Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Tricky ! If someone in this situation wanted to continue to Insure their car on a comprehensive basis they would find it difficult.  Most people would want comp cover, so a car is fully covered, even though they might not be driving it,   Suggest contacting an Insurance Brokers to ask what they can arrange.   If Insurance is not available, find a storage option, so the car can be kept off the road and SORN. 
    • I cant help thinking that if we had to complete a questionaire that asked if you were "physically able bodied" before you were interviewed then this would be classed as discriminative.   Yet you can be asked to explain a gap in employment and that this is not classed as discriminative to people who may have had a mental breakdown.   Ok on this occasion I had taken a work break, if thay had asked a bout a break I had taken 10 years earlier then it would have been a different story as I had suffered depression and anxiety at that time.   It just seams to me that it puts people who have had a mental health issue at a disadvantage.      
    • I am just outside of the HS" zone for compulsory purchase. However,I put my house up for sale 4 weeks ago, and have had 2 viewers. Both said they like the house but the threat of HS2 having framework across the road put them off buying my house.    I am aware that I can take HS2 to court and get the court judge to (hopefully),force HS2 to purchase my house at market value under the Blight Order.    How do I go about starting the process?. Which court would the case go to?. Am i best enlisting a claims specialist with success in this field?.    The estate agent who my house is on the market with has told me that they have the feedback documentation from the 2 viewers testifying that HS2 put them off buying my house, so they would be available to the court.    Apparently there has already been 1 successful case on my street, and 1 two streets down, and there is another case on my street going through the court.    Any help, laws,quotes etc would be greatly appreciated.
    • Hi HubbaLoo and welcome to CAG   It's no surprise that the likes of CARS and Harlands  make far more charging admin fees than they do from taking a small monthly percentage of the gym fees.   It's best to tell CARS your new address - best that you know what they're up to at all times.   Send them a typed letter (no emails for now) saying:-   Dear sir or madam,   Membership at [town/city] DW Gym   My current address is as shown above.   I cancelled my membership when I relocated and supplied details of moving. I do NOT have to supply utility bills etc as demanded from you and will not enter into further correspondence with you.   If you continue to harass me for payments of admin fees, I will make formal complaints to the appropriate authorities.   Yours faithfully.    
    • It is not the DVLA that insist it must be insured, it is s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988. Off road and SORN is one of the exceptions - s.144B of the same act.
  • Our picks

admanbo80

Has anyone else had Egg file a defense?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4636 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

Just heard back from Egg after sending my Moneyclaim. They have filed an acknowledgement and stated that the intend to defend the full amount (only £80!!!).:o

 

Has anyone else had this and what happened?


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi admanbo80- Yes, EEK, YASMIN, Tobes, mcuth, Empirestrikesback,several others and myself Angry Cat. You need to check out these threads. Good Luck AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes egg are the worst i am not aware that anybody has got a penny from them yet!!


 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that. Some very useful info. Will keep an eye on their outcome.

 

Egg really sound like a bunch of twats!!!!

 

Guess its wait and see what they say. Bet it'll be the same crap as everyone else has had tho!:-x


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers for that. Some very useful info. Will keep an eye on their outcome.

 

Egg really sound like a bunch of twats!!!!

 

Guess its wait and see what they say. Bet it'll be the same crap as everyone else has had tho!:-x

 

i agree with the twats comment:D


 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually,

 

Egg have really hacked me off and I think I am going to look at consulting a solictor and see if I can take them to the cleaners

 

They just seem to be using every little snidey way possible to weasel out of things :mad: and I think it will only take one seriously succesfull case to set the precident for the rest and I'm quite happy to spend a bit of cash to screw them

:D


omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it would be well wort one of the MODS setting something up where we can donate a small amount of money each and employ a solicitor to act for one of the claims. I think it should be for someone who has a very good case and egg have nothing on them either. What does eveyone think?


alexthekid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that of you ask Admin (not a mod!), they will tell you what I am about to tell you: Why pay good money to pay a solicitor who will have far less motivated in getting you your money back than yourself?

 

May I remind everyone that if one year ago, you'd gone to a solicitor and said: "I think my bank charges may be unlawful, I want to claim them back", the solicitor would have patronised you right out of his office. :rolleyes:

 

It took "normal" people to take this out on the street, and with over 2 million pounds showing on the survey, they haven't done too badly, have they? What makes you think a solicitor would do better? The banks' certainly don't! :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bookworm:)

 

I agree..!

In all probability, a solicitor would most likely settle for the OFT's suggested £12 level; then charge you a large fee JMHO

 

When in reality, just by excercising a little brain power, plus following the excellent BAG/CAG FAQ's, then we the consumers can obtain full refunds on the Unlawful Penalties that have been levied on our accounts.

Come on Guy's, we have the motivation...and there is strength in numbers....little people can win. Just remember 'David & Goliath'.

 

Love AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GOD! I'm almost finished with Smile and thought it would be a good idea to tackle Egg next. I'm really worried as I've been really bad with Egg, not paying payments when due, going over my credit limit etc. I'm determined to go all the way on this though as they probably owe me in excess of £2k. What is the current state of play? Have egg showed up at court yet?


<(o.o)> Smackbat

 

:) Smile.co.uk - £4,400 WON 12/10/06

:)Smile.co.uk - £156 WON Feb 07

:)Smile.co.uk - £280 WON 25/06/07

:mad: Egg PLC - £3,420.72 - Defence filed 24/06/07

:? Alliance & Leicester - DPR Request sent

:? Woolich PLC - To Start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for it! Egg have said they do not agree with the legislation and will not refund my charges. They have until next week before their 28 days is up after my money claim and as yet have still not filed a defense. I'll keep you posted but i've got my fingers crossed I can just file a judgement by default!!


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg filed a defense on the final day before judgement and I've been sent a copy plus an allocation questionaire to be returned by 22 October 2006.

 

Eggs defence seems a standard one as it looks photocopied. It reads as follows:

 

'1. The claimant applied for an Egg credit card agreement with the defendant in November 2003 (the "Agreement"). The account was terminated and the date of the last statement was 8 August 2005.'

 

'2. It is admitted that charges wree added to the Claimant's Egg account during the course of the Agreement.' ...Basically clause 7.1 of their T & C £20 for over credit limit and £20 missed payments on the account.

 

'3. It is denied that the charges are a "disporportionate penalty" as alleged.' ...They go on to try and justify the charges as legitimate reimbursement for their costs.

 

'4. Further the Defendent takes steps to ensure that customers such as the Claimant to not unwittingly incur the charges set out in Condition 7.' ...i.e they set up a direct debit.

 

'5. Accordingly, it is denied that the charges are unenforceable at common law.'

 

'6. It is further denied that the charges are invalid under S4 of the Unfiar Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.' ...Again they state the charges are reasonable.

 

'7. It is denied that S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies.' ... however should to court find this applies they argue again that the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss and expenses.

 

'8. The Claimant is put to proof that his loss as a result of the charges is £117.04 as alleged' ...what does this mean???

 

'9.' ... if the court finds the charges are unenforceable they ask the court to assess the actual costs to the defendent.

 

Can anyone help me or provide me with a bit of direction?:-|


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraphs 8 is basically saying that the hundred and 17 odd pounds that you are claiming is actually what they have charged you. This should be easy for you to do as presumably you have got it all in your statements. It is just another blustering piece of stupidity from eggs representatives.

 

Paragraph 9 is basically their fallback position and simply says that if you are right that they are not entitled to the charges which they have levied, then they east entitled to something and they want the court to decide what that something is.

 

This also is not a problem because this is what everybody wants. In order for the court to manage it they would have to see what eggs costings are. Of course they will refuse to provide the court with this information so it is another piece of stupidity. What they are saying to the judge is " we want you to assess what our costs are that we're not going to provide you with any information to allow you to do that"

 

Had he returned your allocation questionnaire yet? If you have not then I suggest that where it asks you if there are any particular directions that you want from the judge that you ask for standard disclosure. Point out that in paragraph 9 the defendant asks the court to assess its true costs. Point out to the judge that you accept paragraph 9 and that you are completely happy with the principle. Say to the judge that as it is clearly the defendant's own suggestion that you respectfully suggest that the defendant's suggestion is adopted and that they be compelled to reveal the true costs of the court so that the matter can be settled once and for all.

 

Point out to the judge that if the defendants do make this disclosure that this will properly help to bring to an end the current flood of bank charges litigation


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citi have provided the court with their true costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tobes - Do you know what they stated as their costs?

 

BankFodder - Thanks for that. I've got until 22nd to return my allocation questionaire. Will probably get it done this week, was just waiting for advice before I sent it off. Thanks for your help.

 

Fingers crossed!!!:-)


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citi have provided the court with their true costs

 

No, they haven't.

 

They provided the court with what THEY claim was their true costs, which, by some uncanny coincidence, was just about £12, and how about that? What were the odds? :rolleyes: And did it last minute, and Claimant was not allowed to see the breakdown... Talk of rough justice...:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the court accepted their claims that the figures given were true and accurate so for all intents and purposes Citi have provided the court with their true costs until it's proven otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bookworm...!

Rough Justice.

 

How can it cost £12.00????

 

That is just the amount that the OFT has quoted, before the OFT will get involved.

JMHO AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had letter from Egg. They now say they'll refund £4 of each £20 charge in line with the reduction of their charges to £16. No mention of my court fees, interest or anything else.

 

Bugger it lets go to court then so this week sent my Allocation questionaire to York County Court. They quoted some case they won in court. However looking at this forum, I think they only won because the claimant could not attend the court date.

 

Also sent Egg a letter saying that their offer was not good enough for me to withdraw my claim so basically see you in court!!


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

Let me know when your date for court is.

 

Maybe a group of people should get together and go to court together as support - is that allowed?

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had letter from Egg. They now say they'll refund £4 of each £20 charge in line with the reduction of their charges to £16. No mention of my court fees, interest or anything else.

 

Bugger it lets go to court then so this week sent my Allocation questionaire to York County Court. They quoted some case they won in court. However looking at this forum, I think they only won because the claimant could not attend the court date.

 

Also sent Egg a letter saying that their offer was not good enough for me to withdraw my claim so basically see you in court!!

 

I'm in exactly the same position as you with regard to progress on the case, this is starting to get really interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my court date through. February 2007!!!:rolleyes:


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg have submitted a defence but it wasn't recorded on the system until after their deadline expired. I was advised not to start judgement in the early hours, even though I'm not sure why.

 

So it looks like I'll get an allocation questionnaire and a court date through soon enough. Still - the pressure is mounting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same kind of thing. No defence was shown as filed so I filed a judgement by default. Next thing I knew it was shown as rejected and when I telephoned the courts they said it had been received a while ago but just not put on the system.

 

Could the courts be getting a back hander from egg to help with their delaying tactics? lol.

 

I do think that there's something wrong somewhere though. Surely if the defence is not shown as filed then you'd be well within your rights to file for judgement!:x


NatWest - Rejected partial offer. Ongoing:rolleyes:

MBNA - settled in full :D

Morgan Stanley - settled in full :D

Egg - Settled in full:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...