Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Lutz,   Go ahead with the new account.   As I said already, the bank will probably do and say nothing to help you for the next few weeks so make whatever other arrangements you can.
    • I don't think that you have told us when you bought the car. However, you have referred to a conversation in which they apparently told you that the MOT had been carried out on 11 November so that suggests to me that you bought it after that date. Although it seems as if you are dealing with quite a dodgy crowd, you may as well go through the paces of asserting your proper rights. Because you have discovered this issue within the first 30 days – you can add to the strength of your position by sending them a letter asserting a right to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act. If a car manifests a defect within the first 30 days then you are entitled to reject it out of hand with no chance of repair but you must assert your right in writing. Send them a letter immediately – recorded delivery – informing them that you are rejecting the vehicle and telling them on what grounds and say that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act. It won't make a whole lot of difference, but later on if you find yourself having to take court action, then it will all help. Please let us know when you have had the AA check. Meanwhile, I suggest that you contact me at our admin email address and let me know the identity of the garage and any other identity clues that you have unearthed. It may enable us to give you additional help
    • Assuming you're correct about the limitation running from the last date of deferral. The last deferral was in 2013 so the statute barring period would end on 31 August 2019, the money claim was made on 3rd June 2019 so is within the limitation period. Therefore the debt is not statute barred.
    • I agree with my site team colleague @slick132 but with variations. These people have been leading you around and causing you serious harm in terms of the amount of effort that you have been put to as well as the damage to your credit file. You have been given all sorts of different stories and also been misled by them as to their statutory obligations in respect of data disclosures. It has taken the issue of court claim to get them to make any move. You have taken control of the situation and it is you who has the whip hand at the moment. They are now proposing to telephone you to discuss the matter in some way – but you have no idea. Also, you have no idea who you are going to be speaking to and whether they have authority to commit Virgin to anything at all. If you agree to this phone call then you are at risk of handing control back to them because they will partly ask you to withdraw the action and they will also offer to make a payment as a "gesture of goodwill". Now that you have attracted their attention and they realise that something needs to be taken seriously, I don't think you should let go of the initiative. Please can you post up the email which you received from them. Who was it from and what is that person's role within the company. I think you should write to them and refuse the call and tell them that you are happy to discuss matters but you will want to know what it is they think they have to discuss and who will it be who will be phoning you – and will that person has any authority to make decisions. Tell them that you want an agenda and it should be treated like a telephone meeting. I think you should also emphasise to virgin that they are already in breach of their statutory duty. That if they decide to file a defence that they will have to sign it is a statement of truth subject to a sanction for contempt of court and that as they are clearly in breach of their statutory obligations, it would not be possible for them to sign off such a statement of truth and if they do, then you will bring the whole thing to the attention of the court and invite the court to express their own opinion on the matter. I think it's very important that they tell you in advance what they propose to discuss. I think you should tell them that if they're not prepared to disclose the purpose of their phone call and the points that they intend to cover and if the phone call is not made by somebody at a suitably elevated managerial level, then you are not prepared to discuss the matter. I'm afraid that I'm struck by the naïveté of this statement which I suppose is intended to be assertive.   Haven't we reached a point yet where you understand that you can't trust these people and although you may discuss various things on the telephone, if they then are required to minute the conversation and provide you with the resume of the conversation, you are handing them carte blanche to present the conversation in a way that suits them together with nuances included or removed, and generally slanted in their favour. They might not – but you are certainly opening up the possibilities and if that's what they do, how are you going to counter them and say that they have not correctly recorded what you discussed and agreed? You seem to be doing everything you can to keep on handing the baton back to Virgin. I have no idea why. You should not get involved in any telephone conversation unless you have first read our customer services guide and you are recording the call for your own benefit. If you cannot do this or you are not prepared to do this then don't take the call at all. Please will you post up the email that you have received, let me have your comments on what I've posted here and if you agree we will draft a response. You might like to start. Apparently they are proposing to telephone today and so we need to get a move on. If they happen to telephone before you have received a written reply to your message, then you should simply tell the caller that you are still waiting for their response to the email which you sent a little while earlier and you're not prepared to discuss anything until you have their written reply to that.
  • Our picks

Egg respond at last! what next???


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3751 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

Dear all,

 

I've been following other threads on here as I've been in the same situation so didn't want to repeat. Like others I received my CCA and I sent them this letter:

 

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.

 

then with the usual stuff below!

Their response is here: Egg pictures by njohns78 - Photobucket

 

any advice on what I should do next is appreciated. I am consious that it took them about 2 1/2 months to reply to this - in their defence they did send me regular letters telling me they were still looking into it.

Thanks in advance.

 

NGJ78

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get the bad news out the way. They are correct about the heading - the regs do actually require this, but only in agreements since 2005. Re the default fees - either they are there or they are not. However, the key one on your list is the approved limit because if the prescribed terms (of which credit limit is one) arent right, then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. In respect of Approved limit" think its interesting that they use this form of words

"Approved limit is specifically defined in term 1.3 of the terms and conditions of your agreement as the amount you can borrow from time to time".

As well as falling foul of

 

  1. the point that NOWHERE in the Act or the Regs is there a reference to Approved limit (its ALWAYS credit limit), so it can be argued a prescribed term is missing
  2. the way they seem to be trying to "rescue" this is by pointing to the definition in the T&Cs. BUT, the problem thery are going to have here is the distinction between "contained" and "embodied". S61 (1)(a) is quite clear that the prescribed terms MUST be "contained" in the sig document. Other terms may be embodied in the T&Cs, but not the prescribed terms.

They may well be right that neither the Act nor the Regs require the use a particular phrase to describe credit limit. But, at the same time, its verifiable that the only phrase used to describe credit limit in the Act or in the Regs is "credit limit". It can also be argued that Approved Limit lacks clarity - exactly what sort of limit is that they are approving (number of transactions in a day/ maximum transaction value etc). Which takes us back to the assertion that its defined in the T&Cs - but it cannot be defined in the T&Cs - it MUST be contained clearly and unambiguously in the sig document. LJ Say's quote may be from a case which did not involve credit cards, but the fact is that he is talking here about credit in a general way, and is quite unambiguous in his requirement of clarity. I'm not sure how much more clarity there is if you look in the T&Cs - to be any good to Egg this clarification would have to be in the sig doc.

So, this looks to me to pose them the difficulty that either their agreement falls on the basis of (1) that Approved limit is not sufficiently clear of and by itself (there are other letters where they suggest that Approved limit is quite clear and widely used in law, which is of course complete nonsense, as they realised themselves back about 2006 when they gave up talking about Approved Limit and substituted credit limit) OR they suggest that approved limit is defined elsewhere (embodied in the T&Cs) but that's not good enough either because it has to be defined (contained) in the signature document

This one looks to me to have the potential to tie Egg in knots (if you can tie an Egg in knots - an omelette maybe? :p) for quite some time.

However, that's not what you asked is it? Basically your problem is that they will NEVER agree with anything you say except "here's a cheque for what you say I owe you". Basically you need to concoct a letter which says that their use of Approved limit screws them every which way.

Edited by seriously fed up
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

A long, long overdue update on this is that I've fallen about 5 months behind on payments, because I'm struggling financially.

Yesterday, when I was out with the family, a debt collector called at my house and left a letter instructing I call Egg, I had been avoiding their calls for a while now.

What has wound me up most is that he knocked on a neighbours door asking if I lived here - I know that as she told me "someone knocked on my looking for me".

 

Is this really allowed??

 

Advice appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they have advised that a debt collector might call, there is a letter on here tellling them not to. Would they still do it? Well they might, as they pretty much do as they please and tbh there is no real come-back.

Strictly they should, I think, make an appointment for a debt collector to call - this is when you should send the "dont bother letter". This is in the OFT guidance. It says (para 2.12 g) it an unfair practice is "not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit" , but then goes on to say in a footnote "When a door-to-door debt collector makes an initial home visit to a debtor it may not always be possible for them to give adequate notice of the time and date of that visit. This is not necessarily unfair. The key word is adequate. This was inserted to ensure that what the debtor regarded as adequate was key." So if this was a first visit they would probably wriggle out on the footnote - but having had them darken your door once, they should offer adequate notice, and you can got to the letter file and send them the "dont bother" letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but are they allowed to knock on a neighbours door asking for me? I also believe that they gave the letter saying they had called to my neighbour - which she subsequently just put through our door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to respond 'Seriously Fed Up'. Expected that to be the case (unfortunately). Don't think I'll waste the time to take the matter any further!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...