Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
    • Massive issues from Scottish Power I wonder if someone could advise next steps. Tennant moved out I changed the electric into my name I was out the country at the time so I hadn't been to the flat. During sign up process they tried to hijack my gas supply as well which I made it clear I didn't want duel fuel from them but they still went ahead with it. Phoned them up again. a few days later telling them to make sure they stopped it but they said too late ? had to get my current supplier to cancel it. Paid £50 online to ensure there was money covering standing charges etc eventually got to the flat no power. Phoned Scottish Power 40 minutes to get through they state I have a pay as you go meter and that they had set me up on a credit account so they need to send an engineer out which they will pass my details onto. Phone called from engineer asking questions , found out the float is vacant so not an emergency so I have to speak to Scottish Power again. Spoke with the original person from Scottish Power who admitted a mistake (I had told her it was vacant) and now states that it will take 4 weeks to get an appointment but if I want to raise a complaint they will contact me in 48 hours and it will be looked at quicker. Raised a complaint , complaints emailed me within 24 hours to say it will take 7 days till he speaks with me. All I want is power in the property would I be better switching over to EON who supply the gas surely they could sort it out quicker? One thing is for sure I will never bother with Scottish Power ever again.    
  • 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
      • 161 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 Default Charges


joncow75
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4586 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 all, looking for some advice please. I started my claim against Egg back in December of 09 but got a refusal for anything below the £16 mark. Total was £560 I requested and their offer was for £64. None of these included any interest. I eventually got round to complaining to the FOS who backed Egg (nice of them) and stated Egg were still happy to pay back the £64 + interest but no more than that. Having started an MCOL claim against Crap One, I feel a bit happier about how to do that, but what is peoples experience of going up against Egg in court? I'm sure I read somewhere that they had defended before but the judge had ruled £5 was a sufficent charge, so were reluctent to again, but most threads on here are for other Egg related problems rather than default charges. These are now up to £688 and once interest was added, would almost wipe out the debt on this crappy credit card that they pulled the available credit on after the Citi take over. Should I pursue this avenue now?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI joncow75,

 

Cannot help with the charges but did notice that you mentioned having the credit pulled after citi took over. Were you one of those that were 'Terminated'.

 

If so, you may like to have a look at my thread dealing with Termination & Interest Rate hike.

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi joncow75 & bosund,

 

apologies for jumping on board but I also had my egg acounts closed back in Oct 2009 and despite my protests they insisted that i still had to pay the exhorbitant interest charges each month.....but now i have CAG and its time to take them to task.

 

i'd be interested to have a look at your thread bosund if you can you post a link.

 

cheers

 

SH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

If your account was only closed in Oct 2009 then it would not effect you. The thread is under Egg.

 

You've been busy on CAG since the beginning of the month!

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bosund,

 

yes, life was turned upside down a few months ago and thats when i discovered just how friendly & helpful our banks were...not!

 

i'm taking back control now thanks to info & support i've had from CAG, i don't care what comes in the post now.

 

cheers,

 

SH:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bosund, thanks for pointing me in the direction of another possible complaint. I think i'll try and see about getting my charges back first, which would only leave about £100 on the card. Much easier to get rid of, then see what else I can go for. I've never met a more unproffesional company. Despite 6 letters from me with my new address on, they still send everything to my old address!!!! I just want Egg out of my life, wish i'd never taken the card out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Understand, at the end of the day you're calling the shots, but, if you are in a similar situation to me you could be looking at quite a few quid to start the new year with. It will not affect your current cliam, I also have a claim with a FOS adjudicator which was running at the same time as the other claim. If you like I can email the details I sent to the FOS.

 

No pressure, all the best,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Anyone have any experience of taking Egg on in court, esp after the FOS backed their charges?

 

Many thanks joncow75

 

Hi there joncow just noticed your thread. I went to up against Egg in Skipton County Court 25/1/2011 re Default Charges on my credit card and I won They were well gutted they requested costs against me of £1100.00 and got well blown out by the judge. If you are still pursuing these parasites let me know I will guide you through the case/story and arguments to beat them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done eggbasher. :-D

 

Would be great if you could start a thread about this and post how you did it so that anyone interested can see how you did it.

 

Thankfully credit card charges haven't been affected by the Supreme Court decision on bank charges, but it's always good to hear people's experiences.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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

Citi legal teams probably tried to argue that it cost them MORE than the £12 agreed by the OFT..as they have done in their Citi card cases.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Gag ?:???:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 months later...

Right, back on this again now. Pulled together a new updated set of charges which total £768 (although they do go slightly over the 6 year mark - I do know what they are and from when. Also amended the interest which brings the total to a healthy £998.90. With a balance on the card of £861 this shows that 89% of my balance is made up of charges alone!

 

I've fired a quick letter back to Egg today that states I want them to reconsider - and that as I have an additional £206 of charges this is not covered ny their "Final Response" back in 2009. I've even offered them to pay me back £768 against the card balance (not arrears) so I can bring it down, as long as they come back in 14 days. If not then its off to court I go for the lot. Egg is the last credit card for me to get sorted (other than a PPI claim on a GM card which is ongoing).

 

Does anyone know if Egg's position has softened since their buy out by Barclaycard who are very easy to deal with when it comes to charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No-one had any joy with Egg then? Sent my letter off last week - but not exactly going to hold my breath that they will offer anything at all. Anyone who has gone down the court route who could offer some encouraging advice would be great

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've had a fairly quick response from Egg which is that as the FOS had found in their favour that £16 was not a disproportionate charge, they have again offered the original £79 which was the difference between £16 and £20 with a little interest. Very dissapointing - I hoped the change to Barclays may have lessened Egg's stance on this, however I can't say i'm too surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A see the disappoitment is spread around then! Sorry to hear that lhmcr1, but can't say i'm too surprised. Had you gone down the FOS route before or are you just going straight to court. Not sure how much difference it will make if the FOS made a ruling - will the court just agree with them, as I'm pretty sure Egg will argue this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have complied a letter from moc1982 letter that is on this site and added some extra parts:

Thank you for your letter dated 17th August 2011.

I am writing to state that I do not consider this a satisfactory response. I refer to the points raised in your letter as follows:

 

(1) Regardless of whether the credit card agreement states that charges will be added to the account if the credit limit is exceeded or fail to make contractual payments, it is the amount of the default charge which is in question.

 

(2) You have been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me, as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I believe your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ. 963. It was held that a contractual party can only receive damages for an actual loss or liquidated loss. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and/or real loss.

 

If your charges are indeed a genuine pre-estimate of the administrative costs likely to be incurred by you in dealing with defaults then in order to reassure me that your penalties really do reflect your costs, I request that you provide me with a breakdown and proof of all costs involved with regard to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Schedule 2(e). I would expect this to include a comparison of all charges levied against all customers and the actual costs incurred by you when those customers default.

 

(3) I refer to your comment regarding the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) default charge threshold of £12.00. I am aware that the OFT have stated that “where there are exceptional business factors... for example where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg….it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold”. However, this does not mean that your £16.00 is considered fair. The OFT state that only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair.

 

I will pursue recovery with a county court claim, if necessary, although I sincerely hope that it will not be.

I would like to point out that I have great respect for Egg’s genuine pre-estimate, and great respect for any future pre-estimates that Egg provide.

As a former cardholder I cannot help wondering, if after many years in business Egg has ever tried to reconcile Pre-estimates against Post-event audits. I am confident that a company devoted to justice and truth like Egg will not withhold evidence from the cardholder, that Egg will present evidence in court to show after-the-event costs, as well as before-the-event Genuine Pre-estimates.

I would also like to know how Citi Ireland had a £6 charge for credit card customers, but U.K. Citi card holders pay £16.

 

I do hope that you will respond positively to this letter in order to avoid court proceedings. To clarify, a positive response being no less than an offer of full settlement of all charges incurred on my account.

 

I am aware of many cases that you have settled in full out of court to date and I assume therefore that would also be your intention in this case. If that is so, then to allow this claim to get that far may be considered an abuse of the court process, so I once again, respectfully request that you refund the total amount of charges I am claiming, now totalling £284.71 as per the attached schedule. I will give you 14 days to respond to this letter before taking the matter further

Any comments or ideas to tidy it up and to make it sound better are much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what matters is what a court decides, if Egg, or any company, levy a charge of say £16 for late payments etc and the customer disagrees with it the customer complains.

Where the situation arrives at where a dispute arises the company has two choices, either accept that their charges are unfair and refund, or default if they feel they have done nothing wrong.

The customer can then either, provided the default notice is above board, remedy the breach or wait for their day in court.

Letter tennis does very little when trying to get to the bottom of it, once a person makes up their mind that they are right they wait for the summons to appear and present their evidence to the court.

As the OFT then say, only a court can decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...