 months from the date of this letter to refer my "complaint" to the FOS - which as I would be (I know its not a court of law, but in effect) the pursuer puts the onus on to me - seems rather like a "go on punk, make my day!" sort of encouragement (btw, in passing, someone told me the other day that Clint Eastwood never actually said that in any of the Dirty Harry movies). Not sure exactly what they are getting at here, beyond why dont you go to the FOS. Is this a sort of subliminal confession that they arent going to take it to court and if I want them to stop sending me silly letters, or putting it out to DCAs (DLC and ARC so far) then I will need to get FOS to tell them to stop it (much chance of that!)
   

So, as I said, nothing really new. See what happens next