Egg and Apex

[sussex1]

Hi

 

have been paying reduced amounts to Egg for the last 2 years or so when out of the blue i have received the attched from Apex along with a letter from Egg in same envelope saying they have bought the debt.

 

i will CCA them tomorrow but was wondering if what they have sent is all present and correct and it is now only Apex i need to deal with

 

thanks in advance

 

"http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/241109-1.jpg"

"http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/241109011-1.jpg"

[littleme33]

Hi

 

I had exactly the same over 2 wks ago,(Egg is having a purge of these by all accounts!) Apex wouldn't except my offer i CCa'd them and Egg, then Apex sent me a letter saying they will chase Egg for the aggreement and that i wouldnt be called upon until this situation is settled.....needless to say ive heard nothing from Egg ! 12+7 days..............not holding my breath though

 

:grin:

[sussex1]

Hi

 

today received a response from Apex who had been waiting for Egg t send them the CCA. I have received these.

 

first, letter to Apex from Egg

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/250310002-1.jpg

 

what they say is the agreement

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/250310003-1.jpg

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/250310004-1.jpg

 

this had my correct address at the time it was taken out but seems to be a cut and paste job as there is a distinct and uneven line between where it says please read carefully and credit agreement regulated by...

 

as well as this

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/250310-1.jpg

 

which interestingly had my current address rather than the address I had on taking out the account.

 

Id be interested on any view as to whether what they have sent has all the prescribed terms as well as if anyone agrees the so called agreement has been copied and pasted at least in part.

 

many thanks in advance

[sussex1]

Just thinking about this one, wouldn't Egg have to send me something from them rather than Apex officially advsising me the account/debt has been sold or whatever the official term is?

 

Also would they need to send either a default or termination notice? I was on reduced payments for some time before hearing from Apex

 

thanks again

[BlurredFX]

3-1.jpg definately looks dodgy to me, it seems that the text "Credit Agreement regulated..." is running slightly up hill - but that scan really is not very good, so I can't comment much more.

 

Accusing a company of fabricating the agreement is not likely to impress a Judge IMO. They (The OS) will just say it is what it is, and the scanner was old or that was standard for the period when it occurred.

 

10-1.jpg Has your new address on it hey? Well that makes a difference to me - I don't imagine even you know where you would be living now at that time!! Fortune tellers or fabricators of evidence? It must be one or the other!

 

IMO a dodgy scan is one thing, and they could fluff their way round it, but putting your current address on an agreement signed before you lived at your current address certainly raises a few questions about their conduct.

 

I don't know much about enforcability, but I have ended up in front of a DJ one more than one occasion.

 

Obviously get other opinions, but if I was to present that to a DJ, I would point out the address as your main evidence of their misbehaviour, and the dodgy looking scan as a secondary argument, to put a bit more doubt in the DJs mind about the integrity of them.

 

In terms of what is enforceable etc, have you looked at:

 

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

 

That looks very useful

[BlurredFX]

Not sure if this helps or not:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024413

[BlurredFX]

Also would they need to send either a default or termination notice? I was on reduced payments for some time before hearing from Apex

 

Deed of Assignment is what you are referring to, I THINK. But they cannot take you to Court until they have issued a Default Notice (which would be recorded on your credit file).

 

Even if they have sent a DN, it might not be valid. Have you had a Default?

[sussex1]

Thanks for the replies Blurred FX, it seems Egg have sold/passed many of these to Apex and it could be a case of wait and see what happens.

 

I haven't had any default or termination notices yet. Would these come from Egg or Apex given egg haven't actually told me themselves accounthas been sold?

 

thanks

[BlurredFX]

I am not sure about what is required and from whom when a company sells a debt, maybe someone else can help in that regard.

 

it could be a case of wait and see what happens.

 

What do YOU want to achieve? Having read the two threads I posted above, are the agreement enforceable (even if they are fake)?

 

Also would they need to send either a default or termination notice? I was on reduced payments for some time before hearing from Apex

Which is why they have not defaulted you.

 

Do you have any grounds for putting the debt in dispute? If you do this, it gives you an advantage. e.g. they cannot default you while the account is in dispute i think...

[sussex1]

It seems the agreement is the same as pt3257's thread "what i feel is wrong with Egg", although I'm not sure exactly what to say, particularly in view of the error in quoting an address I didn't live at when it was taken out.

 

As to what i'm hoping to achieve, I was quite happy with the reduced payment arrangement, which i had kept to. If I can demonstrate the agreement is not enforceable, this will put me in a stronger postion with Apex, assuming it has properly been assigned to them as no doubt they will try to significantly up the payments

 

thanks again

[BlurredFX]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what-88.html#post2844082

 

Have a loook at the posts before and after this comment - it seems there might be something afoot with PT.

 

As to what i'm hoping to achieve, I was quite happy with the reduced payment arrangement, which i had kept to.

 

Have you completed an income and expenses sheet, and sent it to them.

 

If I can demonstrate the agreement is not enforceable, this will put me in a stronger postion with Apex, assuming it has properly been assigned to them as no doubt they will try to significantly up the payments

 

If it unenforceable, then you can say tara to the lot!!

[BlurredFX]

Do click the link - it takes you to a specific point in the thread.

[sussex1]

hi, did click the link but to be honest I really didn't properly understand what was going on.

 

AS for i and e, yes I did 3 years ago when originally set up reduced payments with Egg.

 

I want to start on the front foot with apexand hopefully soemone will be able to confrim if what they have sent is enforecable and ideally suggest a suitable response

 

thanks

[BlurredFX]

No I didn't either, I just gathered that there is some kind of case that PT is dealing with, and he is advising that until he can make more details public, hang fire.

 

Take time to go through the thread about identifying if your CCA is up to much, prescribed terms etc etc. I strongly suspect it will not be. Add to that their apparent ability to tell you where you will be moving... and it will start ading up to a good defence I think.

 

Assure yourself that the CCA is not enforceable, and keep an eye on PTs goings on, and see what happens.

 

I haven't had any default or termination notices yet

No DN is a good defence in it's own right. If they have not informed you of your default, how are you to deal with it???

[sussex1]

anyone got an opinion as to whether the agreement they have sent is enforceable or not?

 

thanks

[BlurredFX]

From PT's http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024413

 

Firstly, the word Approved Limit is used, my view which is supported by case law is that the word 3.Limit which is set out in the margin and the word Approved limit is not sufficient to advise you what the credit limit is or how it will be decided. therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated

 

On that basis, no it isn't enforceable.

 

secondly, the agreements fail to state the rate of interest for cash withdrawals. From what i have seen the agreement only states an APR which is not sufficient for cash purchases as cash purchases includes a 1.25% handling fee which is included in the APR so it cannot be an accurate reflection of the rate of interest. Again a prescribed term is missing

 

So again, no.

 

Finally Egg will try to tell you that the missing information is set out within their terms and conditions, if they do this, then in stern words tell them IT CANNOT BE. The reasons for this is that Regulation 2 (4) Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (SI1983/1553) requires that the statutory information set out within Para 3-19 of schedule 1 and 2 SI1983/1553 should be shown as a whole and not interspersed with other information if the agreement is to be properly executed and compliant with section 61 CCA 1974

 

I THINK this applies as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html#post2024463

 

Read the above link - i think that could be relevant. (It goes to a specific post on the thread)

 

Further, I think that there is a discussion going on on that thread about the T&C's being a separate leaflet, and no mention of them in your agreement!!

 

4-1.jpg mentions conditions 1.2 and 1.6, specifically, and other terms in more general, but I cannot see them on your uploads.

 

Egg - The Consumer Forums might be of use - perhaps maybe this thread should be in there. If you want it moving, hit the REPORT button and flag it to the site team.

 

IMO, and I have only ever looked at a few, and never got as far as litigation in this type of matter, it is unenforceable.

 

They have breached their requirements under the CCA, though I am unsure what the rules are about using "mocked up" CCA's now - I am genuinely unsure if that has implications here - credit cards/bank charges - not sure how far reaching the ruling was.

 

But I think that the fact they have not send you a proper copy means they are in default.

 

CCA Section 78d stipulates that they must send a DN before they can take action, anyway.

 

And then, if they produce a mocked up copy in Court, just point out the daft address issue to the Judge as evidence of their stupidness.

 

WHat are you thinking? What are your concern? Do you have a plan of action, or are you just getting to grips with this? Do you think it is enforceable?

 

Hopefully someone better informed or experienced than I can take a better look for you.

 

Hope I have helped a bit.

 

Blurred:)

 

PS Don't be afraid to tip my scales if I have helped - they are next to the report button , should you want this thread moving to the Egg forum.

Edited March 30, 2010 by BlurredFX
clarifying a link

[sussex1]

WHat are you thinking? What are your concern? Do you have a plan of action, or are you just getting to grips with this? Do you think it is enforceable?

 

My thoughts are that it isnt, looking at the other threads enforecable although I am struggling with all the tecnicalities being discussed(they go way over my head). I was happy to continue to pay the reduced amount each month as I was to Egg although, giventhe amount of calls and letters i receive from Apex I'm sur ethey will want a lot more(which I cannot afford), and what to get things clear in my mind before responding.

I'm sure I read somewhere a pretty standard reply just stating the prescribed terms were missing so the a/c was not enforeceable or words to that effect, but can't seem to find it now. Tactically I suppose it would pay just to stall them until PT's case is resolved.

 

 

Hope I have helped a bit.

 

Yes you have thanks

 

Blurred:)

 

PS Don't be afraid to tip my scales if I have helped -

 

all done

thanks again

[saintly_1]

Thread moved to Egg forum as requested

[WelshMam2009]

Just ignore them for now Sussex...this is the first in a long line of letters you will receive. Furthermore, that letter from Egg isn't actually from Egg as it has been produced by Apex. (No doubt with Egg's consent but misleading nonetheless in my opinion).

Myself and loads of other Caggers are in the same boat...check out MelBel and Flubbers threads here....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/231975-apex-credit-have-bought.html#post2570954

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/245000-apex-enforceable.html#post2737449

 

I have ignored them for approx 6 months although did write to them recently to tell them to stop calling as they were ringing every day.

 

As regards your documentation, I believe that recent case law does allow them to reconstitute agreements, although I'm guessing that your signature was on the second page of the first agreement also.

 

I actually have my original agreement and the contents seem pretty authentic to me to be honest, even if there is some doubt about it being a cut and paste.

 

It's the final bit of paper that I find misleading as it would seem to suggest that there an agreement exists between you and CitiBank (I know Citi have taken over the Egg credit accounts but you didn't enter into an agreement with Citi directly). I guess this is to reflect current terms and conditions but I can't help wondering if the layout is intended to confuse consumers into thinking that an enforceable agreement exists as all of the prescribed terms are present.

 

Anyway, best of luck with this...but still very much early days for you!

[sussex1]

Thanks again

 

i'm inclined at this stage to reply as after all I requested the CCA, they have supplied something so the ball I feel is in my court. However in view of the ongoing case i'm not sre exactly what is the best thing to say, perhaps the standard letter re the presecribed terms not being there?

 

Also re the Citibank "agreement", they have put my current address on this and not the address when I took the agreement out..so if they ahve supplied it to look like an enforecable agreement including the prescribed terms, should they not have put the original address? Have they dropped a clanger here? is it important and should i mention this now or hold onto it?

 

thanks again

 

Sussex

[Hangus]

Hi,

 

I am in exactly the same position as you guys with Egg/Apex too.

 

Thanks as well, to BlurredFX for the points made in post #16 (your scales have been tipped!)

 

 

Hangus.

[WelshMam2009]

I've just received another letter which basically says that they are sorry I haven't contacted them; appreciate I probably have financial difficulties and are willing to work out a repayment plan etc.

 

However, this has come AFTER the threat of court action and bailiffs...think they've got the order of their letters a bit jumbled up!!

[sussex1]

Hi

 

haven't heard anything on this for a few months but oday received this

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/apex-1.jpg

 

I know previously there was a big issue with the wording on these agreements but seem to have missed the outcome. Any advise on what I should be saying to Apex?

 

thanks

[sussex1]

Hi

 

I am continuing to get letters from Apex with the latest 2 being:

 

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/egg-1.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/apex-2-1.jpg

 

I have now been given a "personal case handler" although they are still saying they "may" send it to Solicitors in 10 days.

 

I know there was a big case on these particualr Egg agreements and the wording which we were waiting the outcome of although the thread seems to have been removed. Was tis case ever concluded? If, can anyone point me to it and/or have any ideas as to how to respond to this?

 

thanks

[chelsea101]

Hi sussex1

 

Sorry I cant help with your response I am also in the same position as you.

 

This should be the link to the outcome of the case

It appears to have come in favour of egg

but someone please correct me if I'm wrong

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276509-Alexandra-Slater-v-Egg-The-Full-Judgement&highlight=alexandra+slater