Arrow have taken over Egg Loan

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I agree MC, can you see the revision of

regulated agreement to exclude the DCA's

from being ''authorised'' third parties to

the agreement, which are included in all

agreements but rarely read by those signing

them and thus permitting the DCA's to Access

credit files even if they are on a phishing trip.

Myself I cannot see it ever improving.

[The Debt Star]

Arrow never did reply to my F&F.

They are cheerfully enough accepting payments direct though.

FOS have ordered Egg to pay up more PPI. How Arrow and Egg now resolve the balance problem will be interesting.

Doubtless I'll end up complaining about Arrow pursuing a disputed debt sum.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good, that'll be an interesting battle between Egg and Arrow.

[The Debt Star]

they probably purchased the debt from egg for about 3 bob anyway.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That MUCH:!:

[The Debt Star]

Are Arrow under an obligation to keep the loan balance updated each month with the CRAs? Or can they just keep it showing as e.g. £6,000 on 1 July 2011 until the default / account drops off my credit files?

[Master Chief]

Are Arrow under an obligation to keep the loan balance updated each month with the CRAs? Or can they just keep it showing as e.g. £6,000 on 1 July 2011 until the default / account drops off my credit files?

 

Ooh ooh I know this one!

 

Yes, the information shown on your CRA file must be correct and factual. That has always been the case, but I think new EU Credit Directive (sorry can't recall the exact name) has clarified who's responsible for keeping your CRA details up to date, which is the assignee (Arrow).

 

I had 1st Crud remove information on Equifax because it was not correct, out of date, and well passed its six year lifespan. Equifax and 1st Crud just complied with my request to have it removed.

 

HTH

 

MC

Edited September 21, 2011 by Master Chief
typo

[The Debt Star]

cheers m8. right, a complaint winding its way to Arrow and the CRas then!

[Master Chief]

cheers m8. right, a complaint winding its way to Arrow and the CRas then!

 

Excellent. Mine will be going soon, along with a little suprise for the OC Egg.

 

I take the view that while they are being nice to me I shall not rock the boat, but when they start to play silly buggers then I will do likewise. I have in the last few days DSAR'd Egg with a view to starting a charges claim. The original loan was split use (part used to pay an Egg credit card) and there was defo PPI. Back in 2001 when I applied on-line for the loan it was followed immediately with a telephone call regarding why I had not selected the PPI option, I told them because I didn't want it. I then asked the lady if it was a requirement of the loan i.e. will I only get the loan if I accept PPI, to which she responded 'YES'. So I think I have enough to put a big fat spanner in thier works.

 

Why they won't just let sleeping dogs lie, I'll never know. They have to turn the thumb screws even though they have been getting the payments as agreed. Greed I suppose!

 

BTW: I have responded to your PM as requested.

 

All the best with your complaints.

 

MC

[The Debt Star]

Greed is their god.

 

I suggest you claim for mis-sold PPI, claim back the charges and trot this all off to the FOS for some compo.

 

My "Egg Top Up Loan" (their terminology) was a consolidation of an Egg card an older Egg loan. Throw in some single premium PPI and monthly PPI, capitalise that onto the Top Up Loan without the nebefit of the PPI, and then treat the customer with contempt. Egg passed me on to CapQuest who terrorised me for years until I came across this forum. From that point on I fought back. It will be interesting to know what Egg will do with the FOS approach, if they will appeal to an ombudsman or not.

 

Either way I'll fight them to the biter end ;-)

[The Debt Star]

Update: Arrow have finally responded, apologising for not replying sooner due to "adminstrative oversight."

 

They have said that they are in contact with Egg.

 

They go on to say that they cannot consider a f&f while the account is in dispute and further state that all payments and future f&fs must be sent to their DCA, Wescot.

 

With regard to Wescot, I have already told Arrow that they should not be referring collection to a DCA on a prior disputed debt. I believe I am correct in this (OFT Guidance). Moreover, I have complained to Wescot telling them that they shouldn't be collecting on a prior disputed debt and that was more than 8 weeks ago and I haven't heard from them since.

 

Hitherto Arrow have been cashing my cheques.

[Master Chief]

Hi mate,

 

sounds like you are getting the run around. If Wetcloths 8 weeks is up with no response then I reckon that has to be a FOS job, do you have proof of delivery for your complaint?

 

OFT Guidance (must not say reg's as I had my wristies slapped today by a certain DCA for mistakinly saying regs instead of guidlines) I'm a bit out of touch with as it seems there have been some updates recently, certainly in terms of Unenforceable's in any case. Need more swatting time I think.

 

MC

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Compliance with the OFT Guidance 20003

and updates is a condition of the granting

and continuance of a Consumer Credit Licence.

[Crazy Diamond]

***DS, make some space in your inbox, please? ***

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Try the Guidance Document from the CSA & DBSG

in consultation with the OFT, on Format, use and

content of debt collection letters.

And OFT guidance on sections 77/78/&79 of CCA'74

on The duty to give information to debtors and

the consequences of non compliance on the enforcement

of the agreement.

Dated OCT.2010.

Dispels some of the long held myths on this subject.

[The Debt Star]

***DS, make some space in your inbox, please? ***

 

yes will do that right now! sorry!

[The Debt Star]

Try the Guidance Document from the CSA & DBSG

in consultation with the OFT, on Format, use and

content of debt collection letters.

And OFT guidance on sections 77/78/&79 of CCA'74

on The duty to give information to debtors and

the consequences of non compliance on the enforcement

of the agreement.

Dated OCT.2010.

Dispels some of the long held myths on this subject.

 

if it gives me something to work with it would be good

[The Debt Star]

Hi mate,

 

sounds like you are getting the run around. If Wetcloths 8 weeks is up with no response then I reckon that has to be a FOS job, do you have proof of delivery for your complaint?

 

OFT Guidance (must not say reg's as I had my wristies slapped today by a certain DCA for mistakinly saying regs instead of guidlines) I'm a bit out of touch with as it seems there have been some updates recently, certainly in terms of Unenforceable's in any case. Need more swatting time I think.

 

MC

 

precisely my thoughts. yes i do have proof of writing to them. always use recorded deliv with the dcas. also against arrow, who have involved a dca in clear breach of the oft guidance

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi DS, did Arrow ever send any

kind of final response letter before

passing this to Fred.

[The Debt Star]

No, but you see it was in dispute before they bought it. I simultaneously wrote to Arrow and Wescot pointing this out. In Wescot's case I formally complained. In Arrow's case I have not complained, just pointed out the existence of a prior dispute.........

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am not being pedantic but was

there at any time a final response,

I lost a case last week on FR and

sale and assignment of a debt in

''dispute'' because of a missed

last line in normal type face

''This is our final response.''

after this has been sent they

will sell assign or issue CC claims.

[The Debt Star]

Point taken, for sure. No, no FR from Egg as it was still with the FOS when they assigned it; amazing but true. No FR from Arrow (obviously, as I haven't formally complained to them yet) and no FR from Wescot.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Odd????

[The Debt Star]

the whole fecking saga hasbeen odd from start to finish. that said, egg treat customers with good credit in an appalling fashion as well so I shouldn't be surprised.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That company had no ethics

from inception !!!