Egg Credit Agreements-what do i think is wrong with them

[pt2537]

Egg credit card agreements are fundamentally flawed in my view, i have seen a number of the older Egg agreements (Pre 2005) and on each one there are a number of defects

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

the case i refer to is Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR,where HHJ Overend states

24. In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:

(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and
(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is

Following HHJ Overend’s view, the agreement should make clear to the consumer, who is likely to be a lay man, what the credit limit is or how it will be determined. It is not possible to say with any certainty that the documents EGG have provided are clear, unambiguous or that a consumer would understand that the approved limit would be their credit limit.

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

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


Also it is worth noting that, Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and Egg Agreements DO NOT


These are just my observations based upon my own experiences

[craigers]

If I may chip in, there is nothing regarding the 14 day cooling off period either. Is that not another factor to support unenforcability?

[pt2537]

well, it would be something to add to your list thats for sure, but it wouldnt on its own affect the enforceability of the agreement , but when added to the points above it gives you a killer argument as to why you have been prejudiced by the lenders failings

dont forget though the Distant marketing regulations do not apply to pre 2004 contracts

[craigers]

On a wee sidetrack, my agreement is from 2000. The actual signed agreement says nothing about agreeing to the processing of my data through credit reference agencies, although it does say I "accept the Egg Card Conditions a copy of which is enclosed", and CRAs are mentioned in it.

I often wonder if it could be argued that the signature box only applies to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act because of the wording of the phrase within it, and that there should be a seperate box for the creditor's T&Cs.

[pt2537]

my goodness, can i have an agreement like that please

that is as duff as they come mate,

[craigers]

Is my logic duff, or my agreement?

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by craigers

Is my logic duff, or my agreement?

agreement , definitely agreement

[militantconsumer]

Great stuff PT.

Any plans to do a thread for their dodgy loan agreements?

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by militantconsumer

Great stuff PT.

Any plans to do a thread for their dodgy loan agreements?

well, i may do in the future, i have a few cases against Egg on the go at the moment so it depends upon time being allowed

[basa48]

Originally Posted by pt2537

Egg credit card agreements are fundamentally flawed in my view, i have seen a number of the older Egg agreements (Pre 2005) and on each one there are a number of defects

Also it is worth noting that, Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and Egg Agreements DO NOT


These are just my observations based upon my own experiences

I've been 'banging' on about para 22 charges for a while now even to the point of including it in my 'dispute' letter to them. However it is not mentioned in schedule 6 as one of the terms.

The cash APR is interesting though and will be part of my arsenal for any further dealings

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by basa48

I've been 'banging' on about para 22 charges for a while now even to the point of including it in my 'dispute' letter to them. However it is not mentioned in schedule 6 as one of the terms.

The cash APR is interesting though and will be part of my arsenal for any further dealings

No but it is a requirement to state the default charges and if the agreement does not then it is improperly executed and the court can take that into consideration under S127(1)&(2)

[basa48]

Originally Posted by pt2537

my goodness, can i have an agreement like that please

that is as duff as they come mate,

Can you PLEASE elucidate, 'cos mine looks identical to 'craigers' and I cannot see mention of CRAs anywhere on my signed agreement.

[craigers]

It doesn't mention CRAs on the agreement. Its only mentioned in the T&Cs.

[basa48]

Originally Posted by craigers

It doesn't mention CRAs on the agreement. Its only mentioned in the T&Cs.

Yup I gathered that, but how does that get PT to suggesting that is another fault with the agreement?? I'm probably being a bit thick here!

[blueboy987]

Originally Posted by craigers

I often wonder if it could be argued that the signature box only applies to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act because of the wording of the phrase within it, and that there should be a seperate box for the creditor's T&Cs.

Just to confirm I understand this point correctly....

As the signature is in a box on its own with the wording "this is a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act", it means that the signature is only accepting the terms in the agreement as under the act everything has to be within the same document.

And that as the extra terms and conditions are in a separate document they can't be viewed as part of the agreement, which in turn means you haven't accepted nor agreed to them.

Does that sound right?

If so, does it mean they never had the right to share information with credit reference agencies?

One other question for the experts....

Egg have substantially changed their agreements which appear to have corrected all the errors in the old agreements, especially regarding the credit limit. A copy of the current agreement is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...egg-cca-7.html

Can we use their new agreement as evidence? That is, to argue that them changing the agreement is evidence of them knowing the old agreement was faulty and not enforceable.

[basa48]

Originally Posted by pt2537

my goodness, can i have an agreement like that please

that is as duff as they come mate,

I assume here you are referring to craigers comments about the CRAs.

I M O isn't it a stretch to say because the sig box doesn't contain a reference to the t&cs you may not be bound to them. It does say directly above that by signing you accept them (the t&cs).

[pt2537]

I think words are being put into my comment that arent there

I made no comment about CRAs only that the agreement which i was asked to look at was improperly executed and unenforceable as set out within this thread

It is a Duff agreement, it is unenforceable, it is improperly executed due to non compliance with section 61(1)(a) CCA 1974, S61(1) and of course section 127(3) applies

[basa48]

Originally Posted by pt2537

I think words are being put into my comment that arent there

I made no comment about CRAs only that the agreement which i was asked to look at was improperly executed and unenforceable as set out within this thread

It is a Duff agreement, it is unenforceable, it is improperly executed due to non compliance with section 61(1)(a) CCA 1974, S61(1) and of course section 127(3) applies

Ah, OK, I just thought craigers might have found yet another fault in Egg's agreement.

Apologies, I am just keen to gather as much info as possible.

PS: It's great to get positive second opinions and I do value your comments highly.

[Number6]

pt2537

I just stumbled upon this thread. Until I saw this I was of the opinion that Egg agreements are generally OK and enforceable. Can I ask you for the reasons why you think they are flawed? Or is there another thread that I haven't yet seen that deals with this?

[Number6]

pt

Sorry! The info is, of course in the OP. It's been a long day!