Militant Consumer's Friend v Egg Loans PPI - WON

[N.P]

Is this document for your loan in question?

 

How is the PPI different? Which is higher? Your loan PPI payments or the amount on this document?

 

How is the monthly payment different?

[militantconsumer]

The original loan agreement is on page 1 of this thread and so it is possible to compare the two by opening two windows, which answers these questions.

 

However, it doesn't explain why there is such a high PPI figure here.

 

And it looks like 148.64 was the direct debit amount from the previous agreement prior to this top up. The new amount should have been 139.38. Looking at our current account statements, it took several months before Egg reduced the amount of the payment. I wonder what happened to the overpayments?

 

Hopefully all of these issues will make sense once we get the loan statements and the PPI refund calculations - which we have asked for in our follow up letter to the SAR info that was received.

[joneseyblod]

Im going a very similar issue with egg myself with topped up loans, ppi mis-selling etc, still waiting on my SAR though.

[e_inspired]

I will be defending a claim by egg in court in the next few weeks (my agreement is the same as yours), so I will be able to test out these arguments. Win or lose I will post the details.

[N.P]

I will be defending a claim by egg in court in the next few weeks (my agreement is the same as yours), so I will be able to test out these arguments. Win or lose I will post the details.

 

 

 

Hi e_inspired,

 

Do you have a thread we can check on, regarding this?

 

We`d like to see your defence and arguements if possible?

 

Regards

 

 

 

N.P

[militantconsumer]

Hi e inspired,

 

Thanks a lot for your help.

 

If Egg think they are going to lose (e.g. they realise our section 18 multiple agreements arguments are correct) they may ask you to sign a confidentiality agreement.

 

So it would be helpful if you'd already shown us your arguments in advance so that we could deduce from your later silence that they had been successful.

[e_inspired]

Hi e inspired,

 

Thanks a lot for your help.

 

If Egg think they are going to lose (e.g. they realise our section 18 multiple agreements arguments are correct) they may ask you to sign a confidentiality agreement.

 

So it would be helpful if you'd already shown us your arguments in advance so that we could deduce from your later silence that they had been successful.

 

My thread is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/113999-egg-dlc-final-straits.html.

 

I haven't updated it for a while, but hope to do so this weekend.

 

It’s going to be a battle first egg has to get the case reinstated, there is a telephone hearing for this in mid Jan, and then there is also a hearing for summary judgement that egg requested, a few weeks after that.

 

The eggs sols sent a letter this week ending negotiations because I insisted that any compromise would have to include removal of the illegal default (read my thread and you may understand why I think it is illegal).

 

I plan to respectfully ask the court for determination on the enforceability of the egg contract at the reinstatement hearing. I believe eggs contracts which include PPI are confusing and misleading (no total amount payable, no total charge for credit, no indication in the contract or T&C’s that the PPI premium will attract interest; read clause 28 of T&C's).

 

I will need all the help and advice I can get in preparing my case.

 

B e_inspired

[militantconsumer]

Right.

 

Now I see that we've been used as a shining example on the excellent new thread about (un)enforceability of credit agreements:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements.html

 

That makes me even more determined to make this one count!

 

Watch this space fellow militant consumers.

[e_inspired]

Have a look at Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2004.pdf - Windows Live

 

This doc gives the OFT views on the CCA, even though it came into force 31 May 2005, it explains things well, it has a section on PPI and mulitiple agreements.

 

I am even more convinced that our egg contracts are unenforceable due to part 18 of the CCA.

 

 

Enjoy!!!

 

B e_inspired

 

Below is an extract:

 

9.3 What if PPI is financed by credit?

 

If PPI is linked to a credit agreement, and is to be financed as part of that agreement, there are effectively two credit agreements – one for the principal credit and another to finance the PPI.

 

The credit financing the PPI will generally be a debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s) agreement within s12(b) CCA. If the principal credit agreement is also d-c-s within s12(b) there will be a single credit agreement for the purposes of the Act as they are in the same statutory category.

 

If however the principal credit agreement is debtor-creditor (d-c), or d-c-s within s12(a) or ©, there will be a multiple agreement for the purposes of s18 CCA – see Q9.4.

The consumer should always have the option of paying for PPI by cash, rather than credit. This applies even if the PPI is mandatory. A cash price should therefore be shown for PPI in all cases.

 

9.4 How should a multiple agreement with PPI be categorised?

 

In the OFT’s view, where PPI is to be financed by credit under the principal agreement, and falls within Reg 2(8)(a) – see Q9.10 – there will generally be a ‘unitary multi-part’ agreement, see Q2.23. This is irrespective of whether the PPI is mandatory or optional. The same also applies in the OFT’s view to contracts of shortfall insurance falling within Reg 2(8)(b), see Q2.25.

 

In other cases, the categorisation of a multiple agreement will depend upon the facts of each case – see Q2.21.

 

9.5 How should such agreements be documented?

 

In the OFT’s view, a ‘unitary multi-part’ agreement should be documented as though it were a single agreement but including under each sub-heading all required information and statements applicable to the individual ‘part agreements’ – see Q2.28.

 

Office of Fair Trading Consumer Credit (Agreements etc) Regs draft FAQs 98

Where Reg 2(9) applies, the agreements may be documented with a common heading and signature box and statements of protection and remedies – see Q9.12.

 

In the OFT’s view, financial and related particulars and other information should be shown both separately and together – see Q2.30. It should be made clear which information applies to the agreement as a whole and which to each ‘part agreement’ – see Q2.32. Where information is common to the agreements, see Q2.29.

 

9.6 What does this mean for PPI?

 

In the OFT’s view, where there is a ‘unitary multi-part’ agreement (see Q9.4) it is necessary to show financial and related particulars and other information both separately and together – see Q9.5.

 

This means that the financial and related particulars for the PPI credit should be stated separately from those for the principal credit agreement, but should also be shown in an aggregated form – see Q2.32.

 

The particulars would include the amount of credit and the cash price for the PPI. They would also include a description of the PPI, the timing and amounts of repayments and the total amount payable (where applicable). See also chapters 3 and 4.

[militantconsumer]

Thank you for the link, e_inspired. I will digest this over some time.

 

I think the key question with these regulations is how much of what is discussed also relates to agreements executed prior to them being actually introduced.

 

For example, on page 14 we have:

 

1.8 What if an agreement is entered into before 31 May 2005?

If a regulated agreement is executed before 31 May 2005, it is subject to the 1983 Regulations but not the 2004 Regulations.

 

Our agreement was signed in 2003, so it is important for us to determine whether the 2005 amendments actually changed the legal requirements on the debtor, or whether they simply required the debtor to make everything clearer for the creditor.

 

The problem is that debtors are deliberately muddying the issue with pre-31 May 2005 agreements by pointing to the new regulations and saying that as this was before May 2005 they actually complied with all the requirements that were in force at the time.

 

But if we could show that our arguments about unenforceability are based solely on the 1974 or 1983 regulations (which the 2004/5 regulations simply put a greater onus on the creditor to make clear) then we will probably have more success than if we try to point to rules that had not even been created when our own agreement was signed.

[militantconsumer]

Another angle of attack now.

 

We are considering making a complaint to Trading Standards (which I understand is the consumer-facing part of the Office of Fair Trading).

 

The 'draft' complaint is as follows:-

1. I have a personal loan agreement with Egg, regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

2. The agreement is a s18 multiple agreement due to two different categories of credit being included [see earlier on this thread for details]

3. However, as the prescribed terms are not included for both parts of the multiple agreement, it has been improperly executed and is therefore totally unenforceable

4. Egg have issued a default notice against me and passed this information onto Credit Reference Agencies

5. Egg have threatened to pass the alleged debt onto a Debt Collection Agency.

 

When I discussed this over the phone with Trading Standards they didn't dismiss it out of hand, didn't say it wasn't within their remit, etc. They told me to write them a letter setting out my complaint, and enclose a copy of the agreement and the default notice.

 

I have 3 questions for anybody reading this:

 

1. Do you have any comments on the idea of complaining to Trading Standards?

2. Can you think of anything else I can throw at them in the complaint?

3. I do not have a copy of the default notice and Egg did not provide this as part of my Subject Access Request. How can I get it?

[citizenB]

Another angle of attack now.

 

We are considering making a complaint to Trading Standards (which I understand is the consumer-facing part of the Office of Fair Trading).

 

The 'draft' complaint is as follows:-

1. I have a personal loan agreement with Egg, regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

2. The agreement is a s18 multiple agreement due to two different categories of credit being included [see earlier on this thread for details]

3. However, as the prescribed terms are not included for both parts of the multiple agreement, it has been improperly executed and is therefore totally unenforceable

4. Egg have issued a default notice against me and passed this information onto Credit Reference Agencies

5. Egg have threatened to pass the alleged debt onto a Debt Collection Agency.

 

When I discussed this over the phone with Trading Standards they didn't dismiss it out of hand, didn't say it wasn't within their remit, etc. They told me to write them a letter setting out my complaint, and enclose a copy of the agreement and the default notice.

 

I have 3 questions for anybody reading this:

 

1. Do you have any comments on the idea of complaining to Trading Standards?

2. Can you think of anything else I can throw at them in the complaint?

3. I do not have a copy of the default notice and Egg did not provide this as part of my Subject Access Request. How can I get it?

 

You could initially try asking them for a copy, however, even when requested to provide copies of DNs for court cases it would seem companies are saying that they dont keep copies. Obviously they have been made aware that a high percentage of DNs have been incorrectly issued. By saying they havent kept a copy, presumably they can mock up one and say this is what it WOULD have looked like. Unless the customer has a copy then of course it is going to be difficult to prove whether on issue it was delivered correctly had the right figures and was in the presribed format.

 

If they dont/wont provide you with a copy, would a copy of the CRA report showing that a Default had been registered on such and such a date ? be acceptable as proof that one was issued and when.

[militantconsumer]

We have written a letter to Egg asking them to cancel any payment protection insurance that is still in force. I think it's important to do this now that we realise the PPI was optional and not explained properly to us when it was taken out. And, of course, there might be a small refund due, even at this late stage. Every little helps!

 

We are still waiting for follow up SAR information: loan statements, PPI refund calculations at each top-up of the loan, details of penalty charges, copies of telephone conversations at each point when the PPI was (mis-)sold, and an explanation of why, at one of the top-ups, our PPI was added via an "auto accept" (whatever that is).

 

Once we get this information I think we will probably make a FOS complaint about PPI mis-selling and also write to Egg telling them we consider the alleged debt to be in dispute because of both this PPI mis-selling complaint and the fact that we consider the agreement to be improperly executed and therefore unenforceable.

 

Then I think we will need to stop paying, and wait for the fun to start...

[web2dude]

Chaps, I've read this thread with interest and am currently constructing a letter to Egg about the legality of the loan agreement and the same issues as highlighted. I'll post my letter on the forum when it's complete.

 

As a general comment, I would assume that any solicitor contesting such an agreement with a creditor on behalf of their client would include a full 'case file' with all supporting information such as the relevant acts and precedents. By providing this complete 'case' you demonstrate a full understanding of the law to your creditors and I assume you would add significant credibility to any claim and their willingness to contest it in court.

 

Best of luck!

[pinknico]

MC have you checked that as soon as your friend defaulted the PPI didnt become void and he shouldnt have been paying it any way?

[Viscount Stair]

subbing

[militantconsumer]

Thanks pn, I didn't think of that, and I will ask them the question. Better wait until they reply to one of the two outstanding letters first, I think three would be too much for them!

 

I doubt we can check this ourselves because chances are we don't have the correct version of the terms and conditions. I will have a look though.

[ANDREAMOUR]

did you decide if this was unenforcable?

[militantconsumer]

Borrowing some words from PT:

 

On the back of legal advice, i am advised that the provisions of s127(3) are still effective for agreements entered into prior to 6th April 07. This is set out within schedule 3 para 11 of Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

Therefore i would invite you to consider these points and close the account and discharge me from all liabilities under this agreement and remove all adverse data on my credit file. should you refuse to follow my request, then i will have no option but to take legal action and bring the matter before the court to ask the court to make a declaration pursuant to section 142(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I trust this wont be necessary and that you will comply with this request, i would ask for a reply by no later than 4pm on XXth XXary 2009

[militantconsumer]

Egg have gone strangely quiet on this account.

 

They wanted to do an income and expenditure form in December so that they could increase the monthly payment. The original letter about this covered both the loan and the credit card.

 

Now they are getting upset and they are trying to phone us because this has not been done for the credit card - but they have not complained at all about the loan.

 

This is rather surprising as the alleged balance on the loan is more than 10 times as much as the alleged balance on the credit card.

 

We wrote to them 2 months ago to ask for information about the PPI on the loan account (we requested copies of tapes, explanations of notes in the SAR, etc.). No response has been forthcoming and a chasing up letter has been sent.

 

We also wrote over a month ago to cancel any loan insurance that is still running - again absolutely no response from Egg.

 

I wonder if there is a reason for their silence.

[joneseyblod]

Huge backlog of work - I have been waiting since October last year for responses to some things from Egg.

[Viscount Stair]

Me too. I was promised my SAR earlier this month and it has not appeared. If there is systematic failure to meet the 40 day deadline, then the ICO should be coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

 

However, I suspect more than just mere incompetence. I have asked for information several times on my accounts over several months and to say they have been evasive does not even begin to cover it. I smell a rat.

[joneseyblod]

I also had delay with my SAR too. Was meant to of received it 2nd January. Was nearly end of February before I got everything.

 

Should do a thread to see how many people have waited over 40 days for SAR's from Egg

[militantconsumer]

We did receive a response to the original SAR and it took 52 days, including postage both ways - so only a fraction outside the limit.

 

Once we received the SAR and had a chance to look through it, we sent them some follow up questions - requesting recordings of sales calls, asking for an explanation of notes on our file, etc.

 

It is this follow up letter which has been ignored for 2 months.

[Viscount Stair]

I am at 57 days (from the date on which Egg received the request) but even 41 days would be something that the ICO should be cracking down upon.

 

The requirement is for the SAR is NOT for the information to be provided within 40 days. It is for the information to be provided promptly and in any event within 40 days.

 

The 40 days is an absolute maximum anyone should be required to wait no matter what, not merely a target to be missed routinely.