Egg_Charges and Default

[Yasmin]

Received a copy of the Defendant's witness statement,from Eversheds, late, as usual, and reams of unnecessary information. Really don't think the Judge ordered this!

 

Telephoned the Court and an earlier date for the hearing is still under consideration.

 

Yes, monkey uk, moving into the second year.....

[Mistermind]

This will outlast The Archers.

[Yasmin]

Just to give you an update.... I was in Court yesterday and if you recall, at the last hearing the case was adjourned so that myself and Eggs Solicitors could provide witness statements regarding the agreement which was reached between myself and Egg, in December last year. D L C was involved ....... Anyway, my interpretation of the Agreement was that the account was "SETTLED" and therefore any default or adverse credit should be removed.

 

The Judge also upheld this view yesterday, and asked eggs solicitor if this was normal practice for their client to take this course of action. He was outraged that they have behaved in such a manner.

 

It is not within his jurisdiction to order that the default should be removed. He has however suggested , a special performance injunction to enforce the terms of the compromised Agreement. The Judge has not made an order, but the case has now been adjourned and will remain open for 6 months, so that I may seek further advice re. the injunction. Needless to say, this is the action I will be taking!

[Ginger66]

Yasmin,can't beleive it's gone on so long.Just started reading tonight.

I put a thread on today where EGG have offered all charges within 4 days but won't remove my default.I still owe £1600 half of which i'm getting back from them in charges.

Wanted to pay EGG the remaining full amount in hope of getting DN removed.

Looks like i'll have to take the money and fight to get the DN removed later.

Good on you for keeping the faith so long.

cheers

[Yasmin]

Right that's it, injunction and affidavit completed, took a bit longer than I'd hoped as busy with other things at the moment. Delivering them to the court on Monday. Will also be claiming costs for the time and preparation for the hearings etc. at the judges discretion. The next hearing will be no. 4. It's just outrageous how they can get away with all this time wasting!

[ninekey]

Yasmin, I wondered whether the following might yet be helpful in your dealings with Egg. I recall that, in your case, the Judge recognised that he did not have jurisdiction to compel the lender to remove the default entry (and this seems to be a common obstacle in these sorts of actions.)

 

I had picked up on the following authority, which I think could be used effectively against Egg's lawyers and perhaps attract the eye of the Judge. Here is an extract of my letter to Egg's Ema Clayton, which, typically, has drawn no reply. Hope you find it useful!

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx 2007, received on xx. I note that you merely repeat the offer previously put to me by Mr Murphy of your Legal Team and you reject my counter-offer.

 

Removal of Default Entries

 

The reason given for refusing to remove the relevant default entries on my credit file is your purported obligation “to provide credit reference agencies with a consistent reflection of our customers’ credit standing.” What is the source of this claimed obligation?

 

With respect, I dealt at some length with that point in my letter to Mr Murphy dated xx (copy attached) and you have not specifically replied. Your primary statutory obligations are to the consumer, not to credit reference agencies.

 

The Impact of the Woodchester Case

 

My position is supported by Court of Appeal authority, namely, Woodchester Lease Management Services –v- Swayne & Co (1999 1 WLR 263.) This case is clearly against you. I refer you to the following passages from Lord Justice Kennedy’s judgment:

 

“This statute [i.e. the Consumer Credit Act] was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals. When contracting with a large financial organisation they are at a disadvantage. The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If [the consumer] is said to have broken its terms, [the consumer] needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take … ‘the next step’.

 

That, as it seems to me, is the scheme of the legislation. It would be frustrated if the [default] notice could claim that in order to put matters right [the consumer] must pay a sum far in excess of the amount in fact owing and yet constitute a valid [default] notice. It is all very well to say that [a consumer] can seek advice on receipt of a [default] notice but [a consumer] has very little time in which to do so. It may be as little as seven days. He may not appreciate that the large sum set out in the [default] notice is inaccurately calculated and plain wrong. It may be, perhaps because of earlier defaults on his part or the incidence of interest, not at all easy to calculate what in fact is owing and [the consumer] may, thus, be misled into believing that the sum set out in the [default] notice is right. He may even be frightened by that belief.”

 

The default notice in the Woodchester case was found by the Court to be invalid. These same principles apply to my case because:

 

1. The sums set out in the default notices served upon me by Egg were inaccurate. Those amounts were made up, in part, of course, by your charges;

 

2. If the Court in our case rules that the charges were indeed unlawful, the ‘true’ amount of the debt owing – as at the date of issue of the default notices – was, in fact, considerably less than the figures shown on the face of your notices, as served;

 

3. Accordingly, as the consumer, I was misled in exactly the way described by the Judge in Woodchester.

 

Your default notices (leading ultimately to the default entries on my credit file) are invalid and if this matter has to be litigated, I shall seek a declaration to that effect.

 

I appreciate that these are legalistic arguments and in the circumstances, it is perhaps better that the issues be litigated out and that I deal with your lawyers going forward.

 

Issuing Proceedings

 

What I propose to do is to issue proceedings within 14 days, unless you can tell me that you are prepared to re-consider my proposals. In my view, my offer represented a very fair and reasonable compromise. After all, the effect will still have been that my credit standing is adversely affected for a period of 3 years. This ought to give you assurance that this position has been conveyed to other lenders.

 

Also, I repeat the comments from my xx letter about confidentiality and ‘precedent-setting.’ In all the circumstances, it seems to me that this is a good settlement for Egg to enter into and I am at a loss to understand your reluctance.

 

I look forward to hearing from you. I reserve the right to refer a copy of this letter to the Court when considering any issue of costs and conduct that arises pursuant to CPR 44.3 or CPR 27.14 (2)(d).

 

Yours sincerely

[angry cat]

What a long and winding road Yasmin!!!

 

I am still following your case.

 

As for me...A Mexican Stand Off!

 

Love AC

[Yasmin]

Hi ninekey,

Thanks for posting that, very interesting and I will keep it in mind. I have now filed my injunction and affidavit with a covering letter, requesting the next available date if possible....hmm won't hold my breath. Anyway, I think I will rely on that and hope it is sufficient to finally remove this default. I just don't want to start complicating matters at this stage of play.

Hi angry cat, yes still it drags on! I will be catching up on yours now.....just been bit busy with other things and will take some time to read up....

[Yasmin]

Well, still no news from the court. So much for next available date. Contacted them yesterday, my file is still with the judge for decision!Will be happy:grin: to see the end of this now.

[monkey_uk]

You and me both Yasmin!

 

This is probably the longest running case on the whole of CAG IMHO!

[angry cat]

Well, still no news from the court. So much for next available date. Contacted them yesterday, my file is still with the judge for decision!Will be happy:grin: to see the end of this now.

 

Guess it will drag on for a bit longer as the courts are so busy plus some judges on holiday etc.

Still chin up Yasmin

 

Love AC

[Yasmin]

Court date finally through, mid month. If this isn't the last hearing, may shoot myself LOL. Anyway, time estimated is 20 mins. so whatever the decision will probably be quick!

[un1boy]

Ok, good luc k Yasmiin!!

[Mistermind]

Yasmin,

 

After 18 months your final battle arrives in 2 weeks! Egg will certainly think twice before they casually try to browbeat another defenceless woman.

 

In Tom Brennan v NatWest, the judgment issued on 30JUL2007 (17-page pdf in link below) mentioned how Tom claimed punitive damages against NatWest for the harm they unlawfully and unjustifiably did to him in blackening his credit rating. However the judge pointed out that Tom produced no evidence of any concrete adverse impact on Tom's financial life, e.g. mortgage application turned down because of it, and would not entertain this claim. Reading the words carefully deployed by the judge, had concrete evidence been produced, there could have been consideration for concrete damages.

 

In your case I understand both parties have agreed that penalty charges and PPI levies were unlawful, and that said charges therefore unlawfully triggered the Default Notice, which Egg even after 18 months tug-of-war refuse to withdraw. I suggest it could be in your interest if you could collate any written evidence of actual adverse impact, e.g. yourself being turned down for credit elsewhere, or passed over for a new job when the new employer ran a credit check on you. If apart from Egg's DN you have no other adverse black marks publicly recorded against you, then a fairminded judge may well attribute any adverse financial consequences you suffered solely to Egg's DN, retrospectively groundless and indefensible.

 

Your judge could turn out to be a pragmatic person placing weight and value on practical fallout. If the non-withdrawal of the DN is seen to have done visible harm and will continue so to do so for the next 5 years, then Egg has a case to answer -- by what right do they go around hurting consumers with impunity? Are Egg above the law of England?

 

Just in case Egg remain intransigent that they will not back down, just in case the Small Claims Court were not legally empowered to force compliance, you might consider sending Tom Brennan asap a PM via CAG or TomBrennan.co.uk. He has done heavy duty research on claiming punitive damages, and might have pointers for you. At the name of Brennan, Egg might begin to quake, and might decide that a discreet DN removal would be the better part of valour.

 

I am a skim-reader, and do not trust myself to get all the details right in your marathon case. Did Egg refunded all you PPI before, or at a court hearing? Your PPI win has still not been recorded in the V-E Day thread, and would be a most welcome addition. Would you be able to pinpoint one posting out of 240?

 

Very best of luck for a rousing victory at the end of your epic long march.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80804-tom-brennan-natwest-must-56.html#post1095954

[angry cat]

Good Luck Yasmin:)

 

Love AC

[hondamad21]

Hi Yasmin,

 

Wanted to wish you best luck.

My own preliminary hearing against egg is on 25-Sept.

 

hondamad

[un1boy]

Yep, good luck!! xx

[Yasmin]

The hearing was on Wednesday. No one even bothered to show this time......RESULT the Judge has ordered Egg to remove all adverse credit:grin: I think he's secretly hoping they will oppose it so he can get them into the courtroom !! the Costs were limited to this hearing, but now the default is being removed...............watch this space;-)

[Yasmin]

Sorry, I forgot to say thank you everyone for all of your support....especially the old faith fulls on this thread:grin: and Hondamad21 BEST OF LUCK next week X and AC,of course, Good Luck X

[andrew1]

Sorry, I forgot to say thank you everyone for all of your support....especially the old faith fulls on this thread:grin: and Hondamad21 BEST OF LUCK next week X and AC,of course, Good Luck X

 

I'm old and full of faith - does this include me, even if I haven't been too heavy on the thread? Watching, hoping, praying for you Yasmin (and letting everyone else do the work ) !

[Yasmin]

Thank you Andrew1, for those kind words and deeds. You're most certainly included:p:)

[Yasmin]

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group