CCA's & Variation of Agreements

[Guest ArthurP]

I wonder if some knowledgable people can explain if section 82, Variation of Agreements, of the CCA would have any impact on my requesting my original agreement from Egg?

 

I'd guess my original agreement from Egg contained fees that had to be changed, as the OFT suggested they were too high, and they now charge £16, I think.

 

I've never signed any further agreement with them but obviously they are now operating under this variation to which they have defaulted me on.

 

Should have I signed a new variation?

 

Cheers

[diskmandave]

bump

[Guest ArthurP]

Section 27.4 of Egg's loan agreement states that ' any major change or a lot of minor changes in any one year, we will give you a copy of the new terms and conditions or a summary of the changes'

 

The OFT investigation into credit card providers charges was either a major change or a lot of minor changes (considering all the charges they levy) yet I had no new terms and conditions or summary of charges sent to me.

 

And in any case, my original agreement had to contain T&C's as part of it.

 

Logically I should have to sign for any new T&C, surely? Except I haven't had to.

 

This is Egg deciding what to do rather than what the law says to do!!

[Guest ArthurP]

Although the OFT are not the law but Egg abide by 'any other valid reason!'

 

Reason enough to reduce unlawful charges by 20%!!!

[Guest ArthurP]

If there is any variation then surely you have the option of ending that agreement variation if you so wish should you not wish to be bound by it?

 

If you are not given that option by new T&C's being sent to you to sign then it must be a contract forced upon you. Is that legal?

[Guest ArthurP]

Ok, what about this scenario. It's all new as it has never been defended or concluded.

 

If Egg had sent me a letter, email, or whatever and said that the OFT have recommended that credit card providers should reduce fees, such as returned DD's, to £12, even though Egg stayed at £16 which they are now, because the OFT thought this was a lawful amount, does that mean I entered into a contract with Egg when charges were £20 yet this clause of the contract could be completely unlawful?

 

Egg must have some admission to wrong as they have reduced their fees, or penalty charges!, from £20 to £16.

 

I thought a contract cannot be enforceable if any part of it is illegal/unlawful?

 

I'm going to challenge Egg in any way-the swines.

[Guest ArthurP]

This is my whole point.If an agreement say's penalty charges are £20 which we know is illigal then by dropping them to £16 is an addmission of guilt because they shouldn,t be there in the first place

 

 

Just my point dirtyharry.

 

It's like I'm going to employ someone on a certain wage but 'I'll give you an extra £20 in the hand.'

 

You are not allowed to do it so why can they?

 

Everyone and everything is within the law with no exceptions.

 

I cannot form a contract with someone, as a small business, and insert a clause that is clearly unlawful, ie penalty charges, and then rely on a court to enforce that contract, which is in part unlawful, because somebody breached it.

 

Please, can somebody say this is a con?