Jump to content


angry cat

Angry Cat v Egg** Egg smashed at last**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3649 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

Hi Guys-

I have received the 'Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed by Egg's-

David St. Clair Nelson

Treasury Counsel - Egg Banking plc on 14 August 2006. Box No 1 was ticked - They intend to defend all of this claim.

 

Angry Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... They intend to defend all of this claim....

 

I wish they would stop using that invisible ink.... look closely and you'll see it...

 

They do not intend to defend all of this claim


..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Know !! The Defendant (Egg) filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 14 August 2006. The Defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all of the claim. The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form, or of the particulars of claim, to file a defence. Angry Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys, Egg had until 4pm today 6 September 2006 to file their Defence, otherwise I was going to request judgement but Guess What? I have just phoned the Court and right at the eleventh hour, Egg have filed their Defence ! They obviously have all the Claims Logged onto their system, because Egg appear to be filing their defence right at the last moment. As soon as I receive a copy of the Egg filed Defence, I will post it on this forum Thanks AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I have this morning received the Egg Defence, which is almost identical to mcuth's. I have until the 25 September 2006 to file the AQ. I will attempt to type out the wording of the Egg Defence, please forgive me for any typo's. 1. The Claimant entered into an Egg credit card agreement with the Defendant in July 2001 (the "Agreement"). As at the date of this defence, the Claimant owes XXX to the Defendant. The Claimants debt to the Defendant was passed to a debt collection agency. 2. It is admitted that charges were added to the Claimant's Egg account during the course of the Agreement. Each charge was made pursuant to clause 7.1 of the Defendant's standard terms and conditions (the "Terms and Conditions") as a result of insufficient funds being available from the Claimant's designated current account to cover the amount of the direct debit payment due on the Egg Card and charges were added to the Claimant's account when she exceed her Credit Limit in breach of the terms of the Terms and Conditions. Clause 7.1 clearly states: (in italics) "if you break the terms of this Agreement we may charge you the following, where relevant, to cover the additional cost to us:" £20 each month you go over limit £20 if you do not keep up the payments on the Account..." The Credit Limit is the amount of money the Claimant was entitled to borrow from the Defendant. 3. It is denied that the charges are "punitive" as alleged. The Defendant recognises that customers, suchn as the Claimant, sometimes exceed their Credit Limit or fail to make or are late in paying the required repayments and the Defendant therefore puts in place systems and processes to deal with the same. Such systems and processes include the use of computers, staff and other necessary overheads. The charges set out in clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions are calculated by taking into account the total costs incurred by the Defendant in maintaining those systems and processes and the estimated number of customers (such as the Claimant) who will fail or are late in paying the required repayments. The Defendant avers therefore that the amount of the charges applied under clause 7 represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss and exoense caused to the Defendant in respect of such customers exceeding their Credit Limit or failing to make or being late in paying the required repayments. 4. Further the Defendant takes steps to try to ensure that customers such as the Claimant do not incur the charges set out in Condition 7. For example, the conditions of the Agreement required the Claimant to have a direct debit in place to make her monthly repayments. This was done to ensure (as far as possible) that the Claimant would not fail to make her repayments or make such repayments late and thus avoid charges under Condition 7. 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 Unfair Contract Terms 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Defendant avers that the term imposing the default charge is reasonable in the circumstances set out in the paragraph 3 above. 7. The Claimant is put to proof that her loss as a result of the charges is £335.16 as alleged. 8. In the event that the Court finds that the default charges levied on the Claimant do constitute an unfair penalty and are thus unenforceable, the Defendant asks the Court to assess the actual cost to the Defendant of dealing with the Claimant's breach of contract in failing to make her repayments. Statement of Truth - Dated this 5 September 2006 - I believe that the facts herein are true. Signed - David St Clare Nelson, Legal Counsel. Egg Bankinf plc Phew ! okay well that's the Egg Defence and Ooooh IMHO quite a lot to "pick at" methinks..........................................................................................Hey guys, the reason that the PRU/EGG are fighting for their lives, will be revealed if you take a look at the city wire etc "United we stand, divided we fall and the vulnerable consumer will push Humpty Dumpty off the Wall. Anyhow, thoughts on the above will be most welcome. However, be guarded in what you post because remeber website walls have ears. AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8. In the event that the Court finds that the default charges levied on the Claimant do constitute an unfair penalty and are thus unenforceable, the Defendant asks the Court to assess the actual cost to the Defendant of dealing with the Claimant's breach of contract in failing to make her repayments

 

 

hes done your work for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, deathshead ! Read number 8 again, line by line, word by word. Because your interpretation is not their (Humpty Dumpty's) ambiguous meaning!? Egg must be taking the view, that we or I, are stupid....I am very well aware, as to what Egg are suggesting. However, Hey Ho, this comes as no surprise to me. I do believe that this may well be....WAR! Love Angry Cat:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I reading this right? Egg are asking the the court that if/when they find in your favour that these are unlawful penalties, they are then asking the Court to set the amount of a reasonable cost that they can charge as a penalty?


:razz:the winner takes it all :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation is that Egg's ambiguous wording is intended to confuse and that what they are in fact attempting in a veiled manner to state, is that I 'could be repsonsible for their costs' in attending Court re: my alleged breach. However, if anyone's interpretation differs to mine. Of course, I will be very pleased corrected. Basically I do not trust Egg, to be open and above board in their actions or their wordings, because somewhat covert tactics have already shown up in Yasmin's thread. Remember, this is simply my opinion - JMHO!! AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Defendant asks the Court to assess the actual cost to the Defendant of dealing with the Claimant's breach of contract in failing to make her repayments

 

They are definitely asking the court, in the event of the charges being found to be unlawful, to assess the real cost to Egg of dealing with a bounced DD or an unauthorised overdraft.

 

They, I'm sure, mean it as a scare tactic to make you think - "OMG, the court might assess it as £200 per charge....!!" It actually has the opposite effect in that, in the event this gets to court the Judge will have no option but to ask Egg to disclose their costs and Egg, having asked for this in the first place will have no choice but to reveal!! :D

 

I'd be writing back to Egg with a big smile on my face to ask them how much they will enjoy setting a precedent that the entire banking industry will then have to follow!!! Egg would not eggsactly be flavour of the month in the finance world if this were to come about!

 

Pray that this case actually gets in front of a Judge. :D

 

Pete


I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your view Number6, well it certainly looks as though my case is going to Court...Time will only tell. AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humpty Dumpty THIS IS WAR!!!!!!

 

As you know I have issued a Claim against the BAD EGG-

Just about to file my AQ but I will have to amend my Claim to include the Data Protection Act 1998. Maybe, you guys can advise me:)? Pleaseee

 

Please be so kind as to view the link below-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/33127-experian-equifax-advice-please.html#post258361

 

I am absolutely fed-up with Humpty's Dirty Tricks because......

After excercising MY RIGHTs in Requesting a Refund of Unlawful Charges, that action put me into a dispute situation. I served a stat. s10 dpa notice on Egg. Furthermore, I withdrew my consent from Egg's Data Controller (Jenny Gordon) to process my data.

Egg has totally ignored the fact that I have Withdrawn my Consent' .....and have just ridden rough shod over me; Coach & six Horses; brazenly abusing the regulator of the DPA namely the Information Commissioner and the OFT, by registering a Default on my Experian credit file.

This action is scandalous. How Dare You Egg!! this is MY Personal Data!

Help me crack this rotten Egg.

Angry Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you not take action against the credit file agencys e.g Equifax, Experian etc?

 

They hold your data and to the best of my knowledge are not offical government bodies, although speaking to them they would have you believe so.

 

If you have told Egg to stop processing your data, I wonder whether you have a cause of action against the credit companies?

 

There is a long running thread about such matters in the legal section.

 

FP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you funkyparott for your view:)

 

My AQ has been filed. However, shortly to be amended via HMCS N244 form, to include the additional 'Unlawful Penalties' that have been applied to my Egg account, since Issuing my Claim against Egg Banking plc.

 

I actually served a statutory 'Notice Pursuant to section 10 of the Data Protection Act" to the Data Controller of EGG, requesting Egg to cease from processing my Data and....an emphasis should be placed upon the fact! that I also 'Withdrew My Consent' -"you have given your consent to the processing [although consent may be withdrawn]".

 

I take a very Dim View about Egg's tactics. I feel sure that any District Judge would take account of their behaviour towards a vulnerable consumer, who has exercised their Right in requesting a refund of Unlawfully Penalty Charges.

 

The EGG Games, will undoubtedly escalate.

 

A thoughtful Angry Cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck am taking the halifax to the cleaners and am thinking about it with egg am at the dlc bit at the moment and will tell them to sling their hook at the min as it is gonna be in dispute look forward to hearing from you to see what happens

ollie


HALIFAX MONEY CLAIM ISS FOR £4k 26/10/06:mad:

 

Look out :eek:

 

Cap One

EGG

lloyds tsb!!!!

 

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all nail biting stuff, I see a film of Angry Cat and Egg!

 

Good luck :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angry Cat,

 

I've just sent my prelim letter to (SH.../SC.../FL.../GR...) Abbey, so am heading down this route too.

 

I read in another post that you are in Tunbridge Wells. Me too!

 

I'll be following your case with interest - and if you do end up in court, with your permission, I'd quite like to come and spectate/offer my all-too-inexpert moral support.

 

Whadya reckon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your support Guys!!!

 

I have received the block mailing letter from EGG, it was dated 11 October 2006-

 

http://static.flickr.com/105/268819649_7389571cfd_b.jpg

 

The amount quoted plus the name is not mine.

 

IMHO the Claim that Egg are referring to is, in reference to *ANNALH.

"We are begining to reach the conclusion of some of those claims, and we have recently had the first court trial for such a claim".

"At the court hearing referred to above, the customer's claim against Egg was dismissed. Egg was awarded its costs of attending the hearing, together with the court fees in respect of the counterclaim".

 

*Unfortunately ANNALH was unable to attend the court, quite possibly for a valid reason! Therefore, just because ANNALH did not attend, I believe that the judge awarded EGG its costs of attending the hearing, together with its court fees.

However, a Defendant is not successful simply because a Claimaint does not attend. The facts particulars/about a Claim do not alter!!!

 

Please take notice Guy's, that if you Issue a Claim, then you must carry your Claim through to the end. We are all human though, so if a crisis does arrise please advise the court, in plenty of time and request an alternative date.

 

Lastly, I am quite astonished by the block mailing Egg letter. I personally do not know what they are talking about? I dislike the ambiguity of Egg's wording, the intent of which appears to confuse JMHO

 

My answer to the Egg letter, the content of which insults my intelligence is:

 

COMPUTER SAYS NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

 

AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have received the block mailing letter from EGG, it was dated 11 October 2006

I'm beginning to feel a bit left out now cos I haven't got my letter yet :D

Have only received the "stay til 1st March '07" from the court....

 

Cheers

 

Michael


Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael count your blessings that you did not receive the eyebrow raising letter from egg! in which Egg refer to a trial as opposed to a hearing??!!!

 

Re: my Claim, I rang my county court and was informed that it is with the District Judge, awaiting Allocation.

Most likely I will receive a notification that the Claim will be Stayed. If that occurs, then I will make an Application to the Honorable District Judge for the Stay to be Lifted.

I will keep you all posted.

 

Loce AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AC

 

Yeah, I guess I'm glad I've not received it (and no counterclaim either) - although I've not heard anything from them since they wrote with their defence (not even a copy of the AQ) :rolleyes:

 

How strange that they'll go to these lengths to avoid paying out on £85 :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

Michael


Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys 'Good News' !!

 

My Claim against Humpty Dumpty has been allocated to the small claims track

 

The hearing of my Claim will take place at 11:30 on 29 January 2007 at Tunbridge Wells County Court and should take no longer than 1 hour 30 minutes.

 

To be honest, I had anticipated my Claim being 'Stayed' but I am thankful that it has not:)

 

I, together with many other members am very angry with EGG, their poor/bad practices are a scandal, they are no different to any other bank that impose 'Unfair & Unlawful' Penalty fines onto the vulnerable consumer.

 

"Into the valley of the death, rode the six hundred"

 

Just to update you on another Egg dispute of mine. As you know, I served Egg with a s10 notice, to cease from processing my data, this Egg refused to adhere to. Therefore, I wrote again to the darling Jenny Gordon (Data Controller) advising Egg that I formally withdraw my consent from Egg to process my data. Humpty Dumpty then registered a Default on my CRA file!!! (without even advising me)

I then wrote to both Experian & Equifax, demanding that the Unjustified / Unwarranted Default be removed as it was causing me distress. I am still battling with Experian, but I received a letter from Equifax today, it reads as follows:-

 

Dear AC

"Insight Information - Prudential Bank - Egg

 

With regard to our previous correspondence relating to the above information we wish to advise you that we have received no response from the Client in relation to the information under dispute on your credit file. We therefore, temporarily removed this information from your credit file, you will be notified if we receive an update from the client.

 

Please note that the Notice of Dispute previously loaded to your credit file has been removed.

I hope this is of assistance.

 

Equifax Customer Care Team."

 

Finally, Egg if you are reading this post, I suggest that you take more care when you send out letters to your customers! JMHO, it must be a Data Protection Act breach to send a letter to my home address but factually written to another member of this Consumer Action Group who's name, for obvious reasons cannot reveal.

 

Okay Guys that is my lengthy update.

 

Love Angry Cat...mew mew mew..miowww..prrrrrrrrrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello cat! Well done for pushing with your S10 request. i have just had "bog off" response to mine. Did you write back to Egg after the refusal? I haven't got a default because I am paying regularly; were you?


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joa,

 

Yes, I wrote back to Egg 'Withdrawing My Consent' from them to continue the processing of my personal data to third parties, as I am entitled to do. The data that Egg were processing in relation to my account, is MY personal data.

Yes, I was paying regularly, that is until I 'Disputed' the Unfair Penalty fines/charges. I then stopped my Direct Debit, as I was not prepared to be penalized any more by EGG and...I still am not!

The charges caused over limit fines, the situation was snowballing, out of control. Thus, I excercised my Right and stopped my payments, until such time as, matters could be resolved.

AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3649 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...