Barrowby -v- EGG

[barrowby]

Like many others on here, I have been treated like S*&T by the big financial institutions so I find myself fighting back rather than opening my legs for another kicking!

 

Right....feel better now!

 

Got a CC account with EGG and have had it since 2001. I stopped paying the minimum payment around August 2009 (downturn in work) but continued to pay at least 25% (say £100) of the min payment and still have up until end of May 2010.

 

I CCA'd them in March 2010 and received their version of my agreement back within the 12 day limit. Initially I was a little disappointed as i hoped to get nothing!!....but when i compared it to others on here, it became apparent that all was not lost.

 

This is what they sent me;

 

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac59/barrowby/EGG/EGGCCARequestReply1103101.jpg

 

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac59/barrowby/EGG/EGGCCARequestReply1103102.jpg

 

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac59/barrowby/EGG/EGGCCARequestReply1103103.jpg

 

They also included my latest T&C's but not the originals. Now I think that I am right to assume that the "agreement" is unenforceable on account of usual EGG problems. Unless anyone has other thoughts?

 

Due to working abroad, I did not send any form of Account in dispute letter to EGG, does this matter?

 

Well on the 1st June 2010, EGG issued me with a DN, sent 2nd class and received by me on the 7th June. It asks for the arrears and over limit amounts to be paid by 29th June 2010 (sorry, I am out of the office so cannot post a copy of the DN at the moment but I will later)

 

Is this normal for EGG to give such a long time to rectify the DN?....I also have a DN form MBNA and this is short by 2 days and this seems to be the norm for MBNA.

 

Has anyone else received a DN with this sort of time-scale on it?

 

Does this mean that the DN is lawful (I know that i have not posted it yet) and I would have to rely upon the CCA being unenforceable?

 

I suppose there is always the chance that EGG could have sold it before the (extended) time given on the notice...which (my understanding) would be unlawful recession?

 

Do I wait until they deadline passes (don't have the money to pay anyway) and then SAR EGG and if it is sold to a DCA...then I CCA them?

 

I have also been getting a call every other day from EGG asking me to contact them......Is this normal during a DN period?....I might be clutching at straws....but could this further hint that they know the agreement is unenforceable??

 

I know....loads of questions...but i would appreciate the help.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Mozz1]

I don't know but I think you are asking some very sensible questions and I hope someone comes along who can help you, man. I am in a similar boat with Egg and DCAs galore so all the best.

[barrowby]

Thanks Mozz1....I will sub to your thread.

[barrowby]

Bump......I just wondered if anyone else has experienced such a DN with such a long time to rectify?

 

Thanks

[gazab41]

have a look at gaz v egg

[barrowby]

Thanks Gaz...I will have a read later today.

 

Just thought that I would mention that I am getting daily calls (well messages) form Egg...all very polite (always found them to be so!) but just wondered if anyone else had experienced this?...

 

They send me a poor CCA.....give me a long DN....and call me every day?...are they worried about something??

 

Thanks

[gazab41]

I think they are. Mine has now been sold off.

I have had fun with mine for many years, dont belive i even had a default notice. I think pos had letter re termination about 5 years ago.

Delt with CSL for years and they kept asking for more cash eventualy I stoped paying them. it then bounced arround lots of dcas no access to online egg account until autum 2009 when it told me account had only just been opened so no details then got CCA very old and full of errors also sent me someone elses details then several leters from Activ kapital with a so called notice of assignment no details of account numbers sod all so am awaiting test case results.

[Mozz1]

Thanks Mozz1....I will sub to your thread.

 

As noted in that thread, I have just today received a coupla letters from CapQuest. The first returning my £1 and stating that I must write to EGG for a copy of the original agreement.

 

Their second letter said "This correspondence is our acknowledgment on the commitment you have made to this firm [CapQuest] to repay your account."

 

They then offered to accept 75% of the loan "with a special flag of partial settlement" on my credit file. They then threaten legal action if I don't keep up my regular repayments.

 

Presumably I now send EGG a CCA and £1 postal order.

 

Does anyone out there know if CapQuest have the right to sue me for the money? There is no apparent NOA and EGG appear to own the loan. Any ideas how I respond guys?

[barrowby]

Well, by way of an update!

 

I have had nothing form EGG (or anyone acting for them)...only a series of calls every day right up to the 29th June (this call told me that this was my last chance to contact them!) and more nothing since.

 

I am sure that I will get a letter hit the mat very soon but I wondered if anyone had any comments re one of my original points about the length of time given to me, prior to the proposed issue of a DN......has anyone else had this?....is this common practice for EGG?

 

Thanks

[Mozz1]

Dude, I can't remember...mine was so long ago now.

 

Just make sure you put your account in dispute because they haven't replied to your SAR. That puts them in breach of the Act. Certainly your CCA has "Approved" not "Credit" Limit and that means they can do 'owt until the Cardiff test case is settled.

 

Did you CCA any DMC that became involved? Your OP suggested that this might happen?

 

Also, complain about them to Consumer Duirect and your local Trading Standards Office that they have ignored your SAR and are in breach of the stat requirements. Consumer Direct are emailed and they will then probably refer it to Trading Standards, which is what they have to my complaint.

 

I am now sending Egg and CrappyQuest with letters all the time as it makes me feel grrrrreat!

 

They can't take you to court or insist on payments while your account is in dispute (so I am led to believe on CAG).

 

Hopefully, in the meantime, someone will come along with the specific answers you need mate.

 

Also, try adding a link to this thread on one of the more popular Eggy threads?

[barrowby]

Thanks Mozz1

 

I have not yet SAR'd them.....I have only received a copy of the alleged agreement via a CCA request but I did not put the account in dispute prior to getting a DN issued.

 

Can I now put the account in dispute even though they have issued a DN? (not checked to see if it is on my credit record yet)

 

Thanks

[Mozz1]

Can I now put the account in dispute even though they have issued a DN? (not checked to see if it is on my credit record yet)

 

Yes, you can dispute an account at any point. Then stop paying them until the dispute is dealt with.

 

They have sent a CCA though, so you can't use non-delivery of that as an excuse. But looking at your OP you have one of the "Approved Limit" agreements and there is that test case going on. Put your account in dispute on the basis that you do not think the wording "Approved Limit" means the same thing as "Credit Limit" blah blah. You don't know what it means and feel the contract is defective and you are aware of a challenge to it in the courts. See the thread about this case and read up on it. The case may well go against the debtor and even if it doesn't Egg will appeal, but you have a good excuse,while that's being heard, to dispute the account...

 

You should request your SAR now as well. They have 40 days to get you the info. If they don't then they are in breach of legislation and you can dispute that as well.

 

As far as your DN is concerned, I don't know enough about that yet. Maybe put a link to this thread on the defective default notices thread?

[exasperated]

Hi Barrowby,

Use the standard account in dispute letter from this site or you can use the one me,SFU and other caggers made up as below. If you use the standard letter they will simply write back asking why you consider it so. The one below kills two birds with one stone(and hopefully the EGGS)

Just remove the wording in RED as it is put there to advise you and is not meant to be sent to EGG:

 

Dear Egg,

 

I REFER TO MY CCA REQUEST

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

You have provided me a copy of a cca and I feel it is my duty to draw your attention to some serious flaws and I state why THE ACCOUNT IS IN DISPUTE...

 

 

• The word Approved Limit is used, which is insufficient to advise me 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:
  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.
   
  Following HHJ Overend’s view, the agreement should make clear to the consumer, 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 approved limit would be their credit limit.
  
• You may also wish to consider other relevant case law to running credit agreements in particular:
  1. Wilson v Hurstanger, where LJ Tuckey makes clear that the prescribed terms MUST be there; (I would be inclined here to go to the case – you should be able to find it quite easily with a Google search – and actually quote a relevant section of Tuckey’s judgement)
     
  2. Wilson v First County Trust where Sir Andrew Morrit says that if the creditor got it wrong the money must be a gift.
     
  3. Wilson v Secy of State for Trade and Industry where it is stated: Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 paras 4 & 71confirms that errors in the prescribed terms preclude a court from making an enforcement order and that Parliament expressly intended that such errors should render credit agreements unenforceable. At para 49 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated
     “The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan… when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear"
     

  [*]The agreements fail to state the rate of interest for cash withdrawals. From what I have seen 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

  [*]The heading of you credit agreements is worded in contravention of the Consumer Credit Act Regulations 1983 (1983/1553) section 2, paragraph 4, which states:

   

  “Subject to paragraphs (5) and (9) below, the information, statements of the protection and remedies, signature and separate boxes which this regulation requires documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements to contain, shall be set out in the order given by paragraphs (a) to (f) below under, where applicable, the headings specified below--

  (a) the nature of the agreement as set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations;”

If we look at paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, this makes clear that the order of presentation required by paragraph 4 of section 2 requires the agreement to be headed "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974". The document you have sent to me quite clearly fails to do this.

 

• Also it is worth noting that, Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and your Agreements DO NOT
  

Finally you will purport that the missing information is set out within your terms and conditions, for which I have to inform you 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

[barrowby]

Big thanks to both Mozz1 & exasperated.....your comments taken on board.

 

I thought that if a DN had been issued by the OC then I could not dipsute it with them and had to wait for it to be sold on.....then start all over again with a CCA request.

 

Today i received form EGG a letter (will be able to scan later if anyone feels it is worth seeing) which basically terminates my agreement and askes me to cut up and return my card.....funny thing is that my card ran out earlier this year and they wrote to me them stating that they would not issue me with a new card as i was in arrears!

 

They also stated that the account would be passed to a DCA who would be in touch with me within 10 days. Should i get the account in dispute letter off now to EGG before they transfer/sell the debt?....or wait to see who they pass it to?

 

I also have a similar issue with an MBNA account http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/261009-mbna-so-where-do.html and whilst reading back over the letters form both EGG and MBNA it always seems like EGG are more serious (i.e no mention of short settlements etc) and MBNA are a little more casual (i.e give us a call and we can sort it out...we might have a deal if you give us a call etc)

 

Is this just how i am reading this?...or does anyone else share the same thoughts?

 

Thanks to all who have read and commented on my threads.

 

Barrowby

[Mozz1]

yes put dispute in now and pre-date it before their termination letter date. enclose a copy of and make reference to an earlier dispute letter you sent them by ordinary post but they clearly didn't receive.

 

when DCA low lifes contact you tell them your account with egg is in dispute and they can't enforce the debt while this is the case

[exasperated]

Re MBNA have you requested and received your CCA? if so could you post on here minus all the identifying details.

MBNA will settle as I had two accounts with them and they gave me a significant discount. Your discount will be based on the enforceability of your CCA which we need to see

[barrowby]

exsasperated......thanks for the reply

 

See post 1 of this thread.......I look forward to your comments.

 

Thanks

[exasperated]

Barrowby,

Thats the EGG agreemeent which we have dealt with in Post 13. I wanted to see the CCA from the MBNA account to ascertain its enforceability.

[barrowby]

Sorry exasperated....It is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/261009-mbna-so-where-do.html at post 1

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Thanks

[exasperated]

Re MBNA,

IMO that was the application you filled in to apply for the credit card and therefore not a CCA. Hopefully one of the site team will confirm this. I have read your thread and it depends what you want to do, as DX said although the agreement maybe unenforceable the debt does still exist and although you will follow the procedures they will more than likely hassle you despite the agreement being unenforceable. So it is up to you and your finanacial position as to whether you offer them an f&f BUT I WOULD BE INCLINED TO DO THAT IF YOU ARE ABLE, but others will disagree. I also would send the dispute letter as it does put you in a position where they cannot pass the account to a third party and some of those DCA's are a real nuisance. If you are able to settle and want to go down that road offer them less at first. e.g. if your maximum is 35% of the debt offer them 25%, MBNA settled for 35% with me.

Here is a letter I would suggest to you to send to MBNA., but remember you need to read and edit anything not applicable to you and anything you are not happy with.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in dispute .

 

On xx/xx/2009 I wrote to xxxxxxxxx requesting that xxxxxxx supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account.

In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection.

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I refer to page 5 of the guidance which states;

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment.

 

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

 

 

I trust this out lines the situation

 

Print name do not sign

[barrowby]

Thanks exasperated for you comments re MBNA (not sure if any of the site team can move this post to my MBNA thread....so as not to confuse others...well ok...me!) I can then reply in context.

 

Re EGG...I have had a letter from DLC (Direct Legal & Collections).....Not had a chance to read or scan yet....but usual pay in 14 days or else.

 

Can anyone offer any advise re DLC....any live cases that I should be reading?

 

Thanks

[Dotty50]

I am dealing with dlc (Hillesdens Securities) have a look at my MBNA ex HFC thread

[barrowby]

Thanks Dotty...I will have a read after dinner!

 

I sent EGG an account in dipute letter on 14th July and got a polite letter back from EGG saying that they are looking into my complaint...and that they are soory that i had to write to them!!...anyway...they are going to come back to me. Interesting, they say that I can go online and check out my account and loads of other great EGG type things....I have not tried to access my acc online.....but does this mean that they have not terminated my account? (just a thought!)

 

On 22nd Juy, I received another letter from dlc..more threats...CCJ...visit to your home etc.. Shall I send them a copy of my account in dispute letter and EGG's reply...hoping that this might cool their heels?

 

Should I send a SAR to EGG now....or wait until they sell it off?

 

Thanks to all

[The Debt Star]

Your account is in dispute. DLC are in breach of the 2003 OFT Guidance (and draft 2010 OFT Guidelines) in writing to you.

 

Send a letter by signed for post to DLC threatening to report them to the OFT and FOS if they continue. Tell them you will report them to the police or harrassment if they do and further that you want your letter to be treated as a formal complaint and demand it is shown to their compliance officer.

 

cc Egg in on all of this and say that unless they call off their dogs you will report them to the OFT and FOS as well.

[barrowby]

Thanks Debt Star (Great name!!)

 

I was thinking of sending them (dlc) a letter to put them on notice and will do so...stressing the points that you raised.

 

I have today received about 10 "private" calls with no messages....could be them...might not be...but would fit the profile.

 

The letter should deal with this and stop any thoughts of "door knocking me"...if this is a practice that dlc take part in....anyone have experience of this???