EGG Complaint - 1st reply

[ANNALH]

Hi everyone,

 

I wrote to Egg on the 19th March, also emailed them through their messaging service.

 

Gave them 7 days to refund charges of £120. Had 2 replies by email basically saying the charges are not unlawful and they will not be upholding my complaint. Had 1st letter today (25th) basically saying the same thing and telling me I have 6 months to complain to the Financial Ombudsman if I want to!

 

Tomorrow is D-Day for them so I will be onto MCOL filing a claim as Sunday is a no-post day so do not expect to receive anything.

 

Will keep you updated.

 

Anna

[kaiser_solsay]

Good on ya Anna,

 

I got the same negative repsonse from Egg also. I have submitted a claim with the Sheriff Court (Scots law).

 

I dont expect EGG to challenge it and look forward to a refun of my £340.00 + 8% apr interest + court fees.

 

Will keep you posted!

[monkey_uk]

ANNALH - Don't forget the Letter Before Action.

[ANNALH]

Hello,

 

Filed a claim against egg on 1st April and have just received a copy of their defence.

 

Basically it states...

 

Claimant went over limit on such and such occasions, they signed terms and conditions to say we could charge him £20 each time....it is denied that these charges are a disproportionate penalty....denied charges are unenforceable at common law....COUNTERCLAIM...in the event the court finds the default charged levied on the claimant was an unfair penalty and thus unenforceable the defendant counterclaims for the actual cost to the defendant of dealing with the claimants breach of contract in exceeding his credit limit.

 

 

Is this normal practice??

[Maxie]

Now this is interesting. Infact that is very interesting. One question - it sound very 'out of box' thinking. Can you take a look at the claim form and who has signed it? Are they signed are 'solicitor' 'legal advisor' or 'counsel'?

 

Before I advise you further....

[ANNALH]

Its signed by 'David St Clare Nelson, Legal Counsel'.

 

Should i be worried??

[EricTheRed]

Why did n't thhey bring an action for breach of contract in the first place? Won't the T&C's outline what the remedies are for such a breach.

[Maxie]

David St Clare Nelson; Treasury counsel. They are in house barristers to Egg banking. I thought it sounded a bit too......imaginative for a solicitor. What there not expecting a reply to defence of similar guile!

 

I'd like to ask you to type out word for word and lay it out like they have and I'll write you a reply to file at court - see if we can't hit back!

[alanfromderby]

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

[Maxie]

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

 

Thats why I've asked to see the whole defence. You reply is the very logical argument that makes there defence most illogical. However, Barristers are a very cautious breed and the Egg inhouse team are not stupid. So my first reaction is what have they got up their sleeve or is this just a 'tactic' to scare.

[alanfromderby]

Be warned, we're a devious lot in Derby....I drive past Egg most days!!!

[BankFodder]

Yes it is an unusual defence - but if they go ahead it could be very interesting.

 

It could have been drafted by someone who doesn't really understand the issues or someone not very experienced. It might only have been signed off by the counsel.

 

As far as providing the basis for their counterclaim - yes they will have to disclose any documents they intend to rely upon before the hearing.

 

I don't see any basis so far for saying that they are being tricky here. Looks more like a foul up to me.

They will realise at some point and this will be one which isn't going to court.

 

Could we have a scan, please - bankfodder@bankactiongroup.co.uk

I'll make sure that a copy gets to Maxie.

 

I think that this may be the first defence anyone has received from egg.

How much are you claiming, by the way?

[Movingon]

Let me just explain (for those who haven't spotted it) why this is a very odd action by Egg.

 

In order for the Judge to even consider their counter-claim, he must have access to all of the information - the law states that they can reasonably recover their costs from a defaulter... so some of the information the Judge will need is a breakdown of their genuine costs for each type of charge being considered. They will have to be genuine; for instance if the costs for all the different types of charge added up to around £12 it would look extremely suspicious. Further to this they would have to demonstrate that each individual charge was manually dealt with; any evidence of automated processes would suggest that the charge was a standard automatic response to given account conditions as opposed to a "genuine pre-estimate of cost". Automatic responses are extremely cheap per transaction and involve (expensive) human input only when they're challenged.

 

The reason it's unlikely to happen is that no bank has EVER released details of either it's charging process or a detailed breakdown of it's costs for dealing with default... citing their contention that it's extremely sensitive commercial information. Personally I think that's bullshine - all charging should IMO be completely transparent.

 

 

So - THAT's why it's unlikely to ever come to court; their counter-claim is simply an attempt to intimidate you. I would lay odds that someone will try to call and tell you that you can avoid this "unpleasantness" by accepting . Refuse to discuss it with them except in writing, as per Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

[thecornflake]

"The reason it's unlikely to happen is that no bank has EVER released details of either it's charging process or a detailed breakdown of it's costs for dealing with default... citing their contention that it's extremely sensitive commercial information."

 

You're right there. i was reading somethgin the other day about them not providing information - it was either to the OFT or DTI.

 

If they really did provide this it would completely stuff up all the other finance companies, by effectively removing any defence they have, plus deeming any future charges to have to meet the true costs.

The OFT ruling would be way off the mark and pretty useless, the £12 being proved to be way too high.

 

I so hope they try the counterclaim but I severely doubt it. I agree it mus be a mistake unless they think they can use the OFT ruling to counterclaim without proving true costs.

[ANNALH]

I am only claiming £120!!!

 

I will scan and send you a copy bankfodder and Maxie.

[Spiceskull]

Surely, if they did decide to follow through with a counterclaim, they would then have to prove in open court exactly what the cost of the breach is to egg, and the exact breakdown of the charges.

 

Would they not also have to provide the basis of their counterclaim prior to any hearing?

I agree with Alan here, and indeed everyone else on this thread. One crucial thing though, did you request evidence of manual intervention as part of your DPA request?

 

If you did, and they sent none, then this is an IC issue, as well as something for which the judge would not look favourably on them.

 

If you did, and they sent some evidence (not likely) then you may have an obstacle.

[ANNALH]

I did not need a DPA as i knew exactly what they charged me.

[thecornflake]

I did not need a DPA as i knew exactly what they charged me.

 

Yes, but you aren't aware of any manual intervention that may have ocurred as this is part of the DPA request.

 

However, it is highly unlikely that this will come into it as I haven't heard of any DPA requests coming back with evidence of this and if they claimed it in court they would have to back it up anyway.

[thecornflake]

I've been thinking about this and realised something. I think that they maybe will go to court, but have put in the counterclaim in case they lose. Therefore, if they lose at least they can then claim back their actual costs, however small. If they lose in court it's going to open the doors for everyone else so maybe they're just preparing for the worst. However, it would still be better for them to not counterclaim and keep the costs private. This way they would only have to refund people who find out about this, which in comparison to their total customer base will be relatively low. 1300 members here? and how many have Egg cards with charges? Not many. Of course, a successful court claim would be publicised so maybe not.

 

I don't know - just a thought really. I agree with BF that it will probably not go to court, but others appear to be getting the same counterclaim which kind of disproves the one-off mistake theory.

[Movingon]

I can see it now:

 

Egg: We counterclaim for our costs in providing these "services" of bouncing cheques etc

 

Judge: Will you tell me your exact costs broken down for each type of default?

 

Egg: Ahhh - no, sorry, those are sensitive commercial information. We can give you the total for each type of default: they're all £12 each.

 

Judge: **BANG** NEXT!!!

[Yasmin]

Hi, have also received a counterclaim from them today, signed by the same person. How are you handling it, any advice please?

[Yasmin]

Hi again....howz it going with the counterclaim? LOL luv to know as i've got one also.

[ANNALH]

Today I received a letter telling me they are closing my credit card account and giving me notice, so i have to find the money to pay off the balance by 12th June!!!

 

They cant do this can they??

[alanfromderby]

They can with 30 days notice - however, I would complain to the FSA over this as it is a result of you challenging Egg over the legality of their penalty charges, which the OFT have already indicated are likely to be unlawful.

 

Under the Banking Code they also should be flexible over the repayment if it would cause hardship.

[dinghy]

Unfortunately, this is one of the possible responses that the banks may try to use as a punitive response which is why parachute accounts are recommended.

 

However as Alan mentioned it is possible that this is against the banking codes.There was a thread around about this but can't remember where exactly ! And they certainly can't demand it back from you immediately...

 

You don't seem to have let everyone know how you got on with their counterclaim...