Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4832 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

ummm

 

sent of the DSIR as recommended

 

they sent a letter back saying I hadn't sent a cheque, I had and I stapled it to the letter (wife's a lawyer and that's 'how it's done)

 

ah well, sent them another on Saturday

 

They are prompt, I'll give them that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contractual Interest - Precedent - LOST

 

In the light of 12 June 2007 binding ruliing in the High Court, best not to mention "Contractual Interest" anywhere now.

 

Simply reclaiming the debit interest shown on your monthly statement as actually levied due to unlawful charges should be ok. If debit interest was accrued partly due to charges and partly due to lawful purchases, then I would suggest reclaiming debit interest in proportion. An even thornier question could be asked, when you pay into Egg card, does the payment wipe out existing charges first, or purchases first, or your payment is split to reduce both in proportion, or in sequence of transaction date.

 

In recent settlements Egg has shown an enlightened and co-operative spirit on charges and interest (long may prompt, conciliatory settlements continue), so I very much doubt Egg would split hairs on interest computation for any purpose of stalling or saving pennies on payout. In several recent cases delighted claimants have reported that Egg volunteered to add on 8% Statutory Interest where claimants never even reclaimed interest.

 

GL.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

High Court, what were they doing there? (off to actually be bothered to read it in a minute anyway)

 

I'm aware CI is a bit dodgy in front of a judge at the mo, this won't have helped clearly, thank-you for the link

 

again, my other claims have stat in the variance, NW and B have been served now with full on CI anyway :eek:

 

Wait for the statements and see what's what anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

skimmed it

 

the was offered charges plus stat, I' think I'd have settled for that if offered, I certainly wouldn't have proceeded to court on the CI element alone

 

let alone appealed to the High Court

 

thanks again, been offline for a while

 

fingers crossed they don;t defend due to being busy then

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I discovered the aforesaid landmark thread entirely by accident, because I happened to have time to browse around aimlessly. It is the reality of this 140,000-member site that you stumble across critical news and info as best you can.

 

When Dave's filofax-style Wikipedia is up and running, the situation ought to improve.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep and thanks again

 

it's quite a cluttered thread isn't it, which doesn't help

 

I admire his spirit appealing to the high court with a simple CI case, and with the suspect M&R argument it appears, that's been firmly slapped down a month or so ago hasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By dad's account, his CI claim was dismissed from county court in February 2007, his appeal to High Court was dismissed on 8th June 2007, and on 12th June 2007 dad made a postiing which attracted little attention. I have seen no posting reporting press coverage of this landmark ruling in the High Court.

 

Had I not stumbled on the aforesaid thread by accident, then to this day I would not have known about it. Fom posts reporting a recent court hearing, a judge was quoted as saying "We talk to each other, you know". It is conceivable that he was trying to say, judges do homework on recent rulings, and bank barristers do the same, that judges get irritated by claimants who come before him not having done as much homework, to repeat arguments previously thrown out.

 

Not to suggest in the least that Hippo v Egg will end up in court. You only need to roll over to flatten them. icon10.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

 

getting out of the water is a problem though

 

I'm never ever going to go to court as long as I've been offered core charges/interest plus stat

 

appeals to the HC? oh my sides

 

I wouldn't dream of it unless I had no end of time to really prepare, I quite sympathise with judges having people stand up in front of them with cobbled together arguments they don't fully understand, if that happens

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

dsir response arrived recorded delivery during the week, picked it up this morning, quite the bundle, statements plus a record of every time I phoned them up, makes the other banks a look very shoddy, no time to do more than skim so far, doesn't look like it's going to make me rich

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

oops, seemed to been missing this one

 

grand total of less than £200

 

the lady wife insists it's not worth going after

 

prelim and then LBA sent

 

a letter back from Egg was not the expected offer but a ploite explaination that their charges are fair and yada yada

 

they're apparently calculated by dividing the cost of their administration by the number of contraventions of the account conditions

 

fancy that

 

LBA has now expired so I've now got to decide whether to initiate proceedings

 

principle says yes, ag factor says no

 

:confused:

 

perhaps I'll fill out the N1 and send it to them to try and poke them into settlement

Link to post
Share on other sites

67 claimants did not take no for an answer, and all were refunded. As far as unlawful charge went, not one reclaim was refused by Egg. By convention and form, Eggployees HAVE to talk coy in their first letter to make you try harder, much like that principle of yore that girls do not do it, ahem, on the first date.

 

Your response differed slightly from the conventional Egg template saying £16 was lawful re OFT etc, but the same principle. If you ignore Egg's deviation, and send the moc1982 letter now, should do the trick.

 

But be quick, the tide is flowing against claimants nationwide. A few courts have now outrageously stayed credit card hearings which are not bound by the forthcoming OFT test case against banks -- and have rejected claims to lift the stay!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...