Success! Judgement AGAINST Egg...

[goforit]

Hold On.

 

This seems to be verification:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/49033-egg-5-judgement.html

 

Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out

 

Consumer Action Group reps are quoted in it.

[angry cat]

Yes, on the face of it!

However Guy's I would advise you still tread cautiously, as the article does indicate that Egg may appeal.

 

barcote, if the above mentioned claim is yours, then I apologise most profusely for doubting you but as you must be only too well aware, when dealing with legalistic matters one can only abide by 'Crystal Clear', rock solid facts and not hearsay JMHO.

 

Love

AC

[dad]

Barcote,

 

Personally I respect your desire to keep out of the limelight. Although I fear you may find it harder than you think and not from anyone on here.

 

You said you would be around this thread for the next week and would be prepared to help with questions relating to case preparation.

 

Would you share your skeleton argument with the forum as there isn't one in the templates and many people are reaching that stage of proceedings and the still have to do the papaerwork - even if there is a court steps settlement.

 

Well done

 

Dad

[MAGZY]

Personally I would even go as far to say that £5 is excessive for going overdrawn (especially with egg as thier system is paperless and post free)

An automated process is employed that simply adds the (£20 charge) to the customers account and I doubt that this process even costs £5.

 

 

The interest on going £10 over your credit limit is actually only 1.3p per day or 39p a month (based on the BOE base rate of 5%) and this cost is even less when you take into account the banks lending rate which is 2%.

 

Bank charges are a money making venture for the banks.

 

I would like egg to appeal to show the true cost of going over ones limit on ones credit card and maybe then customers will only pay the true cost of doing so and have a right to claim all of the previously unlawful charges on their accounts (minus the actual cost)

 

I used to work for egg (and other banks) and I know for a fact that they don't employ monkeys to calculate that someone has gone over their credit limit and add charges onto peoples account - it's an automated computerised process that costs only the electricity to run the computer that the calculation and automated notification is run on.

 

 

It's only when you as a customer ring or email to complain, that there is manual intervention and someone will look into it and invariably decide not to waive it - especially if you are a persistent offender. (like me)

 

 

Obviously though, it is ultimately up to the courts to decide what the actual cost to the bank is. And I am of firm belief that the court in this case has made a mistake in saying that £5 is a 'reasonable charge'. When you take into account that in Barcotes case, the judge asked to see evidence of actual costs and Egg submitted a document with parts missing (i.e not the whole truth) there is still some milage in pursuing even this £5 punitive charge that make £bn's in profit each year.

 

 

It will take an appeal either by barcote or by egg to for this to be escalated into a higher court where egg cannot dither and pick and choose over what evidence they wish submit.

 

 

Personally, if I was barcote I would in fact appeal against the £5 'reasonable cost' on the grounds that it was still too high - purely because I know the true cost of going overdrawn and bouncing a direct debit etc from working in an IT back office banking environment over the past 10 years.

 

 

I am personally on the verge of claiming my £800 or so from egg (yes, they do charge their employees for going over their credit limit too - and I am a disgruntled ex-egg empoyee too) so I wait with baited breath to have the opportunity to appeal against the £5 'reasonable charge' - unless someone else quite rightly gets there before me.

 

 

Magz

[Isiris]

I like th ebit about we aret thinking of appealing.

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do. barcote obviously knows his onions and then we can have the precedent we really want

[Guest Battleaxe]

Well done, whoever it is who had the tenacity to go all the way. i would be appealing the £5.00 as being unfair, in for a dime in for a dollar. i have posted the article to everyone I know. I have been told by sommany people that I am tilting at windmills and that the banks always win. Yes they do, they may withdraw their services, they spit the dummy in the dirt, but a no less a moral victory is a victory.

 

Hip hip horray

[mcuth]

For those of us with ongoing claims against the Egg, I wonder if it's worth writing a quick missive to Mr St Clair Nelson offering them the opportunity to settle before suffering another defeat? :D:D:D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Kidson]

sorry

[bram stoker]

Credit card penalties for late payment or breaching spending limits should not exceed £5, a County Court judge has ruled. The case was brought by an Egg customer, who was awarded £570, including costs. Egg said it was considering an appeal.

 

For the doubting thomas's see here:-

 

Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out

Although some of us believe Barcote to be the person stated in this report, others don't. It is Barcote's decision to post what he wants to on this forum, and should not be pressurised no matter how much we would like more information.

[chrisuk1978]

Barcote,

 

Very well done sir. I am in the process of gathering together my evidence bundle for Egg, having submitted this afternoon my bundle for Barclays. Reading your guidance as to what was important in your case I can see the persuasiveness of the arguements and shall be adding your detail to my bundle (in my own words, ofcourse).

 

Thanks again for the efforts to share the salient arguements of your case, you have probably assisted more people than you could know.

 

My date is 19th December, and ofcourse you can rely on my support if Egg do appeal, as unlikely as we both know that is.

 

All best,

Chris.

[Jonnie Reclaim]

I would just like to thank Barcote for sharing his experiences with us and providing valuable advice which will prove useful. I would comment that any action taken against institutions is taken on an individual basis with all responsibilty for success or otherwise falling on each individual, not on the Banking Action Group.

 

I am dissappointed at Bankfodders actions in contacting Egg prior to Barcotes settlement being finalised. This action was understandable, but the timing was poor.

 

J.

[BankFodder]

I am sorry that some people regret that I have taken steps to find out more about this case.

 

However, nothing has been done which might impinge on anyone's privacy in anyway.

 

Here is an update on the progress of my inquiries:-

 

I now have had read out to me a copy of the order made by the judge in Barcote's case.

 

What is clear from the order is that the Defendants did not show up and that the judgment was given in their absence.

This means that judgment was effectively a default judgment.

 

I don't know in what context the judge made his comment that the correct figure was only £5.00. It was certainly not a remark which formed part of his judgment and he did not make the remark in the way of a decision which he reached after hearing evidence from both sides.

 

The remark may merely have been his own personal view when he was talking informally to Barcote but the comment should not be be treated in any way as a formal conclusion and it does not even carry the slightest persuasive weight.

 

Egg have agreed that there was a judgment against them. They say that there was an error on their part which resulted in the case going ahead and with them not attending.

 

Egg say that they are intending to appeal.

However as the case has not been decided on its merits I take it that they mean that they will seek a setaside - which they will almost certainly obtain.

It will then be up to them to decide whether or not to settle or to go on to a hearing.

 

My money is on a settlement.

 

I am very sorry that Barcote's posts did not make clear the full circumstances of the judgment.

 

Maybe he would like to respond and let me know if I am mistaken in anyway.

 

Maybe those who may have criticised me for looking into it will now reform their views.

[BankFodder]

Incidentally - I am unable to reconcile the order with the account of submission's having been made by Egg.

[angry cat]

It is my considered opinion that BankFodder acted quite correctly as an Administrator of the Consumer Action Group....he should be applauded, not criticised!!

Hey Guys, you have to remember that almost anyone can start a thread in all the different forums! One could make claim to almost anything.

Without any shadow of a doubt, any claim of obtaining a County Court Judgement against a Bank has to be validated.

 

I for one salute you BF, your actions were/are above reproach.

 

With legalistic matters, one can only abide by 'Rock Solid' 'Crystal Clear' FACTS.

Please bear in mind, that there are many vulnerable consumers out there on the wordwide web, that may take advice from another members thread/post, thereby if the advice is incorrect, it could put another at 'Risk'.

 

Without a doubt, barcote will fully understand.

 

Love

AC

[Jonnie Reclaim]

I do not think that Bankfodder was at fault for enquiring into the circumstances of Barcotes case, I do think however, that he would have been wise to delay to allow settlement.

 

I do accept that hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it is not my intention to offer criticism, but bearing in mind the attitude of the banks in witholding payment, I would prefer to see the money safely in my bank account before the case was discussed.

 

I appreciate that Barcote did 'post' and therefore put the matter into the public domain but I think that all site members should exercise caution when posting, as in some cases their posts could offer advantage to those who they seek to recover funds from.

 

I do have a lot of respect for Bankfodders experience, actions and continued efforts to fight injustice through this site and advice, but I also think that it is important that members express concerns in order to voice opinions and hopefully close any loopholes for the benefit of all.

 

It would have been helpful if Barcote had mentioned in his initial post that Egg did not actually attend the hearing and that it was a default judgement. This would have negated much of the debate produced by this thread.

 

J.