Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
    • Only that I will be updated this week.    So what your saying then is I should recieve a letter inviting me for a disciplinary hearing and attend a disciplinary. I thought the disciplinary was to give you the outcome of the investigation.     It seems a little odd that I have an investigation meeting I am asked question and given the chance to reply to the questions. It seemed odd that in this meeting I was shown evidence against me that I had not previously seen. Surely I should have been given the evidence first before being asked questions about it. It feels like they are building a case against me at the investigation meeting......
  • Our picks

munchkin0110

Me v Egg

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3625 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 Everyone

 

I requested copies of statements over the phone on mid March and they arrived a couple of weeks later.

 

Sent off my Prelim on 4 April for £268.00 and last Friday received an offer from them:

 

....Following the OFT investigation last August Egg reduced their charges from £20.00 to £16.00. Although they state this reduction is not retrospective, they have offered to refund the £4 difference to me.....

 

Quote:

 

“2. You allege that these charges are a penalty. You have out forward no evidence to support this allegation and we do not accept it. As explained in our previous letter, the charges set out in the Agreement are a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to Egg when a customer breaks the terms of their Agreement.

 

3. You may have followed recent media coverage of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigation into default charges. The OFT stated that a default charge could only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults. The OFT set a threshold for intervention of £12 but stated that default fees should not be equivalent to the threshold. The OFT stated that the presumption of unfairness in relation to charges over £12 would NOT apply where exceptional business factors apply and specifically referred to Egg’s practice of requiring all customers to pay the minimum payment by direct debit as an example. The OFT acknowledged that in those circumstances, a card issuer may be able to set a fair default charge above the threshold of £12.

 

4. Following the conclusion of the investigation, the OFT indicated that it would not proceed further against Egg on the basis that Egg reduced it’s charges from £20 to £16.”

 

Before I send off my rejection and LBA is there any wording that anyone knows about that can respond to these comments in particular?.... please


Munchkin

 

Egg - settled in full at LBA

Barclaycard - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Barclays - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the exact same letter (dated 13th April), and am equally confused about wording for a response ... can anyone help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just write to say:

You have great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £20.

You have great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £16.

You have great respect for all future Genuine Pre-estimates.

As a cardholder you cannot help wondering, if after 15(?) years in business Egg has ever tried to reconcile Pre-estimates against Post-event audits.

You are confident that a company devoted to justice and truth like Egg will not withhold evidence from the cardholder, that Egg will present evidence in court to show after-the-event costs, as well as before-the-event Genuine Pre-estimates.

You are
so
much looking forward to seeing Egg in court.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx Mistermind ... certainly to the point. My response came on the back of my LBA. Should I still send a rejection letter, confirming that action will be taken as per my LDA letter (deadline) and detail as confirmed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to show you are a credible opponent.

If you make it clear you will go all the way,

Egg will make it clear they will not go all the way.

 

Remember the case of NatWest, who

"forced £4,000 into Tom Brennan's account".

 

PS. If anybody wishes to force money into my account --

I will not put up major resistance.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed my LBA up with an email and secure message to cro.support@egg.com when i had 5 days till my deadline

 

2 days later i received agreement to repayment in full.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the posts and congratulations to Animaleyes.

 

I have spent some time drafting the following letter for my response:

 

Thank you for your letter dated 13 April 2007 in which you offer £XX.00 in full and final settlement of my complaint, however, I do not consider this a satisfactory response. I refer to the points raised in your letter as follows:

(1) Regardless of whether the credit card agreement states that charges will be added to the account if the credit limit is exceeded or fail to make contractual payments, it is the amount of the default charge which is in question.

(2) You have been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me, as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I believe your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ. 963. It was held that a contractual party can only receive damages for an actual loss or liquidated loss. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and/or real loss.

If your charges are indeed a genuine pre-estimate of the administrative costs likely to be incurred by you in dealing with defaults then in order to reassure me that your penalties really do reflect your costs, I once again request that you provide me with a breakdown and proof of all costs involved with regard to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (e). I would expect this to include a comparison of all charges levied against all customers and the actual costs incurred by you when those customers default.

(3) I refer to your comment regarding the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) default charge threshold of £12.00. I am aware that the OFT have stated that “where there are exceptional business factors... for example where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg….it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold”. However, this does not mean that your £16.00 is considered fair. The OFT state that only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair.

Therefore, I will accept the sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder, with a County Court claim, if necessary, although I sincerely hope that it will not be. Please also be aware that the Leeds County Court are transferring all claims of this nature to the Mercantile Court.

I do hope that you will respond positively to this letter in order to avoid court proceedings, as if this case does go to court you will be aware that you could also be liable for 8% statutory interest on the total amount of charges claimed (as of today this amounts to £XX) plus my costs. To clarify, a positive response being no less than an offer of full settlement of all charges incurred on my account.

I am aware of many cases that you have settled in full out of court to date and I assume therefore that would also be your intention in this case. If that is so, then to allow this claim to get that far may be considered an abuse of the court process, so I once again, respectfully request that you refund the total amount of charges I am claiming, now totalling £XXX.00 as per the attached schedule. I will give you 14 days to respond to this letter before taking the matter further.

 

Any comments, suggestions etc greatly appreciated.


Munchkin

 

Egg - settled in full at LBA

Barclaycard - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Barclays - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one year the same legal arguments have been replayed like table tennis by both sides without variation, in a dialogue of the deaf, with Egg refusing to show up for a showdown in court.

 

Egg's stance is that £16 is their latest "Genuine Pre-estimate", and cardholders critical of same have failed to produce evidence they are not a true reflection of Egg's costs. Various Australian studies have put the cost to be a few pounds. CAG undercover investigation found out Northern Bank's inhouse costing system Cynthesis put the cost between £2 and £3 -- alas without convincing photocopies as evidence.

 

I believe the most convincing word is
deeds
. On this day and every day, Irish banks charge £3 where Egg charges £16 and NatWest charges £39. If one shop sells an item at £3, and the shop next door sells exactly the same for £16. For what reason?

 

Denied access to Egg's inhouse costings, this is the best evidence of punitive charging which Egg cardholders can produce pre-trial. Are Egg's costs 5.3 times as high as Dublin's? Are Egg's salaries 5.3 times as high as Dublin's?

 

I believe the Dublin evidence would act like a crucifix held in front of Dracula -- there can be no rebuttal. For 2 Irish links showing £3 T&C online, see V-E Day thread.

 

As for institutions threatening all the way to defend in court, then at the last minute diving under the carpet and settling out of court, this is Abuse of Process. If this phrase is imbedded inside the letter, and the letter imbedded in the legal bundle, eventually the judge can see for himself, and Egg knows this. The point is, Egg have been warned. Forewarned, any repeat Abuse of Process is intentional, not accidental.

 

Good luck. And a fine letter you wrote.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got home from work yesterday there was a letter from Egg offering me full settlement. :D


Munchkin

 

Egg - settled in full at LBA

Barclaycard - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Barclays - settled in full after defence issued but before hearing date advised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I've written to Egg using a variant of the letter in post 8 and now get the reply about "genuine pre-estimate". They say it's their final response to my "complaint" and that I can go to the FSO if I want.

 

I also have a possibly dubious CCA from them.

 

I'm wondering if I should write and send the letter from post 3, but I think they really do not intend to pay and that legal action would be my only recourse. If so, it would be better to challenge the CCA first if it's not enforceable.

 

My thread is here if anyone can help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...