Egg CCA

[seriously fed up]

Definitely cut and paste - I got the same para 3 on page 1 as well.

[tortilla]

Hi LB41 and all

subbing with great interest as I have just received a very similar letter to your post 49 and I echo your sentiments of needing a little help from my friends.

See my thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/233898-another-reply-egg-regarding.html

 

regards

[seriously fed up]

This isnt really all that surprising. They are going to assert this kind of thing forever and ever. Has ANYONE ever had a letter saying "you are quite right. We surrender".

Its important to remember that this is an argument in which both sides are defending their own positions, and not a rational argument aimed at establishing the truth.

I would be very surprised if, for instance, there is not a significant view within Egg that it would have been better if they had used "credit limit" rather than "approved limit". But they did and now they are having to make the best of it. Can they be expected to do anything else? In your particular case (had a wee look at your letter on your thread) their assertion re paragraph 8b of schedule one of 1983/1553 regulations is incorrect, imo. What 8b actually says (and I quote - well copy) is that "a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor;" (my emphasis) and this illustrates their problem. They have used for their own reasons (whatever they were) "approved limit" which is an unknown concept in law. To the best of my knowledge only Egg used it (and dont use it any more as I understand it). So basically what they are saying is the "approved limit" is the same thing as the "credit limit". But what CAG - and PT in particular - is that "approved limit" is not defined in law, it's used nowhere in the Act or associated regs and could mean a whole range of things. That is our position - they have theirs. Some resolution might come from the case being heard just now, though I wouldnt bet on it coming quickly as however that comes out, there may well be an appeal. Like I said, Egg would be much happier if they hadnt used the words "approved limit" though that is not to say its their only problem. For instance the fact that their agreements (well mine for one) have the wrong heading.

Will they ever agree with this - no, because if they did they would have lost, and worst of all, created a precedent.

Edited November 24, 2009 by seriously fed up

[vint1954]

Hi LB41 and all

subbing with great interest as I have just received a very similar letter to your post 49 and I echo your sentiments of needing a little help from my friends.

See my thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/233898-another-reply-egg-regarding.html

 

regards

The prescribed terms cannot be mis-stated in any way or referred to in another document:-)

[LB145]

thanks all - Vint or SFU any possibility of a wonderful letter creation that I can send - I have been staring at my screen unable to piece a letter together that would sound professional enough and I think a response ito Egg is needed, please and thank you.

[LB145]

Just been looking again through the huge file from Egg (SAR documents) to see if there is anything that I have missed, in the letter received on 23rd November (page 1 bottom paragraph) mentions my PPI as far I am aware I have not mentioned this in my correspondence to them? and the complete utter rubbish in Page 1 paragraph 2 - yes this CCA is definately headed "Egg Card Agreement for *******" - also on copy of this agreeemnt there is a signature box for 2nd card holder which states this needs to be signed. Not 100% sure if 2nd card holder was issued at the same time but we definately have one. Whether this is relevant I am not sure. Clutching at any straw going

[vint1954]

thanks all - Vint or SFU any possibility of a wonderful letter creation that I can send - I have been staring at my screen unable to piece a letter together that would sound professional enough and I think a response ito Egg is needed, please and thank you.

Try editing this one to your situation.

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

You are intimating that the documents Egg have sent to me, in the form of an illegible application form, do comply with the CCA 1974 as an enforceable agreement. In that case, given the facts outlined in previous letters to Egg, perhaps you could direct me to all of the prescribed and required terms in the xxxxxxxxxx That Egg have sent to me given the fact that these should be on the same page as the signature, I think you will find that they are not there.

 

 

Once you have confirmed for yourself that they are not there, perhaps you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of the relevant legislation that allows Egg to enforce an agreement that is clearly unenforceable under Section 127. Again, I think you will find that this legislation does not exist.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been properly complied with the dispute continues.

 

Should you attempt litigation as you threaten, it will be vigorously defended and the failure to supply compliant documentation under the CCA 1974 is a complete defence to any legal action and your and your clients actions will be vexatious and unlawful.

 

Turning to the forms that Egg have provided, this document contains none of the prescribed terms, laid out in the prescribed manner, as laid out in the CCA 1974.

 

Referring to Sections 61, 65 and 127 of the CCA 1974, and the recent binding decisions in the high court and court of appeal regarding the lack of prescribed terms in regulated consumer agreements. I refer to the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger.

 

Both these BINDING judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are misstated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

In Wilson V Hurstanger it is stated that the prescribed terms should be within the signature document and not in any other document. I believe that the document sent to me without my signature on does not contain the prescribed terms and as such is unenforceable in several areas.

 

Looking to Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras 30.102-30.103.

 

 

In relation to position of Signatures and Prescribed T&C It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers

 

 

This is Further interpreted by John McCloud, PhD, LLB, Barrister, Professor of Law, University of Liverpool:

 

On the same side as the signatures the document itself must contain the terms prescribed in the Agreement Regulations [Reg 6(1)]. To the extent that these rules refer to information which must be stated ‘together and as a whole’, that will ensure the larger list is included in the actual agreement rather than any document referred to in it.

 

I maintain that this alleged debt is completely unenforceable under Section 127 of the CCA 1974. The CCA 1974 is clear on what agreements must contain in order to be enforceable, even in court. For full details I refer you to the excellent guidance from the Office of Fair Trading.

 

 

At the very least, an Agreement must contain the following within the signature document (on the same side) to be enforceable, even in court (see agreement Regulations 61(1)):

 

1. A credit limit or a statement as to how this will be determined.

2. An APR.

3. A schedule of repayments.

 

The only further correspondence I expect to receive from you is the acknowledgement that you are not pursuing this matter.

I trust this outlines my position clearly and you may consider this to be my final response.

[seriously fed up]

I think LB145, what Vint has put up is the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, followed up by a nuclear strike. It certainly includes all the points that need to be made - though you MIGHT want to run Approved Limit by them again (what's another few tons of TNT between friends) just to absolutely maximise impact.

But Vint has done you a first class job, which includes the main cases that you would be likely to use if it got to it - the Wilson cases, the important reference to Goode and to McLeod. The advantage that this gives you is that you are not just saying "no" you are saying "no" with a strong supporting argument, so they are less likely to push you around (for instance are they more/less likely to bring court action if the other party sounds as if they really know what they are talking about?) I wouldnt necessarily expect them to write back saying that they agree - and if I dissent from what Vint has written at all, its that I think he might be a wee bit optimistic in his last two paragraphs - but you will have given them a whole lot to think about.

Btw, if they do write back saying "we surrender", dont forget to let us know

[LB145]

Huge thanks to Vint and SFU - if I got a "we Surrender" I will be shouting it from the roof tops and I am sure you will here it wherever you reside!!

 

Vint in the reply letter above "perhaps you could direct me to all of the prescribed and required terms in the xxxxxxxxxx " in place of the xxx's would it be correct to say the title of the document "Egg Card Agreement for (MY NAME)" - I do not want to mess up the good work that has been input with my stupid clerical error!

[mills1]

sub

[LB145]

Another Credit Agreement Request was sent yesteday - some companies just do nt send Egg have now sent 4! - although no mention of my complaint?

 

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggDecemberLetter001.jpg

[mills1]

Another Credit Agreement Request was sent yesteday - some companies just do nt send Egg have now sent 4! - although no mention of my complaint?

 

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggDecemberLetter001.jpg

 

 

Hi LB145 they say they have sent you a copy of the true agreement.

Has anyone verified it as enforceable or not? sorry if I have missed something?

Could they scupper your attempt of getting the agreement unenforceable by you not making the minimum payment? just a thought.

I just thought when challenging the agreements we had to still maintain the minimum payments.

Cheers.

 

 

Sorry gang, message to self, put brain in gear first

Edited December 12, 2009 by mills1

[LB145]

Hi Mills1

 

The Application Form is posted further up the thread this is a pre 2005 agreement and some headings could be deemed as incorrect. Still not heard anything back - Have been advised before that they may be waiting a test case - although everytime I think things are quiet a letter drops on the doormat - fortunately the post has already been today (surprisingly early!!!)

[LB145]

NOT so fortunate today letter from Egg -DEFAULT NOTICE

 

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggDefaultNoticePage1of2.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggDefaultNoticePAGE2of2.jpg

[LB145]

Help please can someone check out latest letter from Egg and what do I respond with - thanks

 

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggResponseJan10Page1of2.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww132/Diamond40_photo/EggResponseJan10Page2of2.jpg

[mills1]

Hi LB145 got my own fun going on with Egg at the moment, how many of the predescribed terms need to be missing before an agreement is deemed unenforceable?

 

I was able to lift from the website a copy of my agreement that I posted on here but nobody would say if it was unenforceable.

However, strangely, Egg seem to have not signed for my CCA request, but have recently sent me what they claim is a copy of my original agreement and a copy of the current agreement.

On the copy of the Current Agreement it has an APR OF 26.9% when in fact it is 19.9 %

Because I told them I wanted to stay on the old Apr.

Anyway, on the copy of the " original " they sent it has been cropped in my opinion to leave out " Egg Card Agreement "

Any ideas?

Thanks.

[MandM]

Have you posted this letter up in the Disecting the Manchester Test Cases thread?

 

With regards to cropping off the "Egg Card Agreement" bit I believe that one of their agreements will be the subject of a test case in March (in Cardiff if I recall) and some of the wording in their agreements has been questioned by many. Egg Card Agreement instead of Credit Card Agreement, Approved Limit instead of Credit Limit.

 

M

[LB145]

Hi LB145 got my own fun going on with Egg at the moment, how many of the predescribed terms need to be missing before an agreement is deemed unenforceable?

 

I was able to lift from the website a copy of my agreement that I posted on here but nobody would say if it was unenforceable.

However, strangely, Egg seem to have not signed for my CCA request, but have recently sent me what they claim is a copy of my original agreement and a copy of the current agreement.

On the copy of the Current Agreement it has an APR OF 26.9% when in fact it is 19.9 %

Because I told them I wanted to stay on the old Apr.

Anyway, on the copy of the " original " they sent it has been cropped in my opinion to leave out " Egg Card Agreement "

Any ideas?

 

 

Hi Mills - sorry I am not knowledgeable on the technical stuff - there are other Caggers here with some excellent advice - and some of the service team have excellent threads for pre 2005 Egg Agreements.

[seriously fed up]

Egg are being somewhat economical with the old actualite here (Allan Clarke?) . Lets take their letter to you point by point

 

1. the credit limit complies with para 8b of the 1983 regs. What this actually says is "The credit limit is expressed as (b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor;" That is copy and paste so your agreement does not comply - the phrase they use is approved limit and what does this mean? This is the subject of a case being heard just now (I think) but it is certainly arguable that their use of approved limit takes them out of compliance. Its also interesting that post 2005 Egg stopped using approved limit and has used credit limit like everyone else ever since.
   
2. that the interest rates are set out - yes so they are, but given that they charge a handling fee for cash withdrawals, the figures that they state cannot be accurate - thus not compliant
   
3. if the repayment terms are there then so they are and if so you would probably be better leaving this one alone. In any event the other two are at least arguable, and if correct then you have them. Any one out of three of the prescribed terms is enough to sink them.
   

Hope that helps

SFU

[mills1]

Egg are being somewhat economical with the old actualite here (Allan Clarke?) . Lets take their letter to you point by point

 

1. the credit limit complies with para 8b of the 1983 regs. What this actually says is "The credit limit is expressed as (b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor;" That is copy and paste so your agreement does not comply - the phrase they use is approved limit and what does this mean? This is the subject of a case being heard just now (I think) but it is certainly arguable that their use of approved limit takes them out of compliance. Its also interesting that post 2005 Egg stopped using approved limit and has used credit limit like everyone else ever since.
   
2. that the interest rates are set out - yes so they are, but given that they charge a handling fee for cash withdrawals, the figures that they state cannot be accurate - thus not compliant
   
3. if the repayment terms are there then so they are and if so you would probably be better leaving this one alone. In any event the other two are at least arguable, and if correct then you have them. Any one out of three of the prescribed terms is enough to sink them.
   

Hope that helps

SFU

 

 

 

Given that they appear to have cropped the " Egg credit card " from the alleged agreement they sent me recently is that enough to warrant dispute letter?

 

Cheers.

[seriously fed up]

that is another consideration - but your strongest point is their use of Approved limit - that is enough on its own to put the account to dispute.

[LB145]

Egg are being somewhat economical with the old actualite here (Allan Clarke?) . Lets take their letter to you point by point

 

1. the credit limit complies with para 8b of the 1983 regs. What this actually says is "The credit limit is expressed as (b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor;" That is copy and paste so your agreement does not comply - the phrase they use is approved limit and what does this mean? This is the subject of a case being heard just now (I think) but it is certainly arguable that their use of approved limit takes them out of compliance. Its also interesting that post 2005 Egg stopped using approved limit and has used credit limit like everyone else ever since.
   
2. that the interest rates are set out - yes so they are, but given that they charge a handling fee for cash withdrawals, the figures that they state cannot be accurate - thus not compliant
   
3. if the repayment terms are there then so they are and if so you would probably be better leaving this one alone. In any event the other two are at least arguable, and if correct then you have them. Any one out of three of the prescribed terms is enough to sink them.
   

Hope that helps

SFU

 

Hi SFU - sorry were the comments regarding the letter I received from Egg (#65) or for Mills who posted after? (blonde and alot going on with other threads so does not take much to confuse me at the moment) - I have been subbing on your Egg thread and nothing has been posted since early November 09?

[seriously fed up]

It was addressed to your post where you put links to your recent letter from our mutual friends - see for instance my comment 1 which picks up on their reference to para 8b

The thread has been quiet because there hasnt been a dicky bird from them, and long may that continue (if that's not tempting fate :?)

[LB145]

It was addressed to your post where you put links to your recent letter from our mutual friends - see for instance my comment 1 which picks up on their reference to para 8b

The thread has been quiet because there hasnt been a dicky bird from them, and long may that continue (if that's not tempting fate :?)

 

Vint & SFU - They seem to have bursts of activity and I am obviously currently on their "to do list" So as this is their Final Response and I believe there to be flaws in the agreement - is the next step to complain to the FOS, how do I describe (word) my complaint as the FOS can be just abit tricky!

[seriously fed up]

you could complain to FoS, but I wouldnt hold out much hope of getting anywhere with them - particularly as at least one of your heads of complaint is under legal challenge just now.

I might give them one more blast - summarising what you have said - and leave it at that.As I said, I havent heard from them for a bit (long may it continue ........ so )