Schnide vs Egg

[chrisuk1978]

Schnide,

 

I had a similar challenge from Egg, all fairly standard defence.

 

They are, in essence, doing a lot of the work for you - para 3 is almost offering standard disclosure, this is the route which I have taken. Request, on the AQ that the judge orders Egg to divulge a thorough breakdown of costs. I went a stage further and requested that the judge order Egg to divulge the profit from overlimit charges over the last 6 years (if it is a genuine pre-estimate then the profit should be negligible).

 

Section 4 will be an important part of the defence and an attempt to justify the disproportionate charges by weasling around the OFT comments of issuers with direct debits may be able to charge slightly higher - countered with the comments from the OFT in response to Ema Clayton's threats in the offer letter.

 

Section 5 - well thats clearly not true. You also need to point out that this penalty charge area is also well covered by the UTTCR in respect to dispropotionate charges as Egg will claim that this extortion is offered as a service (for which you pay exorbitant fees) rather than a genuine penalty charge clause.

 

Section 7 sets out fall back positions if they get trounced - and is countered by a request for standard disclosure.

 

I was recently chatting to a friend of the family who is also a prominent barrister. In the conversation, I mentioned my fears of being out gunned and out manoeuvered by the legal big wigs, and she said that the judge will make sure that the lay individual will not be disadvantaged during the trial. Whilst it is unusual ground for you, I'm sure you'll be fine. You have the law on your side.

 

Let ma know if I can help further.

 

Regards,

Chris.