EGG - Offered to pay charges but won't remove default

[Ginger66]

Hi,just wondering if anyone has any advice.Basically i owe EGG for a loan of just over £1600 and received a default notice for the debt.I wrote to them asking to remove or send me a copy of my default notice as the penalty charges on the account contributed to my default.

 

The reply was "in respect of your request for a copy of the default notice,whilst we are under no obligation to provide a copy of this default notice.I have enclosed a copy of the computer screen confirming details of it's issue and it has been registered in accordance with the correct procedure". This can't be right can it?

 

The charges that i reclaimed was £884 which they offered in full after only 4 days of sending the letter.I am still to accept this as i want my default removed.

 

Should i take the charges of £884,pay the rest of the debt off in full or should i hold my ground and refuse the charges saying i also want the default removed? I did put this on the original letter to EGG when i claimed the penalty charges back.I also called EGG who said i would have to contact a solicitor,they cannot remove a default notice.They said they could send a standard copy of a default notice.I personally don't think they have a copy of mine.

 

Thanks for your help in advance

[Mistermind]

Whereas these days Egg makes no difficulty about refunding charges and interest, reclaiming PPI remains very hard, while removing Default Notice is even harder. I do not believe anybody has succeeded against DN in the Egg room.

 

Angry Cat and Yasmin both accepted their charges+interest refunds, and are continuing with attempted DN removal separately (check their links in V-E Day thread). These have been marathon efforts already lasting over a year, with no end in sight yet.

 

For a CAG-wide view,

click SEARCH

ADVANCED SEARCH

set keyword to REMOVE

search thread titles only

[Ginger66]

Thats great,thanks for your help,much appreciated.Maybe i'll take the money and fight seperatly for the DN.

Would you advise paying the DCA the full £1600 owed,half i'll get back from EGG.The DCA offered me a settlement figure before.

Does it matter from a Credit report angle if it says settled or satisfied?

 

Thanks again

[Mistermind]

If you have not done so, why not send £2 to Experian, and find out exactly what the present report says? Or get it online from Experian.

 

Presumably you want to protect your good name for buying a flat etc. Different lenders have different criteria. If there is a black mark, then I believe a note of full satisfaction on the file would help, to show you are a woman does not run away from her obligations.

 

If you want to pay in a lump sum, I should bargain for a low settlement figure. DCA will be overjoyed about a lump sum. But get it in writing from a high officer in DCA, that they WILL record a note of satisfactioin on Experian afterwards.

 

GL.

[ninekey]

Hi, here is an extract of my letter to Egg on this subject, citing a helpful authority, which I have also added to Yasmin's thread. Typically, Egg has not replied and frustratingly, I got bounced away from Egg's Mr Murphy to the hopeless customer team in Derby. Do let me know whether anyone else has come across this Swayne decision:

 

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 2007 (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

[Mistermind]

Ginger66, have you accepted the charges refund, to fight DN removal separately? Under a nom-de-plume I would have thought confidentiality clause if any would not apply.