£20 for a direct debit to the Egg credit card that wasn't covered by my bank account held with another bank. I think it was for just under a fiver, as well. And they ended up paying me £52.02! SMASHED the Egg!

They might not be in the folder, but it's not because there haven't been any. Mine (schnide vs Egg) as well as many others have had successful claims but in my case the request to amend the thread header wasn't done, and it hasn't been moved into the right folder other. But that's not to discredit the forum administrators because this site is a godsend, and long may it reign!

The OFT have not given Egg special dispensation. This is from the OFT: "Dear Mr Hyde* (*that's me, stuff your confidentiality clause Egg!) Thank you for your e-mail regarding the charges imposed on you by Egg. You state that Egg are misinterpreting the statement made by this Office about the level of charges which we would consider acceptable. I should explain that the £12 threshold for intervention is not a price cap. We are not saying that default fees should be set at £12 or that a court will consider a default fee to be fair just because it is at or below £12. We expect and are calling on the market to apply the principles of fairness set out in our statement, which leave room for different levels and models of charging provided they are based on limited administrative costs, and to recalculate their own fees In line with its current enforcement policy, the OFT will investigate the fairness of any fee set above the threshold. In limited exceptional cases, a card issuer may be able to show that it is fair and consistent with the principles set out in our statement to charge higher default fees. In relation to Egg's claim that we have approved a charge of £16, that is not exactly the case. What we have said in our statement of principles at para 1.6 is: On the analysis we have undertaken we have concluded that generally credit card default fees have been set at a significantly higher level than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs. The level of a fair fee will, however, be dependant on the precise business circumstances. Some exceptional factors, for example whether a card issuer requires (not merely allows) customers to give it direct debit authority to ensure a minimum payment is made, may lead to a lower level of instances of default. A card issuer operating a policy of this kind may be able to justify a higher level of default fee than one that does not because its relevant business costs are being recovered from a proportionately smaller number of defaults. However, even in the circumstances of this kind the card issuer may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults. In other words there may be circumstances in which a charge in excess of £12 will be considered fair by a court if it can be shown to have been calculated in line with our principles and a true pre-estimate of the costs they have entailed in recovering losses. In this context, we are grateful for the information that you have provided and we have logged it on our records in order to further our understanding of this market. Yours sincerely Mrs J Bonini"

The bigger they are..

Follow the appropriate process, and you WILL get your money. Don't be afraid of taking it as far as court or the fact that it's a relatively small amount of money - I took them to court over £20 and they ended up having to pay out £52.02 after court fees and interest. Go for it!

I can honestly say I couldn't have done it without this forum, so thank you again to all those who offered very useful advice and also to those such as yourself Yasmin who opened the floodgates and inspired others. This is exactly the kind of grass roots action that I very much hope will only become more common. If consumers realised that the power lies with themselves in where they take their money, this country could change over night. Tell your friends to close their bank accounts and move to an ethical provider (I recommend the Co-Operative, who refunded my charges instantly).

Add me to the list - won without confidentiality! Particular thanks to Mistermind, Angry Cat, Countrybake and Chris1978 for your help, and obviously to the owners of this site.

Well needless to say, my friend referred to earlier was me. The reason I let the 14 day period expire wasn't because on purpose but because I forgot about it over Christmas Nevertheless, I wrote to Egg shortly after saying that I could not accept their unfair terms of confidentiality, but that I would be happy to accept the full amount by itself for £52.02 to settle the case. Last week, I received the separate cheque and letter and the case has been filed for dismissal. So.. It could have cost you £20 Egg but you had to fight it didn't you? Then I took you to court and your threats didn't frighten me off. A sincere thank you to everyone on this forum, donation already made. I have WON! I have BEATEN you Egg, just like I said I would! *** VICTORY FOR SCHNIDE! ***

My friend's case is almost at a close - I suggested to them that they allow the 14 day deadline of the payment and confidentiality clause expire, and then write to Egg after this date to say they are willing to accept payment without the clause. I assume it was safe for them to do this, rather than reject the offer within the 14 day period? Regardless of the outcome, I have already made a donation to this site, and long may it continue.

Thanks for the advice - so what would my friend do, reject the offer? Is it likely they'll offer the amount again without the clause?

Let's say that, as I predicted, a close friend has recently been offered full payment in return for dropping the case.. and a confidentiality clause. My friend is very happy with all of the above except the confidentiality clause - I feel that my friend should be able to acknowledge his/her case on this forum to encourage others against this particular organisation. How within their rights are Egg to request this clause - would it be worth my friend pushing harder, in whatever capacity? I of course expect a similar letter to arrive to my home in the coming days, if of course it hasn't done so already. Victory against the Egg!

Why haven't we heard about that then? My guess is that what's happening is the court dates come very near and Egg offer to settle with the full or very near full amount just before so that it would be unreasonable for the claimant to refuse. The trick is they probably include a confidentiality clause, which is why we aren't hearing of any victories. Could that be right?

FIGHT IT. If there was a decent reason for Egg to have won any cases and actually push forward with this, the other (actually reputable) banks would be doing it too. The fact is that Egg would rather try to bully and intimidate people rather than pay up what they should. It's most likely that given they're such a dire company, they can't afford to pay back what they owe. Fight them and add to the numbers - they make offers before going to court anyway, so it's worth doing for that alone. There's a raft of court dates with Egg which will be reaching a head soon, so expect some deliberations then - I think it's very likely they'll have to change their tactics after that.

Sod that, I'm taking them to court over £20. It's going to cost them that in travel alone if they want to take my case to court. The idiots have already offered to pay my £30 court fee in a sub-par settlement for no logical reason having previously refused to refund the £20, so I'm more than happy to cost them as much as I can.

That's the attitude they want you to reach. But claims take a while to go through, and some of them are getting close now, particularly those that have a good chance (like mine and some others) and can set a precedent. You're right to say that if Egg were so smart then other banks would be doing the same - but Egg aren't smart, they're just unscrupulous, and are using bullying tactics because they're in a desperate situation.

That's still not a win though..

Can this thread be removed or renamed so as to avoid the potential disinformation it may be intended to cause?

If you have a PayPal account, I will gladly donate money to stop you writing in sentence case. As a general guide, only nouns and the beginning of a sentence should begin with a capital letter.

Barcote's success is yet to be verified and Bankfodder's advised us to disregard it for the time being - but the Egg is cracking, and it will break.

It wouldn't surprise me if Egg bumped off the judge at this rate.. SMASH THE EGG

I'm aware of the general help offered to fill in allocation questionnaire's, but I was particularly hoping that the information in the first post from the OFT could be of use. Anyone?

No replies to the above yet.. But okay, this is the defence that Egg have entered: "1. [Claimant entered into agreement with Egg on..] 2. It is admitted that a charge was added to the Claimant's Egg account during the course of the Agreement. The charge was made pursuant to clause 7.1 of the Defendant's standard terms and conditions as a result of insufficient funds being available from the Claimant's designated current account to cover the amount of the direct debit payment due on the Egg Card in breach of the Terms and Conditions. Clause 7.1 clearly states "If you break the terms of this Agreement we may charge you the following, where relevant, to cover the additional cost to us: ..£20 if you do not keep up the payments of the Account.." 3. It is denied that the charges represent a "penalty" as alleged. The Defendant recognises that customers, such as the Claimant, exceed their Credit Limit or fail to make or are late in paying the required repayments and the Defendant therefore puts in place systems and processes to deal with the same. Such systems and processes include the use of computers, staff and other necessary overheads. The charges set out in clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions are calculated by taking into account the total costs incurred by the Defendant in maintaining those systems and processes and the estimated number of customers (such as the Claimant) who will fail to make or are late in paying the required repayments. The Defendant avers therefore that the amount of the charges applied under clause 7 represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss and expense caused to the Defendant in respect of such customers exceeding their Credit Limit or failing to make or being late in paying the required repayments. 4. [section about putting a direct debit in place to make sure repayments are made] 5. Accordingly, it is denied that the charges are unenforcable at common law. 6. The Claimant is put to proof that his loss as a result of the charges is £21.60 as alleged. 7. In the event that the Court finds the default charges levied on the Claimant do constitute an penalty and are thus unenforcable, the Defendant asks the Court to assess the actual cost to the Defendant of dealing with the Claimant's breach of contract in failing to make his repayments." Do they have a leg to stand on here? My case seems pretty straightforward, and I'd really appreciate some advice on how to fill out the Allocation Questionnaire in light of the above two posts.

(Do you have a Sentence Case key on your keyboard or something?)

I'll start my own thread rather than hijacking someone elses. After sending the following letter to the OFT: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/39955-egg-its-wild-claims.html ..this is the reply I received: "Dear Mr [schnide] Thank you for your e-mail regarding the charges imposed on you by Egg. You state that Egg are misinterpreting the statement made by this Office about the level of charges which we would consider acceptable. I should explain that the £12 threshold for intervention is not a price cap. We are not saying that default fees should be set at £12 or that a court will consider a default fee to be fair just because it is at or below £12. We expect and are calling on the market to apply the principles of fairness set out in our statement, which leave room for different levels and models of charging provided they are based on limited administrative costs, and to recalculate their own fees. In line with its current enforcement policy, the OFT will investigate the fairness of any fee set above the threshold. In limited exceptional cases, a card issuer may be able to show that it is fair and consistent with the principles set out in our statement to charge higher default fees. In relation to Egg's claim that we have approved a charge of £16, that is not exactly the case. What we have said in our statement of principles at para 1.6 is: On the analysis we have undertaken we have concluded that generally credit card default fees have been set at a significantly higher level than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs. The level of a fair fee will, however, be dependant on the precise business circumstances. Some exceptional factors, for example whether a card issuer requires (not merely allows) customers to give it direct debit authority to ensure a minimum payment is made, may lead to a lower level of instances of default. A card issuer operating a policy of this kind may be able to justify a higher level of default fee than one that does not because its relevant business costs are being recovered from a proportionately smaller number of defaults. However, even in the circumstances of this kind the card issuer may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults. In other words there may be circumstances in which a charge in excess of £12 will be considered fair by a court if it can be shown to have been calculated in line with our principles and a true pre-estimate of the costs they have entailed in recovering losses. In this context, we are grateful for the information that you have provided and we have logged it on our records in order to further our understanding of this market. Yours sincerely.." So how useful is this? I received my allocation questionnaire in the last few days as well, will I be able to use any of the above? I also have a few other questions about the questionnaire, which I'm hoping someone can help with.

Egg have submitted a defence but it wasn't recorded on the system until after their deadline expired. I was advised not to start judgement in the early hours, even though I'm not sure why. So it looks like I'll get an allocation questionnaire and a court date through soon enough. Still - the pressure is mounting!