This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. 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 there. 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

This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. 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 there. 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

I totally agree with what Nicklea has posted with one exception. As the only "whole blood" sibling your friend is entitled to 100% of the estate under intestacy rules. See attached for a more detailed explanation http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/civil/probate/why_will.htm#chart She needs however to contact the Probate Registry to prevent the half-sibling obtaining letters of administration, she can do this by entering a caveat against the estate. The Probate Registry will be able to advise her on what she needs to do.

Hmn lots of guests

Thanks Rebel but I need DN's from around July 2006. I know that the term regarding debit cards and cheques was in there in at least September 2008 but need something earlier than that to see when it was added.

Has anyone got a copy of an Egg default notice from around July 2006 or can point me in the right direction to view one. I have been sent templates of letters which I am sure do not show what they actually sent but need ammo. When did Egg add the paragraph about debit cards and cheques taking varying amounts of time to clear on the account? Has anyone else just had template letters back from Egg re DNs and what version numbers were they. This is very very urgent as court date is tomorrow.

Bamboo I don't want to give away to much as no doubt someone will be looking at this thread on Monday morning but be assured I am well prepared.

I have seen a copy of the agreement, which yes is illegible ( see page one of this thread), however until now they have always said that they have the original agreement but refused inspection. As this is now before a circuit judge, which is only one down froma high court judge, I am hopeful that they will have the experiance to see through Cohen.

The order says The claimant do produce the original of the agreement made between the Defendent and Egg Plc on XXXXX (and not referred to as a copy in the claimants disclosure statement) at the trial on 19th October Also just found out this is before a circuit judge rather than a DJ and they have moved the trial to a court 15 miles away.

Just to add this in my opinion differentiates PPI from default charges. With PPI the rules are clearly set out as to what the vendor needs to do in order to comply. If they don't follow these clear rules or choose to ignore them then its their choice. Everyone knows it illeagal (ok mixing civil and criminal law here) to use a mobile whilst driving. People still do and going to court and stating "well your honour everyone else was doing it" isn't going to get you very far.

But it does help that Egg were fined in excess of £700,000 by the FSA for deliberate mis selling of PPI policies and forced to compensate their customers. Just because something may be widespread doesn't make it legal. The rules were in place to cover the selling of PPI, just because everyone broke the rules doesn't change the fact that the rules were broken.

I am sorry but I disagree. If this were true then the courts would not have the power to reopen the agreement were any terms unfair. What this might be referring to is the Rankine judgement where Judge Brown said that " In my judgment, it cannot invalidate a default notice if elements of the sums claimed in that notice are subsequently found to be irrecoverable by virtue of other legislation, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The obligation imposed on the lender is to state the sums due on the face of the agreement. To impose any other requirement would remove any certainty from the process, since it would require lenders to anticipate and calculate, in advance, a court's likely view as to a fair sum to levy in respect of default charges. This is a virtually impossible task which Parliament cannot have intended that lenders would have to carry out when issuing default notices" However you note that he was referring to default charges and the deliberate mis selling of PPI in my opinion is an entirely different scenario Just to add this is to spamheed rather than GH (posting at same time)

If the PPI was lawful then why did Egg refund the money to you? If the policy was mis sold to you it was a deliberate act by Egg to enrich themselves at your expense. Sounds pretty unlawful to me.

Yes but those two monthly payments must be for the wrong amount as they included mis sold PPI and interest on that PPI

Another thought for you it also renders any DN issued invalid as it would have overstated the amount that you had to pay to rectify any breach. Lord Justice Kennedy in Woodchester v Swain "If a sum of money had to be paid it needed to be specified and if the figure given was more than the sum which the giver of the notice was entitled to demand the notice was invalid."