Scrambled Egg

[maxine989]

I have to say Juli99 that Egg have a point. I know it's harsh, but not looking at stamements is asking for trouble... and when you apply for an egg card on-line you have to tick/untick the box about payment protection. The 'form you sign' is in effect, the pages you filled in on-line. When EGG sent you the paperwork to sign, you were signing to say that what you had typed in on-line was correct.

 

Yes, credit cards do push you to take out the payment protection, and often those little boxes found in on-line application forms are already ticked and you have to untick them if you do not want it. They are quite sneeky how they get you to have it, but unfortunately for you, you didn't cancel it when you had the chance at the beginning.

 

Good luck with the claim for the charges.

 

Spuzzcake: I don't need to claim anything back from my egg loan as I have no charges on that account, just some late payment and over limit fees on my Egg credit card (which is now paid off and closed). Thanks for the advice anyway.

[Jaynekul]

I had the PPI added in when I did a balance transfer online as apparently it is automatically added unless you tick the box for no. Still cant find the box.

[JULI99]

Egg have so far not produced one piece of evidence I signed for insurance. Aside from telling me "I ticked the box." They have sent me a screen shot showing me the so called box I supposedly "ticked." I would be very interested to know if anyone has recently applied for an Egg card. Could they tell me if the box offering cardholder repayment protection was in amongst boxes saying Risk Band, Credit Score, Credit Limit etc

 

Weather or not I look at my statements is not the issue. I am looking at them now. The issue is, if as they say I ticked the box when I did my online application form, then why is there no mention of insurance on my Credit Agreement.

 

As for banks being sneaky, are they not according to their own code of conduct supposed to operate in an open and transparent way or is that just my imagination.

 

I am registered disabled and one of my problems is my poor eyesight. Although I can read a computor screen I do so with a great deal of difficulty. My partner types out everything that is on here and she is the one who is going thru my finances and looking at the small print. That is why I probably didn't look at my statements.

 

This was not a balance transfer.

 

juli99

[JULI99]

Well back to egg. Have been going backwards and forwards with them over my loan.

 

Loan was made up of consolidation of credit card bill and another sum of money. Problem is Egg have no idea where the second sum of money went.

 

HELP

 

JULI99

[maxine989]

What do you mean by 'the second sum of money'. Do you mean the funds that was left over from the loan after you had paid your credit card off?

[JULI99]

Took loan out to pay off egg credit card and further sum of money. Never recieved second sum of money and egg admit to not having any paper work on this although egg are chasing for the whole amount as OH signed for the whole amount.

 

I know OH should have been more carefull but the list of medical problems he has means he misses stuff. (Came home the other day proudly announcing the fact he had paid off one dca by striking a deal with them. Great except for the fact he paid them more than he owed in the first place.)

 

juli99

[JULI99]

Recieved Egg cards defense. Not to sure how to handle this one. Not too worried about the defense against the over limit charges but the defense offered up against the card holder repayment protector was

 

"The Claimant is put to strict proof that he did not request CRP"

 

Err how do I do that?

[JULI99]

Need some help in deciphering this clause.

 

It has something to do with confidentiality.

 

"To any Court, government or other authority to the extent necessary for compliance with a lawful obligation by the party disclosing it and to the extent necessary to any professional adviser to that party in connection with the giving or recieving of advice in relation to such disclosure."

 

Tried reading it slowly and breaking it up but it still reads like complete gobbledegook.

 

Anyone fluent in gobbledegook out there

[JULI99]

Thanks

[Mistermind]

 

"To any Court, government or other authority,

to the extent necessary for compliance with a lawful obligation by the party disclosing it,

and to the extent necessary to any professional adviser to that party in connection with the giving or recieving of advice in relation to such disclosure."

 

 

I think it is saying the gagging clause does NOT

apply to judicial (court),

legislative (parliament),

and executive authorities (Home Office, police etc).

 

Nor does it apply to your professional advisers (e.g. solicitor) who is engaged in your case and involved in advising you, and dependent on the info you are forbidden to disclose to others. You could of course say CAB, or possibly an eloquent CAGger, are advising you. The fact they charge nothing does not make them nonprofessional.

 

The gook has been gobbled.

[JULI99]

Well why couldn't they say that in the first place.

 

Thanks for deciphering that.

 

Makes life a lot easier for me if I can show this document to the court.

 

Should mean egg have scrambled themselves completely.

[JULI99]

Update from Wednesday's case. Must just be how my lifes going but I lost case against Egg. Exactly same as Empire strike back however my judge believed them when they said that the box must have been ticked in order for the screen shot to be generated. Also said as OH had paid off card he therefore had paid for insurance and accepted it.

 

So feeling quite down at the moment.

 

Funny thing is Eggcard which was in OH name (and who has separate bank account to me) had 8p credit balance left on card. This balance was credited to my bank account last week. Just to confirm I have never had an Egg card, loan or any type of account with Egg so how did they manage to get my bank account number?

[livelylad]

Hi can you post a brief rundown of what has happened and what you were claiming for. Thanks.

[JULI99]

Was claiming for charges and creditcard repayment protection (OH's card).

Got repaid the charges and went to court over insurance element.

 

Had asked over and over for proof CRP was signed for or for some authorisation to show CRP had been asked for. Egg sent a screen shot that purported to show box had been ticked to take CRP. This screen shot showed a box saying Accident, Sickness in what appeared to be an area that was only accessed by the bank.

 

Credit Agreement showed nothing about insurance.

 

Defence from Egg over insurance element of claim was

 

Upon the Claimant's Appliation for the Egg credit card he requested Repayment Protection Insurance (CRP). The Claimant is put to strict proof that he did not request "CRP".

 

I have quoted the above as (and this is where the Judge lost me) apparently this wording meant that OH had to prove he did not take out insurance.

 

Judge believed screen shot and as card had been paid off OH had paid for the insurance and therefore had the benefit.

 

Just to add, during the period he had the card he was unemployed for a few months. Didn't claim on the insurance as he didn't believe he had taken out insurance.

[JULI99]

Just to add Egg's Witness statement which should have been with the court and myself 2 weeks before was given to the courts 2 days before and to me on the ay of the case.

 

Judge said these things happen.

[Mistermind]

I have to say Juli99 that Egg have a point. I know it's harsh, but not looking at stamements is asking for trouble... and when you apply for an egg card on-line you have to tick/untick the box about payment protection. The 'form you sign' is in effect, the pages you filled in on-line. When EGG sent you the paperwork to sign, you were signing to say that what you had typed in on-line was correct.

 

Yes, credit cards do push you to take out the payment protection, and often those little boxes found in on-line application forms are already ticked and you have to untick them if you do not want it. They are quite sneeky how they get you to have it, but unfortunately for you, you didn't cancel it when you had the chance at the beginning.

 

Good luck with the claim for the charges.

 

Maxine is one lucky lady, she got paid recently with one phone call where thousands have now been stranded by court hearing "stays". In the above quote Maxine's finger has pinpointed the trouble spot -- "the box you ticked" actually refers to a mouseclickable box on the screen, not any box on a printed form received through the post ticked by hand.

 

Evidently what you saw on the screen was not identical to the printed record (for convenience only?) received through the post later -- not WYSIWYG. Lawyers can clarify, vis a vis the insurance mis-selling guidelines implemented by the FSA in 2005 (following pensions mis-selling scandals), whether or not there is now a legal obligation on Egg to replicate the screen contents exactly onto paper. Whether this discrepancy beetween screen and paper records is legally actionable.

 

All those pages and pages of ubiquitous onscreen T&Cs on websites all over which nobody bothers to read CAN come back with legal bite once you have mouseclicked the box "I have agreed to abide by these conditions". All still pursuing PPI reclaims, beware.

 

Commiserations to JULI99, better luck with other claims. Well done on your charges refund -- were charges awarded in court or conceded by Egg beforehand?

[JULI99]

What do you mean exactly by what you recieve thru the post. According to Egg should have recieved copy of terms and conditions etc for the insurance I supposedly took out but even they cannot come up with these or any viable evidence other than a screen shot. Even if it was true that he did take out card protection how was he ever supposed to make a claim if there was no paperwork or anything else informing of his rights.

[Mistermind]

Uniquely among credit cards Egg does not send out paperwork, no statements, no letters, just email exchanges via secure mail. Everything is supposedly available for viewing by logging onto Egg site then navigating to find what you want to know. I found their site a jungle and never bothered again after trying once. Egg's total dependence on internet rather than paper has not to my recollection been legally challenged before.

 

I am not au fait with PPI reclaims, but it has been suggested that the crunch turns on a mouseclickable box shown onscreen during the card or loan application process. Unless someone tries a dummy application and obtains a screen print, it would be hard to visualise the exact tickbox and whereabouts it is located on the input screen. Egg's screen print would I presume have been datestamped and timestamped as per normal practice.

[JULI99]

Just the time in the corner but no date.

[Mistermind]

Had a reply from Egg today they have now refunded the remaining ppi to my account, apparently when i fell into arrears some of it was refunded as the policy was cancelled. I need to check their figures but they say they have refunded £868.68 to my account and they hope that brings my complaint to a close. Didnt take as long as i expected, they caved in very quickly, and after only 2 letters!!

Hi Juli99

Its not up to you to prove you didnt take the insurance out, its up to them to prove you did. Are you supposed to have taken out by telephone or by ticking the box on the online application. If it was by telephone you want a transcript of the conversation, if it was by ticking the online box, you need a copy of the online applcation form showing that you ticked the box. My claim was for the online one, Egg could not show any proof of my having ticked the box, they admitted to the Judge that the section where you ticked the box for insurance or left it blank if you didnt, was not saved on their records at the time of applying. The judge then ruled that as they could not prove I had indeed ticked the box I was entitled to have a refund of the premiums that had been applied to my account. Egg asked why I had not complained about this before, told them that it was because my wife dealt with all the paperwork and had assumed that I had requested this Insurance, wasnt until we retired and reviewed our finances together that I noticed it. The judge also picked up the fact that all the boxes to be filled in on the application form were coloured white but the box for the CRP was in grayscale, whether this meant that it could be altered by Egg am not really sure but this was a significant factor in the judges decision. Hope this answers you query, if you need anything further just shout.

Wednesday 1867

You are welcome to use my claim as an example if you want.

Thanks Empire, dont think im gonna bother tho to be honest, i had it for years, i got the same bits of paper you did, was thinking of telling them stuff your judge said in your case and use your case as a warning, theyve lost already and im now here with the same or similar argument..

Had a phonecall from Egg regarding my complaint, didnt know which complaint at first

Its regarding the PPI on the loan, they agree with my points that it should of been refunded and it has now been refunded.

 

 

With numerous PPI reclaims attempted against Egg, many still ongoing, I have seen only 4 outcomes reported in CAG:

 

(1) Anna won charges and interest in court. Later when she discovered she had been unknowingly paying for PPI she tackled Egg for refund. In Anna's case Egg appeared to have previously on their own initiative cancelled Anna's policy, but had mistakenly continued levying monthly premiums. Anna was refunded out of court, but her case would seem to be untypical.

 

(2) EmpireStrikesBack left his unwanted PPI unchallenged for 3 years and earned a question from the judge about it. The crucial evidence was a screenshot provided by Egg showing Empire had NOT mouseclicked the PPI enrolment box. The judge remarked that this box was showing as grey --by convention the colour of "greyed out" online boxes preventing input in contrast to white boxes which by convention invite input. Judgment appeared to have been awarded for Empire based on this crucial piece of evidence.

 

(3) Armed with Empire's winning precedent, Wednesday1867 tackled Egg over the phone, and Egg conceded refund before court, presumably because Wednesday had also received into his hand an Egg screenshot with the crucial box shown as unticked -- Wednesday1867 could confirm this.

 

(4) In JULI99's case the claimant was asked to produce evidence contradicting Egg's screenshot which showed the box to have been ticked. Judgment appeared to turn on the absence of evidence presented to rebut Egg's screenshot. In the internet age then, an online mouseclick appears to be as critical as an offline tick by hand.

 

The judge also mentioned that when JULI99 effectively paid off Egg Card balance by having it transferred to Egg Loan he had de facto accepted the existence and theoretical benefit of PPI to date. I suggest this was a contributing factor towards the judge's verdict, but not the clinching argument. Empire had also been asked why he had waited for 3 years before protesting against his unwanted PPI, but Empire's apparent passive acceptance had not cost him the case. In numerous other cases claimants had closed their credit card accounts, but the act of previous closure had not disqualified them from retrospective refunds of unlawful charges, before court or in court.

[militantconsumer]

An interesting (and disappointing) case.

 

Subbing to this so that I can find it again, and also because I'm in the early stages of a very similar case:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/178357-militant-consumer-challenges-egg.html

and if anybody wants to add their 2p worth to my thread, you will be very welcome.

[bathgatebuyer]

Similar with me - if anyone has any comments in respect of my own case - particularly now as I have a letter from Egg in which they acknowledge that due to a pre-existing medical condition at the time of sale, I would not have been eligible to claim.

 

Grateful for any advice:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/164090-bathgatebuyer-egg.html#post1953490

 

When looking through my own notes on this, Egg have sent me a screen print of their payment protection page and nowhere on it does it show the PPI box as ticked, just the two options of Yes or No. On the actual Aplication Review form they have sent - which is part of their own internal records (and is shaded grey) - there is a box for Payment Protection which includes the words 'Accident, sickness and unemployment' within a white box. Is this similar to the case involving Empirestrikesback?

 

They have said, "Had you not opted into CRP during your application, this box would contain the word 'none'." Yet, they haven't provided proof of this? Just a statement that this is fact. Yep, and I'm Jose Mourinho's wife. FACT. Can anyone on here disprove that?!

Edited January 31, 2009 by bathgatebuyer