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
      • 162 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

EGG Complaint - 1st reply


ANNALH
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1967 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 everyone,

 

I wrote to Egg on the 19th March, also emailed them through their messaging service.

 

Gave them 7 days to refund charges of £120. Had 2 replies by email basically saying the charges are not unlawful and they will not be upholding my complaint. Had 1st letter today (25th) basically saying the same thing and telling me I have 6 months to complain to the Financial Ombudsman if I want to!

 

Tomorrow is D-Day for them so I will be onto MCOL filing a claim as Sunday is a no-post day so do not expect to receive anything.

 

Will keep you updated.

 

Anna

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANNALH - Don't forget the Letter Before Action.

If you found this post useful, please click on the "scales" icon in the bottom left of my post and say so!

 

The opinions of this post are those of monkey_uk and do not constitute sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

--

 

Halifax Unlawful Bank Charges: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent 28/02/07 - CC Statement's rcv'd 18/04/07 Bank a/c statements rcv'd 19/04/07

 

 

 

First Direct Unlawful Bank Charges: Settled in Full 12/05/06 | £2235.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Hello,

 

Filed a claim against egg on 1st April and have just received a copy of their defence.

 

Basically it states...

 

Claimant went over limit on such and such occasions, they signed terms and conditions to say we could charge him £20 each time....it is denied that these charges are a disproportionate penalty....denied charges are unenforceable at common law....COUNTERCLAIM...in the event the court finds the default charged levied on the claimant was an unfair penalty and thus unenforceable the defendant counterclaims for the actual cost to the defendant of dealing with the claimants breach of contract in exceeding his credit limit.

 

 

Is this normal practice??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is interesting. Infact that is very interesting. One question - it sound very 'out of box' thinking. Can you take a look at the claim form and who has signed it? Are they signed are 'solicitor' 'legal advisor' or 'counsel'?

 

Before I advise you further....

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

David St Clare Nelson; Treasury counsel. They are in house barristers to Egg banking. I thought it sounded a bit too......imaginative for a solicitor. What there not expecting a reply to defence of similar guile!

 

I'd like to ask you to type out word for word and lay it out like they have and I'll write you a reply to file at court - see if we can't hit back!

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

 

Thats why I've asked to see the whole defence. You reply is the very logical argument that makes there defence most illogical. However, Barristers are a very cautious breed and the Egg inhouse team are not stupid. So my first reaction is what have they got up their sleeve or is this just a 'tactic' to scare.

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is an unusual defence - but if they go ahead it could be very interesting.

 

It could have been drafted by someone who doesn't really understand the issues or someone not very experienced. It might only have been signed off by the counsel.

 

As far as providing the basis for their counterclaim - yes they will have to disclose any documents they intend to rely upon before the hearing.

 

I don't see any basis so far for saying that they are being tricky here. Looks more like a foul up to me.

They will realise at some point and this will be one which isn't going to court.

 

Could we have a scan, please - [email protected]

I'll make sure that a copy gets to Maxie.

 

I think that this may be the first defence anyone has received from egg.

How much are you claiming, by the way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just explain (for those who haven't spotted it) why this is a very odd action by Egg.

 

In order for the Judge to even consider their counter-claim, he must have access to all of the information - the law states that they can reasonably recover their costs from a defaulter... so some of the information the Judge will need is a breakdown of their genuine costs for each type of charge being considered. They will have to be genuine; for instance if the costs for all the different types of charge added up to around £12 it would look extremely suspicious. Further to this they would have to demonstrate that each individual charge was manually dealt with; any evidence of automated processes would suggest that the charge was a standard automatic response to given account conditions as opposed to a "genuine pre-estimate of cost". Automatic responses are extremely cheap per transaction and involve (expensive) human input only when they're challenged.

 

The reason it's unlikely to happen is that no bank has EVER released details of either it's charging process or a detailed breakdown of it's costs for dealing with default... citing their contention that it's extremely sensitive commercial information. Personally I think that's bullshine - all charging should IMO be completely transparent.

 

 

So - THAT's why it's unlikely to ever come to court; their counter-claim is simply an attempt to intimidate you. I would lay odds that someone will try to call and tell you that you can avoid this "unpleasantness" by accepting . Refuse to discuss it with them except in writing, as per Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The reason it's unlikely to happen is that no bank has EVER released details of either it's charging process or a detailed breakdown of it's costs for dealing with default... citing their contention that it's extremely sensitive commercial information."

 

You're right there. i was reading somethgin the other day about them not providing information - it was either to the OFT or DTI.

 

If they really did provide this it would completely stuff up all the other finance companies, by effectively removing any defence they have, plus deeming any future charges to have to meet the true costs.

The OFT ruling would be way off the mark and pretty useless, the £12 being proved to be way too high.

 

I so hope they try the counterclaim but I severely doubt it. I agree it mus be a mistake unless they think they can use the OFT ruling to counterclaim without proving true costs.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

I agree with Alan here, and indeed everyone else on this thread. One crucial thing though, did you request evidence of manual intervention as part of your DPA request?

 

If you did, and they sent none, then this is an IC issue, as well as something for which the judge would not look favourably on them.

 

If you did, and they sent some evidence (not likely) then you may have an obstacle.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not need a DPA as i knew exactly what they charged me.

 

Yes, but you aren't aware of any manual intervention that may have ocurred as this is part of the DPA request.

 

However, it is highly unlikely that this will come into it as I haven't heard of any DPA requests coming back with evidence of this and if they claimed it in court they would have to back it up anyway.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this and realised something. I think that they maybe will go to court, but have put in the counterclaim in case they lose. Therefore, if they lose at least they can then claim back their actual costs, however small. If they lose in court it's going to open the doors for everyone else so maybe they're just preparing for the worst. However, it would still be better for them to not counterclaim and keep the costs private. This way they would only have to refund people who find out about this, which in comparison to their total customer base will be relatively low. 1300 members here? and how many have Egg cards with charges? Not many. Of course, a successful court claim would be publicised so maybe not.:confused:

 

I don't know - just a thought really. I agree with BF that it will probably not go to court, but others appear to be getting the same counterclaim which kind of disproves the one-off mistake theory.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it now:

 

Egg: We counterclaim for our costs in providing these "services" of bouncing cheques etc

 

Judge: Will you tell me your exact costs broken down for each type of default?

 

Egg: Ahhh - no, sorry, those are sensitive commercial information. We can give you the total for each type of default: they're all £12 each.

 

Judge: **BANG** NEXT!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, have also received a counterclaim from them today, signed by the same person. How are you handling it, any advice please?

Woolwich won in court/default removed Barclaycard Settled Halifax settled

Capital 1Settled GE Money Settled

Egg Settled-court action re.default 4th hearing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again....howz it going with the counterclaim? LOL luv to know as i've got one also.

Woolwich won in court/default removed Barclaycard Settled Halifax settled

Capital 1Settled GE Money Settled

Egg Settled-court action re.default 4th hearing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can with 30 days notice - however, I would complain to the FSA over this as it is a result of you challenging Egg over the legality of their penalty charges, which the OFT have already indicated are likely to be unlawful.

 

Under the Banking Code they also should be flexible over the repayment if it would cause hardship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this is one of the possible responses that the banks may try to use as a punitive response which is why parachute accounts are recommended. :mad:

 

However as Alan mentioned it is possible that this is against the banking codes.There was a thread around about this but can't remember where exactly ! And they certainly can't demand it back from you immediately...

 

You don't seem to have let everyone know how you got on with their counterclaim... :confused:

If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.:D

 

DO YOU HAVE A WEBSITE AND WANT TO PROVIDE A VALUABLE LINK TO THIS FORUM ? Go to this thread:-http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=52854

 

As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment.

Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1967 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...