EGG PPI REclaim - folded before court- **WON**

[floricita]

Hi there.

 

I started a claim which is still in process with EGG over credit card charges.

 

when I recieved my statements from SARS request I noticed that I have been paying PPI monthly payments since 2 months after the account was opened in 2005. (if i'd been more observant I would have noticed this earlier I know!)

 

I didn't even know what PPI was let alone need it. So I looked it up on the internet and found out what it was. I then phoned up EGG and cancelled the policy.

 

since then I have recieved a letter from EGG saying that I may have been misold an EGG PPI policy.

 

I have also read that people have claimed this back.

 

Now I have got a template letter for this and I'm not sure what reasons to putas to why I am claiming it back.

 

the possible reasons on the template letter are.

 

"( List the reasons that actually apply to you and delete the others that do not apply to you ).

 

• The PPI was added without my knowledge.

• I believed that the PPI was compulsory.

• I was never informed that this PPI is only optional.

• The PPI policy exclusions were never properly explained, so I was unable to make an informed decision as to whether this insurance was required or not.

• I was never informed that if PPI was required I could purchase it elsewhere.

• I was informed that I would have a better chance of getting the account if PPI was included.

• I was led to believe that my application would have been rejected had I not included the PPI.

• It was never explained that there are exclusions within the PPI policy clauses that could seriously affect any claim I made.

• This PPI was unsuitable for myself because I was, and continue to be, in receipt of benefits for (name of benefit).

• I was never made aware of any exclusions which related to pre-existing or on-going medical problems at the time of purchasing the PPI.

• I was not asked whether I already had any existing (insurance / employer cover/benefits) that would cover the repayments.

• It was never explained that there are restrictions for the (unemployed / self-employed / retired / certain age groups) of which I fall into."

the reason whyI don't know the reason is because I don't have a clue how it was sold to me.

Nothing was sent in the SARS request regarding PPI, except for on one of the phone logs it says "CPR agreed"-I'm not sure if CPR is the PPI but it seems to align itself with the dates that it was set up.

It certainly wasn't set up at the time of opening the account because payments started later.

So i'm not sure if this is something they did automatically on my account or they tricked me into getting this on the phone. I don't remember any phonecall about it but then again it was quite a few years ago.

any advice on what reasons I should put would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

[firstship]

Nice of Egg to tell you PPI might have been mis-sold,of course it was ..............send a letter claiming the PPI was mis-sold as"The PPI exclusions where never explained to me" and further I was not asked whether I already had existing cover,that will suffice.....There are stickies on the site covering PPI in depth and how to work out the amount you have paid and the interest you can claim back,if you do not understand the same,we can help you through the process...............FS

[floricita]

Thanks a lot.

 

I have done a total + interest and it adds up to £208 which is nearly the total I owe them.

 

So it is ok to stick to those reasons, even though it may well have been the case that they put it on without me knowing?

 

they haven't got a contract for it either.

 

I also just found out that I have been paying PPI on my barclay card, 1 yearly payment. And the cheeky thing with this one is when I did a SARS request, they didn't include charges for PPI, just "penalty charges" for my credit card, so that was quite hard to notice. I phoned them up and the guy said I have been paying it since my account's inception and it was about £25/year x5 years.

[firstship]

Floricita.............£208 does not seem very much since 2005,I appreciate you have not to date posted any figures,before you send the claim of post up how you arrived at the amount..............The reasons for claiming mis-sold,I have used are those that I have used with success,the SAR you requested should have produced an agreement for the CC plus a PPI agreement,did they produce either??????????You have Barclaycard PPI as well going back 5 years,I assume you have details of all payments through your statements,chase this mis-sold PPI as well, principals the same as Egg.............by the way stop phoning.only deal with these matters in writing..............FS

[floricita]

Thanks for the reply.

 

The egg payments averaged around £4/month, so I added all these up and used the 8% interest calculator.

 

what I got with the SARS, was the CC agreement which was signed all statements, but nothing at allregarding a PPI.

 

the only thing I can link to a PPI is a telephone log, which says "CPR agreed", but I don't know if this is meant to be the PPI although this was from around the date the ppi was applied.

 

Barclays-the info they sent again nothing about PPI and the statements they sent were a list of charges oppossed to actual statements. So I will have to scan through the statements I have and ask for the others. Bit annoying as i've already paid them £10 already

 

any further advice would be appreciated

[firstship]

OK...........method for PPI refund plus interest seems sound.........if you want to add "there is no PPI agreement" as well to your claim should be fine.............Barclaycard are a law unto themselves,they are superb at ignoring OFT guidelines.........you have sent an SAR.. demand 6 years of statements,a copy of the signed agreement,a copy of the PPI agreement and all other data they hold about you,they are required to supply this information,when you put a SAR into any company be specific as to what you require,if you did not do this especially with Barclaycard,they will cut corners and not comply in full,you can refer back to the SAR and ask for those items they have omitted(do not have to pay again).get all the information and make the mis-sold PPI claim................FS......................IT IS POSSIBLE THE SITE TEAM WOULD PREFER A SEPARATE THREAD FOR THE BARCLAYCARD PPI............they will post this up if required

Edited September 28, 2010 by firstship
additional line

[floricita]

thanks for your help.

 

I will; post up the letter that I will send to egg today.

 

Then I will try and make a start on the barclays one.

[floricita]

Ok this is the final letter.

 

Be great if could give it the once over to make sure it is ok before I send it off

 

"

29th September 2010

 

 

Dear Sirs,

Account number:

I am writing in relation to the Payment Protection Insurance policy (PPI) applied to the above account which I believe was mis-sold to me. This PPI was added to the Credit card.

 

During the sales process, you made no attempt to explain if this policy was entirely suitable for my own circumstances, let alone define if it was actually required at all. I am now fully aware that this PPI policy is without doubt surplus to my requirements. There is indeed no existing agreement for this policy either.

I have recently become aware of the mis-selling of PPI policies and I have knowledge of the recent investigations into PPI by the Citizens Advice Bureau, Competition Commission, Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading. I believe you have not treated me fairly for the following reasons:

 

 

• The PPI was added without my knowledge.

• The PPI policy exclusions were never properly explained, so I was unable to make an informed decision as to whether this insurance was required or not

• I was never made aware of any exclusions which related to pre-existing or on-going medical problems at the time of purchasing the PPI.

• I was not asked whether I already had any existing (insurance / employer cover/benefits) that would cover the repayments.

• There was never any agreed contract for the policy

 

 

Unless you can prove without doubt that this policy is fair, reasonable and suitable for my needs, I demand to be placed back into the position I would have been had this PPI policy not been included. In line with the FOS recommendations it is requested that the overall situation be restored as if PPI had never been included. I will therefore demand a full refund of all of my paid PPI premiums plus 8% interest from 02/01/2006 to 29/09/10 which amounts to £220.87 (see attached schedule).

 

I look forward to your full and prompt response to this letter. However, if this matter is not settled favourably to myself within eight weeks of this letter I shall be contacting the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate my complaint and I give you fair warning that I will not hesitate in taking the matter to the Courts if so required.

[firstship]

Floricita..................letter fine,covers all the points.............You could amend this same letter for `Barclaycard,once you have sorted out what the refund should be from them............good luck.............FS.............................one thought it is possible to add contractual interest,however in this instance and the small amount involved the PPI refund will more or less cover the outstanding balance,if you are OK with the 8% then go ahead................FS

Edited September 29, 2010 by firstship
missed out line

[floricita]

Right yesterday i recieved a letter saying they would look into it etc and will take 8 weeks.

 

Today recieved another letter

 

"After carrying out a review on your complaint regarding PPI, I can find no evidence to support your claim that the policy has been mis-sold. However as a gesture of goodwill, I would like to offer a full refund of all premiums charged + interest at 8%.

 

the total amount is £222.15" etc etc

 

Hmmm so they are returning the money for nothing!!!

 

Well I can't complain, surprised it was so quick too!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Barclay sent today.

[firstship]

Floricita.................A result from BC,.......not the full amount.......however you must make the decision,for what its worth,the fight for the smallish balance is it worth it...I think not............good luck........pleased I could help..................FS

[floricita]

Hi there, I am currently in dispute with EGG and would welcome comments and advice.

 

It has now got to the stage where I have submitted a claim in court and recieved a response

 

So I received a notice of issue from the court. I then yesterday recieved a letter from shoosmith sols saying they encloe Notice of acting and an acknowledgement of service. On the form it states that they intend to defend part of the claim.

 

I was wondering if I have to do anything next or just wait for the defence?

 

Does anyone have any experience with EGG and know whether this is a scare tactic or whether there is a possibilty that they might fold beforehand?

 

Is it possible for someone to gander the POC and see how tight it is?

 

Thank you

 

The POC used were as follows.

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around 12/07/2004, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no ( The Account).

 

2.“The Agreement” essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

 

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to maintain payments and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a). A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and or

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

 

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

© The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment by the due date as notified in the monthly statements. The minimum payment was 2% of the outstanding balance or £5 which ever was the greatest.

(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, failed to meet payments or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £16.

 

Penalty

 

9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

 

12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

 

(1)The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

(2)The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.

 

(3)The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

 

(4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

 

(5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

(6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

(7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

 

15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters.

 

(1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

(2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

(3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the published tariff of charges.

 

16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totaling some £between 28/09/2006 and 17/11/2010. Particulars appear from Schedule 2.

 

18. On 06/11/2009 and again on around 08/10/2010 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

19.The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

And the Claimant claims:

 

(1) A declaration that the sums totaling £ have wrongly been applied to the Account

 

(2) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charge to date in the sum of

 

(4) Court costs of

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 2 pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

Signed

[floricita]

Right just received an offer via something called Tomlin order which has the most bizarre t&cs in it.

[maroondevo52]

Thread moved to Legal Issues.

[Ganymede]

Right just received an offer via something called Tomlin order which has the most bizarre t&cs in it.

 

 

 

Can you type it/scan it so we can see the details?

[floricita]

I would do, but it says on there that i'm not allowed to disclose or discuss the terms otherwise I will face a penalty

As I said bizarre!

Edited April 11, 2011 by floricita
ed

[floricita]

If I want to reject it, do I basically just write back and say no thanks, or is there some legal jargon I should add?

[Ganymede]

If I want to reject it, do I basically just write back and say no thanks, or is there some legal jargon I should add?

 

 

 

Yeah, or you could try and amend it with more favourable terms and ask if the Claimant will accept it...

[spamheed]

If they feel that your action will highlight their organisation, its policies, practices or procedures in anything akin to an unlawful or unflattering light, they will attempt to buy you off and apply a gagging order to the agreement.

 

Basically, we will let you off the hook, pay you £xxxx to go away and you8 must not discuss this action with any third party.

 

If the terms of this gagging order remove your liability, then it would seem to be in your best interests to agree and get them to go away, make sure everything is documented carefully and is binding before you enter into any such agreement

[floricita]

To be honest I haven't a proper clue as to what this order means.

 

What I do know is that the t&cs are not agreeable for me, so i'm just going to reject it, but would like to do so in a professional manner if possible.

 

Should I write in the letter what t&cs I would like or just say no thanks this is not acceptable.??

[spamheed]

There is nothing to prevent you from trying to comprimise, the chances of them getting a reasonable agreement sorted at the first try are nil.

 

If you are entering into a binding agreement then it would only seem prudent to ensure you get the best terms you can.

 

Without trying to dictate or teach you to suck eggs.

 

Try not to be too aggressive, nor to passive/submissive in your response, simply state that although you are amenable to such an agreement, the terms as offered are not acceptable i their current form, however if they changed a. b. and c then you would be able to reconsider etc.

[floricita]

Thanks.

 

I really wanted the whole claim back though + court fees.

 

Am I being awkward?

[spamheed]

Thanks.

 

I really wanted the whole claim back though + court fees.

 

Am I being awkward?

 

At the end of the day this is something only you can decide, some might say if you walkl away debt free then it is a victory, whilst there are others who would insist on squeezing them until they squeal.

 

The issue is how strong you feel your case is and how keen they are to avoid going into court, there is always a risk when starting a claim

[floricita]

Well this isn't a counter claim or anything, it is not the debt that is being disputed, it is penalty charges applied to the account historically.

 

So I don't quite understand the phrase "some might say if you walkl away debt free then it is a victory"??

[steven4064]

If it is your claim and they have sent you a Tomlin order setting out an agreement (for your claim! - cheeky) and you are not happy with it, just bin it. Tell them you what you want to settle the claim.

 

What spamheed says is spot on. The fact that they have sent a Tomlin order indicates that they do not want to go to court.