Egg card agreement has been terminated

[HP Mum]

My feeling on the above letter from Egg is that they say I accepted their t&cs. They say that general contracting principles stand as I accepted and agreed to their t&cs. So, would I be right, in following the discussions above, that if I agreed in writing to their termination of my account that even the general contracting principles would end ???

I can see that they are almost hoping I do go to the FOS as this means I can't argue with them anymore !!

 

Does anyone (Toymaker) have any idea -again - on how to reply again to this letter from Egg ???

[diddydicky]

My feeling on the above letter from Egg is that they say I accepted their t&cs. They say that general contracting principles stand as I accepted and agreed to their t&cs. So, would I be right, in following the discussions above, that if I agreed in writing to their termination of my account that even the general contracting principles would end ???

I can see that they are almost hoping I do go to the FOS as this means I can't argue with them anymore !!

 

Does anyone (Toymaker) have any idea -again - on how to reply again to this letter from Egg ???

 

your reply i would guess would be to the extent that as a consumer without the resources to your aid that the creditor has- you were unaware at the time of the unfair nature of the term in question and you feel that that particular term will be proven at some stage to be an unfair term or condition

[HP Mum]

I have re-read their letter.

 

There seems to be two moot issues:

1) This sentence: "the CCA74 does not stipulate each party's rights in respect of termination of the credit agreement".

So Egg are confirming that the CCA74 does not cover "termination" rights for either party - thus insinuating they are "off the hook" ???

They are also confirming that I agreed to this set of circumstances, which is outside the jurisdiction of the CCA74.

That by signing an agreement I should have understood "as a general contracting principle" that the agreement would not cover termination rights of either party.

(Note here that I have never asked for a copy of my agreement so do not know if the original is enforceable or not).

So is ignorance of the law allowed here ?

It is not allowed in most cases.

So, if every clause within Egg's agreement appears to be covered within the CCA74 then would most normal punters, in the eyes of a judge, be expected to also raise a question of termination rights - a clause which is not included in the agreement - at the time of signing ?

If it is not in the agreement, and seemingly not covered by the CCA74, then what is the legal standpoint?

The general public can't seriously be expected to understand what a "general contracting principle" means !! Especially when it now seems to mean that Egg can terminate an account solely to their benefit - meaning that they can impose new terms and higher interest rates without any new signed agreement from the original signed customer, who would never have agreed to such revised terms at original time of signing.......

 

 

2) "The decision to terminate your agreement was following a biz review and cannot be overturned"

So Egg are confirming that my agreement has ended and that they will never reinstate my agreement.

Boom. My Egg account is done, dead and buried.

Hang on - they still want me to pay on the account.

Ummm, I am confused....

 

 

Having pondered the above 2 points:

- my agreement has unequivocally ended (I have not acknowledged this in writing yet - should I ???)

- they have issued revised terms that I do not agree and have never agreed to in writing; hence we do not have any agreement anymore.

- how can they continue to chase this debt ???

 

So....

Any good ideas on a response to Egg now ?

Edited February 25, 2010 by HP Mum
typo edit

[BEC01]

In partial answer to HP Mum and Hippo.

So, yet again Egg have not thought through the implications of what they put in writing. So we now have an agreement that termination is not covered by CCA.

 

As Hippo points out, this is uncharted territory here.

So, what is happening is differing points of view. The only way to get a definitive answer is through the courts.

 

It is who will make the first move, consumer, or Egg?

 

Or, will there be any move...?

 

The general contract principles is total and utter nonsense.

I would ignore that. If one wants to look at several areas of contract law, Egg would (probably already do) realise that the termination letters were one almighty balls-up.

 

Interesting, this - I think - has much more merit than the enforceability route; which - incidentally - I think has much merit, based on PT's very informative and interesting thread.

[BEC01]

OK folks, I have been waiting to share this.

It is relevant to Egg's "general contract law" point.

 

"The provisions of this clause shall survive termination of this Agreement."

 

Hopefully it is self explanatory...

[HP Mum]

What do you mean ??

Provisions of which clause ?

I dont have the agreement in front of me.

[basa48]

What do you mean ??

Provisions of which clause ?

I dont have the agreement in front of me.

 

Having a quick Google around, it is a common practice in contracts to put in a clause along the lines of:

 

Survival

 

The following clauses survive the termination and expiry of this Contract;

 

Egg should have made the 'termination clause' the subject of such a qualification if it wished it to survive the ending of the contract.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

BTW, whats happened to peterthebard?

 

has he been back since I asked him to show proof of what he claims? has he been exposed as someone just arguing with everyone for the sake of it?

 

I sincerely hope not

[HP Mum]

I dont think it is necessary to go down that path HH.

 

However, I would be interested in some help in drafting a reply letter to Egg including some of your points above .

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I dont think it is necessary to go down that path HH.

 

However, I would be interested in some help in drafting a reply letter to Egg including some of your points above .

 

sorry hpm, didn't realise this thead was about yours, I thought it was a general discussion about what may may wrong with Egg agreements, and I've simply carried on the theory stated above that Egg cannot claim part of an agreement continues post termination without it being separate from the CCA.

 

as for what to say to Egg, my theory is NOTHING. Let them do the work, let them come up with an argument that will stand up, its not our job to explain the law to them, our job is to come up with a defence against their claim in court. Why give them an insight into possible defences. If they're confident about the agreement, let them persuade a judge.

[HP Mum]

Morning Toymaker .

So have you also received the letter that Egg sent last week to me ?

So far no-one else seems to have received such a letter from Egg.

 

And based on your last couple posts, do you think that I just - Again - write back to them saying that my complaint is far from closed, that again I repeat for them to advise where in the CCA does it say they can terminate my agreement when not in default ?? And until they do, the account is in dispute and they are unable to recommence collection themselves, or via a dca ?

 

I agree that they are fudging the point in their reply to me. They never deliberately answer the question. Just waffle...

[toymaker1]

Morning Toymaker .

So have you also received the letter that Egg sent last week to me ?

So far no-one else seems to have received such a letter from Egg.

 

And based on your last couple posts, do you think that I just - Again - write back to them saying that my complaint is far from closed, that again I repeat for them to advise where in the CCA does it say they can terminate my agreement when not in default ?? And until they do, the account is in dispute and they are unable to recommence collection themselves, or via a dca ?

 

I agree that they are fudging the point in their reply to me. They never deliberately answer the question. Just waffle...

 

I expect there is one in the post to me - they usually send out those letters to everyone on their list.

What is the number of the post with your letter in?

[toymaker1]

hello again,

I seem to have missed out on the above disagreements !!

But in the meantime I have just received another letter from Egg. And would love some feedback. They seem to be fudging the issues.

 

FYI - I wrote this to EGG:

"With regard to your statement that Egg is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and more recently to the Banking Code, I reply as follows.

Egg's legal department will be aware that Egg's credit card facility is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is not regulated at all by the Banking Code, which - as Egg's legal department will be fully aware - does not regulate anything and is purely a voluntary code of conduct for banking institutions.

With regard to your reference to term 20.2 of the Egg Credit Card terms and conditions, “We can end this Agreement at any time”. This is precisely the central issue of my complaint. I have requested Egg to indicate to me the relevant section of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg Credit Card Agreement. I.e. I am asking Egg to indicate to me the legal source which provides Egg with entitlement to have a term such as 20.2, which purports to give Egg the right to terminate my Egg Agreement at any time.

As you will be aware, Egg has so far failed to provide a response to my request. I consider that my request for that information is reasonable, is directly relevant to Egg's termination of my Egg agreement, and is very simple for Egg to comply with. For example, if there is a section in the Act which provides Egg with the right to terminate my Egg Agreement, it should be a very simple matter for Egg to point it out to me, and the dispute would be resolved. I am still awaiting a response to my request for the information to which I have referred, and which was made in my letter, dated xx

In light of the foregoing, the dispute between Egg and me is, unfortunately, by no means closed.

 

 

Egg have now replied:

 

"Thank you for your letter dated xx in response to our letter dated xx. Firstly I would like to apologise for the misinformation in our letter relating to the Banking Code as you are correct in advising that this is a Voluntary Code of Conduct that Egg subscribes to. Please be aware that this has recently changed to the Lending Code of Conduct.

I have raised your issues with the legal dept and would like to confirm the following:

The CCA74 regulates the relationship between Egg and the customer. This prescribes certain t&cs which must be included in a credit agreement.

However, the CCA74 does not stipulate each party's rights in respect of termination of the credit agreement. In accordance with general contracting principles, this is agreed between the parties and was clearly set out in the Egg t&cs you accepted and agreed to.

The decision to terminate your agreement was following a biz review and cannot be overturned. I am sorry that you feel this matter is not closed; however should you remain dissatisfied you have 6 months from xx to exercise your right to refer your complaint to the FOS. If the FOS notifies us of their intention to arbitrate on your behalf, we will no longer be able to discuss your complaint directly with you"

 

If it was me I would be inclined to file the letter and do nothing for now. The reason is; You have made it clear to Egg that the dispute is not closed.

Egg have confirmed to you that Egg recognises that the dispute between Egg and you is not closed ("I am sorry that you feel this matter is not closed").

That means they cannot at some future date, or after "6 months from XX" claim that you have given up fighting Egg, and therefore no longer have a dispute.

Just wait to see what Egg's next move is - maybe they will quietly drop the matter, including any money you owed them.

In which case let sleeping dogs lie.

If they resume their letters to you demanding you pay the money, just keep making the same request, asking Egg to indicate to you the relevant section of CCA which provides entitlement to Egg to have closed your account etc.

Whatever you do dont go to FOS.

FOS is incompetent, and acts on behalf of the creditors. It would also cause a lot of extra complications and unneccesary letter writing.

 

So far as the substance of Egg' letter, they are totally wrong (as they have admitted to you about the Banking Code!).

CCA1974 covers every aspect of termination of credit card agreements, and it is the law which governs credit cards.

 

Regards

 

CCA1974

[HP Mum]

HI again,

 

This is the bit that worries me though;

 

"However, the CCA74 does not stipulate each party's rights in respect of termination of the credit agreement. In accordance with general contracting principles, this is agreed between the parties and was clearly set out in the Egg t&cs you accepted and agreed to"

 

Having read some other posts, I am wondering if I should clarify this point. I mean, how can I (and everyone else) accept and agree to something that was not written. Egg are saying that it is implied and should be understood by the lay person, but I disagree. Most lay people would not understand this point: that Egg can terminate an agreement without a Default Notice, just because they feel like it (ie: not making any money out the client).

 

I have too many things going on to write more letters than I have to. But there is something niggling me about this. That clearly "general contracting principles" can not be left unwritten in their agreement.

Hmmmm. Some thoughts to ponder on this one....

[cab1ne]

its kind of making an agreement one sided.

 

debtor defaults: debtor pays

debtor terminates: debtor pays

 

creditor defaults: debtor pays

creditor terminates: debtor pays

 

 

cab

[BEC01]

Don't worry about this.

It is complete and utter nonsense.

 

If you are one of the 160,000 + terminated in 2008, then you really shouldn't worry about this. They ended your contract: purely out of their choice.

 

Therefore, you owe them nothing.

Furthermore, if you paid anything to them subsequent to termination in March 2008, then you should should claim all of those payments back, plus interest, plus compensation.

 

On top of that, billing and collecting for a service that has been withdrawn is an extremely serious offence.

 

Oh, and have they been harassing you for payments post-March 2008?

If so, then it becomes even more serious.

 

Egg are the ones that should be worried - not you.

IF someone takes them to court over this one, they are facing much more serious penalties than a CCJ.

 

My suggestion? File the letter, and ignore.

[toymaker1]

HI again,

 

This is the bit that worries me though;

 

"However, the CCA74 does not stipulate each party's rights in respect of termination of the credit agreement. In accordance with general contracting principles, this is agreed between the parties and was clearly set out in the Egg t&cs you accepted and agreed to"

 

Having read some other posts, I am wondering if I should clarify this point. I mean, how can I (and everyone else) accept and agree to something that was not written. Egg are saying that it is implied and should be understood by the lay person, but I disagree. Most lay people would not understand this point: that Egg can terminate an agreement without a Default Notice, just because they feel like it (ie: not making any money out the client).

 

I have too many things going on to write more letters than I have to. But there is something niggling me about this. That clearly "general contracting principles" can not be left unwritten in their agreement.

Hmmmm. Some thoughts to ponder on this one....

 

Stop fretting about it. As I said in my earlier post, and as BEC01 has confirmed in post 1157, its a lot of hot air and tosh based on suedo legal jargon. It's meaningless twaddle.

Forget it. Move on. Read my earlier post. Life is too short to keeping creating fights when you dont need to.

Just file the letter.

[HP Mum]

re post 1180

which may be why Egg seemingly tried to turn lots of credit card debts into new "loans" - with a potential fixed term agreement that is then covered by this clause, S98....

Just my 2p worth for the moment !

 

 

On a different note: Can anyone offer help on my mbna thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/210845-hp-mum-mbna-new-post.html

 

cheeky me...

Edited March 5, 2010 by HP Mum