Cap1 & CCA return

[un1boy]

Come on guys...we know what is happening here......

 

DONT FEED THE TROLLS

 

this will get bogged down...and while it is fun to bait them I think it detracts a little from the good work that gets done on this thread...

 

Let him post away....dont rise to it, he/she has only come on to cause trouble

 

Dave

 

Fair point!

[Goldlady]

The troll has left the building. Let's get back to some real work.

[car2403]

The good thing that is coming from all this is the the ICO (if we are to believe that everything we see is as it seems) now seems interested in making decisions about an Act that doesn't fall under it's own remit.

 

That's like me walking in to a MOT testing station and passing a car!

 

I think Paul termed it best - "nonsense, utter nonsense".

[Vulture_Bank]

Dear Mr Graeme Hill (Home Authority contact for RBS)

 

Do you or do you not deny that your collections department has in the last twelve months issued letter(s) containing the following paragraph?

 

"Although we have been able to provide you with a copy of the credit card application and the latest Terms and Conditions we have been unable to obtain a copy of the original Terms of the account > In view of this the remaining balance of the card account has been written off and your obligations to us under the agreement are discharged."

 

 

end of the letter

 

now we VULTURE BANK add our own comments

 

"our client " is prepared to submit a "certified" copy of the original document containing the "said" above paragraph in order to substantiate the fact that we believe the you have set a precedent in formulating the above paragraph.

 

With due respect to your company "at this moment in time" we will not reveal the name and capacity of the member of your staff from whom a letter containing the above paragraph originated suffice to say that this person is in a "senior" position within your company.

whilst in this post i make no comment whatsoever concerning the need for signatures etc to satisfy s78 etc can i just refresh to the world that as I have said for over a year the failure to produce the original terms and conditions can at a stroke - meaning sooner than later -(if we have a knowledgable creditor who thus avoids losing court costs) lead to a total write off and the debtors balance being credited so that the balance is zero as the above case states.

[Peterbard]

HI

 

Further to my earlier thoughts on the current situation where Egg have decided to remove the line of credit from 161000 of its customers who have running credit agreements with them.

 

It makes you wonder just what entitlements and protection your running credit agreement gives the customer at all.

It would seem that they do not have to maintain your line of credit, your repayment interest, your credit limit and can do what they like with your personal information.

Credit card companies have been allowed IMO to get away with murder for some time now.

It is a fact that most of us use credit cards in order to run our every day finances, the companies know this and what’s more they depend on it, this newest tactic of arbitrarily removing peoples access to the credit that they were contractually obliged to supply when they signed the agreement is a step to far.

 

No one is saying that the creditor should not have the right to protect itself from losses incurred making loans to people who cannot pay them back, but this is not the issue here this is just a corporate tactic.

 

I have been looking at the regulations and wonder why this action has not been challenged; the definition of a running credit account according to section 10 of the CCA is;

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement

whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

 

I would have thought the defining points are that the debtor is allowed to receive cash or goods up to a credit limit, surely by removing this option and requiring debtors to repay the outstanding balance by instalments the agreement is no longer a running credit account and would fall outside the realms of the CCA.

 

If this was the case the agreement would be unregulated and therefore unenforceable via the court.

The creditor would undoubtedly say that the agreement was converted to a fixed sum agreement, but that brings into play the point that the balance of the account is not solely made up of credit supplied by the creditor but would be largely interest and therefore classed as charge for credit on a fixed sum loan, in addition to this the requirements for this type of agreement would not have been met in the original credit card agreement so a new one would have to be drawn up and executed.

 

Food for thought

 

Best regards

Peter

[patrickq1]

I have never read such misguided information before in my life.C/O steven I.C.O. perhaps he would like a new job ,by answering on the DATA PROTECTION ACT on matters listed within the forums,how can a bank that terminates a account bank/finance and pass the ex clients DATA without a COURT ORDER,perhaps this is because PEOPLE like STEVEN mis interperate the LAW because they really do not undersatnd what the DP act means,after all he thinks he is getting paid with our taxes for making comments about things that are beyond his scope of abilities and understanding....RESIGN and get a new job mate

patrickq1

[ncf355]

Seriously, when the heck are these people going to be brought to account for all this?

 

As I have said LOADS of times before my worry is the amount of people out there, uneducated in the CCA, CCR and Data Protection Act that just take this word as law

 

Its scandalous

[un1boy]

HI

 

Further to my earlier thoughts on the current situation where Egg have decided to remove the line of credit from 161000 of its customers who have running credit agreements with them.

 

It makes you wonder just what entitlements and protection your running credit agreement gives the customer at all.

It would seem that they do not have to maintain your line of credit, your repayment interest, your credit limit and can do what they like with your personal information.

Credit card companies have been allowed IMO to get away with murder for some time now.

It is a fact that most of us use credit cards in order to run our every day finances, the companies know this and what’s more they depend on it, this newest tactic of arbitrarily removing peoples access to the credit that they were contractually obliged to supply when they signed the agreement is a step to far.

 

No one is saying that the creditor should not have the right to protect itself from losses incurred making loans to people who cannot pay them back, but this is not the issue here this is just a corporate tactic.

 

I have been looking at the regulations and wonder why this action has not been challenged; the definition of a running credit account according to section 10 of the CCA is;

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement

whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

 

I would have thought the defining points are that the debtor is allowed to receive cash or goods up to a credit limit, surely by removing this option and requiring debtors to repay the outstanding balance by instalments the agreement is no longer a running credit account and would fall outside the realms of the CCA.

 

If this was the case the agreement would be unregulated and therefore unenforceable via the court.

The creditor would undoubtedly say that the agreement was converted to a fixed sum agreement, but that brings into play the point that the balance of the account is not solely made up of credit supplied by the creditor but would be largely interest and therefore classed as charge for credit on a fixed sum loan, in addition to this the requirements for this type of agreement would not have been met in the original credit card agreement so a new one would have to be drawn up and executed.

 

Food for thought

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Interesting Peter.

 

I have received a letter from Egg telling me they are closing my account. My balance is unrder £700 and I have not missed a payment for over 2 years (only missed 2 in the whole 4 years I have had the card!).

 

They state that they have taken into effect payment history and account conduct.......so, it has nothing to do with the bank charges claim you paid to me and the CCA request I put in??? Hmmmm.........retaliatory action en masse methinks!

[un1boy]

HI

 

Further to my earlier thoughts on the current situation where Egg have decided to remove the line of credit from 161000 of its customers who have running credit agreements with them.

 

It makes you wonder just what entitlements and protection your running credit agreement gives the customer at all.

It would seem that they do not have to maintain your line of credit, your repayment interest, your credit limit and can do what they like with your personal information.

Credit card companies have been allowed IMO to get away with murder for some time now.

It is a fact that most of us use credit cards in order to run our every day finances, the companies know this and what’s more they depend on it, this newest tactic of arbitrarily removing peoples access to the credit that they were contractually obliged to supply when they signed the agreement is a step to far.

 

No one is saying that the creditor should not have the right to protect itself from losses incurred making loans to people who cannot pay them back, but this is not the issue here this is just a corporate tactic.

 

I have been looking at the regulations and wonder why this action has not been challenged; the definition of a running credit account according to section 10 of the CCA is;

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement

whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

 

I would have thought the defining points are that the debtor is allowed to receive cash or goods up to a credit limit, surely by removing this option and requiring debtors to repay the outstanding balance by instalments the agreement is no longer a running credit account and would fall outside the realms of the CCA.

 

If this was the case the agreement would be unregulated and therefore unenforceable via the court.

The creditor would undoubtedly say that the agreement was converted to a fixed sum agreement, but that brings into play the point that the balance of the account is not solely made up of credit supplied by the creditor but would be largely interest and therefore classed as charge for credit on a fixed sum loan, in addition to this the requirements for this type of agreement would not have been met in the original credit card agreement so a new one would have to be drawn up and executed.

 

Food for thought

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Peter, lets talk about this a bit more- I'll email you later.

[reallymadwoman]

I'm assuming that Egg agreements have a term allowing them to terminate the agreement whenever they like, but I would love to see the exact wording if anyone can post it.

 

PS I don't have and never have had an Egg card, so this doesn't directly affect me but what if all the other card companies try the same thing? Are a huge proportion of consumers going to be left without access to a credit card?

 

Personally I would never have another credit card by choice, but some people, like my OH, have to have a credit card to cover emergency expenses when travelling. I'd like to see him pay for a flight in Angola without one. He's also someone likely to be affected by this because he clears his balance every month.

[Jeff2000]

I'm assuming that Egg agreements have a term allowing them to terminate the agreement whenever they like, but I would love to see the exact wording if anyone can post it.

 

PS I don't have and never have had an Egg card, so this doesn't directly affect me but what if all the other card companies try the same thing? Are a huge proportion of consumers going to be left without access to a credit card?

 

Personally I would never have another credit card by choice, but some people, like my OH, have to have a credit card to cover emergency expenses when travelling. I'd like to see him pay for a flight in Angola without one. He's also someone likely to be affected by this because he clears his balance every month.

 

 

 

 

Hi RMW,

 

 

In their letter, Egg say they are closing the account under condition 20.2 of the agreement.

 

Which is:

 

20.2 We can end this Agreement at any time. We will normally give you 30 days' advance notice by post or email. However, if there are exceptional circumstances, or in any of the circumstances referred to in Condition 19.2, we may end this Agreement immediately and tell you about it afterwards, unless we are required by law to give you notice first. You can end it at any time by telling us to do so by post or email. In both cases, this Agreement will continue until you have repaid all amounts you owe us.

 

 

 

So, they can end the agreement at anytime at the top of the paragraph. However, at the bottom of the paragraph the agreement continues.

 

Sorry Egg, but IMO, you have either ended the agreement or you haven't!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[the main man]

Since Citibank took over, Egg have been very good at the odd addition to the T&C, like this one to prevent a run similar to the one Northern Rock experienced.

 

Hard-boiled Egg stuns savers | Money | The Guardian

 

Like the closing of accounts and applying of charges over the OFT limit, Egg carry on regardless of any legalities.

[patrickq1]

really sounds like a non negotiable agreement along simillar lines to having to accept the right to share your data or the contracts have not been negotiated fairly unfair contracts springs to mind ,hence they cancel at their own peril pay back 1.00 per month that is your new negotiable contract that you now can only agree to lol i wish unless every one does this then they will change their minds only second bite means you can then deal on your terms if they want some dough back my opinion only i hasten to add

patrickq1

[reallymadwoman]

I really think that this term is unfair. After all, as Patrick says it's not negotiable, I don't see how it could be a core term, and effectively Egg are saying we can make this whatever type of agreement we like and you just have to accept it.

 

This has to be challenged. Anyone up for a fight?

[ian1969uk]

Well, I don't have an Egg card any more because they terminated it when I challenged them over an arbitrary interest rate rise. They stated that the rise was based on my personal crcumstances, then terminated the agreement when I presented them with evidence that there were no searches of my credit record or requests for an update on my circumstances.

 

This meant that they had not reviewed my personal circumstances, merely increased the rate to increase profits.

 

The Ombudsman wasn't interested in any of this really, typical as we know.

 

It does, show, that Egg blatantly lie about their reasons for doing things.

 

Remember also that Egg agreements could fall foul of Section 59, making them void. All of these people need to get CCA requests in and then challenge them on these lines. Oh, and Section 85. Egg have admitted in writing to me that they DO NOT send the terms and conditions with card reissues as they are posted on the website.

 

Compliant with Section 85?

 

I think not.

[patrickq1]

unfortunitely (or fortunately)i do not have any cards accept a debit card so i have no need to get stressed,i did once have a morgan stanley card and this is the fight i have ,,,damm ppi

this was my bugbear if you go back through the threads i brought up the REPUGNANT RULE because some terms and conditions ought to be negotiated especially YOUR DATA PROTECTION and cancelations YOU NEED TO HAVE RIGHTS AGAINST VEXHASIOUS CANCELLATIONS,,,without them the contract is on their terms and not yours

just me wittering on again

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Money can reveal that last year Egg changed its terms and conditions to allow it to halt online withdrawals in the event of a run on the bank. While no one thought much of it at the time, the events surrounding Northern Rock will leave many Egg customers shocked to learn that they won't be allowed access to their money if at any time Egg is faced with similar problems.

 

well i am in shock i do not think i would like to be in this bank and have money in it ,on the same vein i will now check my own terms and conditions cause if i see a clause allowing them to change and freeze accounts i wont be with them......FSA are the week link on this unless they are behind it in agreement with it ?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I wonder what Citibank are going to do with all the egg account sat with debt collectors.

 

They love charging orders!!

 

HAK

[paulwlton]

OFT response today.

Dear Sir

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Re: (s63 & s77) - Copy of agreements

I refer to our telephone conversation in relation to the above.

Having spoken to more experienced colleagues on this issue, majority seem to take the view that the intention of the law is for the creditor to provide a copy of the text of the agreement not the actual copy that was signed. Meaning that the copy provided does not have to show the names and signatures of parties to the agreement.

However the debtor may request for a copy of the signed agreement but there are certain circumstances where the creditor does not have to provide this.

It does appear that only court can rule on this issue. Please click on the web links below for more relevant information:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19882047_en_1.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19890591_en_1.htm

I hope this helps.

Yours faithfully

Adesola Popoola

Enquiries and Preliminary Investigations

 

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and

intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they

are addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify

[email protected] immediately.

 

The Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8JX

Switchboard (020) 7211 8000

Web Site: The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers

 

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept

for the presence of computer viruses.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Another OFT cop out!!

[davefirewalker]

Those weblinks do not confirm what they oft said.......in fact they dont really say anything relevant at all

 

what a crock of s**t

 

Dave

[Having_A_Knightmare]

If they dont know what they are doing what hope is there!!!

 

Its about time they made some firm decisions and stop wimping out on answers

 

HAK

[paulwlton]

If they dont know what they are doing what hope is there!!!

 

Its about time they made some firm decisions and stop wimping out on answers

 

HAK

 

I have suggested they consult their lawyers and come back with a legal view. They've agreed and i await their response.

[humbleman]

OFT response today.

Dear Sir

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Re: (s63 & s77) - Copy of agreements

I refer to our telephone conversation in relation to the above.

Having spoken to more experienced colleagues on this issue, majority seem to take the view that the intention of the law is for the creditor to provide a copy of the text of the agreement not the actual copy that was signed. Meaning that the copy provided does not have to show the names and signatures of parties to the agreement.

 

Paul

 

I think what they are trying to get at is, that they feel left out and would like a mention in the Guardian about their incompent**** and complete lack of direction.

[un1boy]

The whole egg thing doesn't bother me as I haven't used my card for years.

 

I sent a CCA request and they sent an agreement with no required terms and a print out of terms and conditions from an online webpage.

 

I told them that the agreement is unenforcable without a court order and they told me that they have "declined" my complaint. They also told me that the T&C's aren't sent with the actual credit agreement at time a sig is required - but the agreement says "I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions attached"

 

i have yet to wirte back to them - this all happened months ago - way before xmas.

 

Should I send another CCA request or continue with the complaint I have?