EGG vs Hondamad21

[hondamad21]

Hello everyone!

 

Though I should update what is going on with my case . . .

 

Well the last you heard from me my proof hearing was on the 19-Dec. Very close to the proof hearing I found that I had fly abroad for a few weeks and would not be back in time. So I asked a friend to go to court and ask for it to be postponed. Egg did not argue.

 

New proof hearing date was 12-March . . .today!!!

 

So I am just back from court and surprise . . .it has been postponed again due to lack of court time, till June ! But to be fair, the only other case the being heard, the pursuer had flown in from South America.

 

After my hearing Egg’s lawyer asked me to have a coffee with him. No great revelation he just stuck to his points and I to mine. One interesting thing he did say was the by providing data to Credit reference agencies Egg is NOT giving it to third party as they are agents of Egg and as such Egg is not breaching and Data Protection Act rules.

In regards to the default notice not being received by me, he stated that it is “Not always required”?!?!

As long as they have that they sent it there is nothing to say that Egg have prove that it was delivered . . .

 

 

So there you have it my story nearly 2 years on from my first letter to Egg!

 

 

 

 

Ohh forgot to mention

 

I am chasing egg for about £350 worth of unlawful charges in addition of default removal.

My default was for about 2k'ish

now my credit file shows the default as settled with the amount that egg defaulted me on.

They told me today taken the unlawful charges (£350) amount off the total defaulted balance on my credit file.

 

Now I have just had a brainwave.

If they admit that the defaulted amount was wrong (which I think they have done by taking the £350 off my CRA file) then they admit that the default notice they issued to me was incorrect (as it had wrong amount).

 

Now does this mean that the default notice was invalid?

[Mistermind]

Now I have just had a brainwave.

If they admit that the defaulted amount was wrong (which I think they have done by taking the £350 off my CRA file) then they admit that the default notice they issued to me was incorrect (as it had wrong amount).

 

Now does this mean that the default notice was invalid?

 

This point was discussed 2 years ago - if the included component of unlawful charges makes a DN inaccurate, misleading and culpable for damages, then it would be the same for EVERY DN issued over the past 6 years.

 

Sticky: The only successful rollback of an Egg DN ever

 

PS. Egg voluntarily reduced your DN amount by £350 this being the total of your unlawful charges. The interesting thought is whether the law currently in place is empowered to coerce the downward amendment of all total figures on ALL DNs issued over the past 6 years. Regardless of the feasibility of seeking damages for inaccurate reporting and defamation, just the burden of correcting milliions of DNs could be sufficient to drive some credit cards out of business?

 

For this reason Egg is likely to fight any DN test case to the last drop of yolk.

 

After my hearing Egg’s lawyer asked me to have a coffee with him. No great revelation he just stuck to his points and I to mine. One interesting thing he did say was the by providing data to Credit reference agencies Egg is NOT giving it to third party as they are agents of Egg and as such Egg is not breaching and Data Protection Act rules.

 

"they (Experian and Equifax etc) are agents of Egg..." ??

 

Experian is now a multinational PLC with their own board of directors, offering credit data for sale to any institution wishing to purchase same. Is Experian data access restricted only to institutions which provided Experian with credit data? I think not.

 

Is Egg engaged in the data-for-sale business using Experian as proxy?

 

For exactly how many financial institutions is Experian "acting as agent?"