Jump to content

Second Claim Against EGG- Possible Closure of Acoount!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5312 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Dear ALL


I am persuing a second claim against Egg in order to reclaim the charges that have been applied to my account.


The total amount was 7 seperate charges of £16 (overlimit charge) which totals £112. Although not as much as some of the contributors on this board, I still feel its a matter of principle since my first claim, they had managed to refund me the amount that I was seeking.


My question is: I am using all the same procedures that I have done in my first case and has yet to reach the court action, but what bothers me is the letter of response that I had recieved from EGG (in paticular paragraph 6.


Although I believe its a standard response directed to scare the customer, it seems like they are really stubborn.


This was there response: Paragraph 6


6. It is clear from your letter that you do not accept the Egg Credit Agreemt terms as Binding. Further, the conduct of your account leads us to think that you will not comply with the terms int he future. We therefore give you notice under Clause 20 (2) EGG card- that we are ending your Egg card agreement with effect from 30days. After this day you must ensure that no more transactions are made and that any continuous payment authorities or standing instructions are cancelled by telling the recipient of the payments to cancel them. You must cut all the cards issued on the account in two and throw them away. Although further card use will be cancelled, your agreement will continue untill you have repaid all sums you owe to EGG.


Alhtough I have tried to keep my account in order since my first claim, I still managed to recieve thses charges which I am trying to claim on this second attempt since the time they had refund my first claim, they had already charged me an additional 7 times!


Any thoughts or comments to my current situation would be much appreciated since Egg are still the stubborn one to deal with.


Kind Regards



Link to post
Share on other sites



Re these 7 x £16 overlimit charges,


(1) Was your pre-complaint limit exceeded entirely due to unlawful charges not yet refunded?


(2) Was your pre-complaint limit lowered, resulting in your pre-complaint balance to exceed your post-complaint limit.


Case (1), if Egg offers refund plus interest as settlement of First Wave charges, there would certainly be a strong argument for refunding plus interest the Second Wave charges caused by the First Wave.


Reporting Egg retaliation to the Regulator


Case (2) -- this is the famous Offside Trck, with defenders advancing to entrap attackers, putting them over a barrel with no way out. The Bank Ombudsman severely reprimanded the A&L Bank for closing a bank account in retaliation for refund claims, and fined A&L.


Worse than retaliation -- victimisation


Not sure about the legality of Egg unilaterally reducing your limit at will -- not dissimilar to a bank calling in an overdraft. Unlike the courts, the Bank Ombudsman costs nothing. I saw a BBC program in which the Ombudsman strongly encouraged contact from victims. Perhaps if you could try an Advanced Search (see Irish Rose thread) on Ombudsman, limiting your search to Others->Egg Forum.


Reclaiming slightly reduced penalty charges


On 05APR2006 the OFT pronounced they "will not rule out taking legal action" against credit cards which charge penalties above £12 (Egg wrangled a £16 exception with the OFT). He gave them a deadline of 31MAY2006 to respond, and said the bank situation is similar to cards. Egg Card later reduced their charges to £16 per item. As your 7 are £16 I take it they were levied after June 2006.


When responding to claims for refund of newstyle £16 penalties (in contrast to oldstyle £20 penalties) I gather Egg puts up a different defence, something along the lines of

"The OFT after careful consideration has decided £16 was a reasonable fee for us to charge".


This is a red herring. The OFT has not approved £16 as a reasonable level. Their decision on 5th April 2006 was not a vote for or against, it was an abstention. The OFT currently will not take action against £16 charges, but may do so in future. Whether £16 charge is in accordance with the law, only a law court can decide,


not OFT,

not Egg,

not the customer.


If Egg does decide to meet you in court, they will have to produce detailed evidence to justify the newstyle £16 as reasonable. Well-informed CAG lawyers think they will not expose their charges costings in court and risk the downfall of their entire business, the same way they declined all invitations to justify the oldstyle £20 in court. If so, to keep out of court they would again settle, although I have not yet read any threads explicitly reporting successful reclaiming of £16 charges.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Mister mind


Thank you for the useful comments


I can confirm to your queries that (1) All charges were levied were as a result of my initial overlimit charges which were already refunded pre-June 2006.


As expected they did reply on the lines of the OFT findingd of April 2006.


I thought that would be the case when the OFT stated that £12 was to be the limit to charge for Credit card. So along those line, I am going to write back to Egg stating the actions of closing my account will result in further action on my behalf due to the A & L case and as per your comments that the £16 overlimit charge is for the court decide.


As I understand the OFT is undergoing a fuller investigation of bank charges The Office of Fair Trading: OFT announces 'quick fix' on bank charges will disadvantage consumers with an outcome expected to be mid April but whether this will apply to credit card charges, only time will tell.


Will keep you posted on any progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...... Full details of the study will be announced in late April, and it is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
OFT has liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service and held discussions with the British Bankers' Association.......
In April 2006
the OFT set out
for considering the fairness of credit card default charges. One question for the new study is to consider how these principles might apply to bank accounts."


Nigel, well done for providing the OFT link.

Claimants appear to have 3 options:

(1) OFT
-- in April 2006 the OFT announced Principles of fair charging, opening the floodgates to 100,000 Small Claims Court lawsuits. The OFT turned the tide where revolutionary campaigners previously did not.

The OFT pronouncement in a few weeks will probably reaffirm that priniciples pronounced last April on cards do apply to banks. The big OFT pronouncement at the end of 2007, substance unknown, would carry the additional weight of the FSA, FOS, and BBA.

On the debit side victims have suffered punitive charges for 30 years, time when the OFT was alive and well -- and silent. OFT intervention came after years of lobbying by BankActionGroup now renamed ConsumerActionGroup, and after a landmark lawsuit by Stephen Hone. In the excerpt above OFT mentioned ongoing consultations with FSA, FOS, BBA. Freudian slip by the OFT? Do victims have no voice, do articulate CAG lawyers have no place at the OFT table?

(2) Small Claims Court
-- cards and banks evidently cave in and offer full settlement when faced with the alternative of immediate court attendance. But how they drag things out to the last minute to test victims' stamina! The 27 successful claimants in V-E Day thread probably spent 4 months each from start to finish.

All very well to spend 4 months reclaiming £1,000 worth of 6 years back charges, but it would be a pyrrhic victory to spend £80-worth of time to reclaim £70 charges.

(3) High Court
-- in June 2005 pioneer Stephen Hone won the first landmark battle reclaiming charges from the Abbey Bank, whose battery of barristers at the last minute caved in, placating law student Stephen with a fivefold settlement. Defending an unlawful income of £4.5 billion per annum, banks evidently mean to fight to the last ditch. Complaints to banks have risen 40-fold in one year -- evidently still not enough to swamp them. Perhaps a million claims a day will be needed before they surrender.

Firebrand action man Stephen Hone is looking for a few volunteers to mount a class action lawsuit in the High Court, potentially going all the way to the House of Lords, but said volunteers must qualify for Legal Aid --

So there we are, 3 routes for progress:

(1) Waiting for deeds, not principles, from the OFT

(2) 100,000 tiresome battles in the Small Claims Court

(3) One decisive pitched battle in the High Court


A historian said every country gets the government it deserves.

Every victim can stand up for his future.






Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to update, I have sent them a further letter with reference to the A$ L case of closure of account and as expected, a standard response letter from EGG:


' With Regards to the termination of your account the decision still stands and your account will be reviewed on 2nd May for termination.


The case you refer to in your letter was terminated in the first claim. With Regards to your account, Egg refunded in full the charges that had been applied to your account. We also explained that any further breaches of the Egg card terms and condition will result in your account being terminated.


As you have breaches the Egg Terms and Conditions again, this is the reason you have recieve 30 days notice that your account will be terminated.


As explained above, the decision stands and your account will be reviewed for termination in 2nd May 2007'


The whole letter dosent even make sense! and keeps on repeating itself!


They have not explained properly about the actual 'Breach' in the terms. I expect they have the idea that my action to reclaim the charges constitute a breach since this is a retaliatory tactic on there behalf.


In addition, they didnt mention anything about the actual charges. Seems like there defences are getting even more abismal.


Anyways, Im going to file a smalls claims action and see what will happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...