Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

What basis are you thinking it's unenforceable ? Generally, yes, Egg agreements are enforceable. I'd start a thread to get some help dealing with your debt and sort issues out before it gets as far as a CCJ.

[Wicca303]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Sorry to be a bit dense but does that mean Egg agreements are enforceable?

So I should stop ignoring their threats of CCJ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

I have an unconfirmed copy of the judgment - wait till it is confirmed before relying on it, the full judgment is in VIP until such time as it is. For now though this is the primary point people have been awaiting I believe.

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre - Hearing 4th June

Case No: 9CC00161/MC684

Date: Monday, 9th August 2010

B e f o r e :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS QC

(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between :

ALEXANDRA SLATER

Claimant

- and -


EGG BANKING PLC

Defendant

Was the credit limit shown?
14. This issue and those following will involve reference to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the CCA”) and to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as amended (“the CCAR”).
15. Section 61(1)(a) of the CCA provides that:
“(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless –
(a) A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, ...”
16. Section 10(2) of the CCA provides:
“In relation to running-account credit, “credit limit” means, as respects any period, the maximum debit balance which, under the credit agreement, is allowed to stand on the account during that period, disregarding any term of the agreement allowing that maximum to be exceeded merely temporarily.”
17. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the CCAR requires the credit agreement to contain “a term stating the credit limit or the manner in which the credit limit will be determined or that there is no credit limit”.
18. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 of the CCAR provides that the credit limit may be expressed as “(a) a sum of money; (b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor; (c) a sum of money together with a statement that the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum a he may from time to time determine under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor”. Each provision is discrete.
19. The agreement (TB/4/a/145) stated:
“3. Limit We will tell you from time to time the Approved Limit we have set and, if different, the Individual Limit which you have chosen for the Account.”

• The question is whether the words in the agreement related to a credit limit as defined by section 10(2). Mr Pugh, counsel for the Claimant, submitted that they did not. He submitted that the mere word “limit” in the agreement coupled with references to an “Approved Limit” and to an “Individual Limit” created an unacceptable degree of confusion.
• I disagree. I think it entirely clear that the word “limit” in the agreement was uniquely a reference to the credit limit. I also think it to be clear that the Defendant was to determine the credit limit whether by setting it without the Claimant’s involvement or by setting it with the Claimant’s involvement and that the Claimant would be notified accordingly. It was beyond sense for anyone reading the words to think that it would be open to the Claimant to set herself a limit higher than that approved of by the Defendant.
• In other words the agreement contained a term stating the manner in which the Claimant’s credit limit was to be determined and the credit limit was expressed as a statement that the credit limit would be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it would be given by the Defendant to the Claimant.
• It seems to me that the authorities with which I have been generously provided add neither limitation nor complication to what is intended to be a straightforward exercise from which the consumer is intended only to benefit where there is a real potential for confusion or other departure from the statutory requirements. Neither is the case here.

[ncf355]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Great shame