egg and BRIAN CARTER

[josh]

I have an account with Egg from 2001, normal "approved limit" agreement of 2 pages - was terminated in 2007, been all round the block wiith the DCA'S, then last to F and then ****ty Brian Carter, sent a 10 day letter before court action.

I wrote advising the account was terminated with a faulty DN, and unenforceable agreement - BC wanted 28 days to respond - response today " find attached a copy of your agreement under the CCA 1974 and terms and conditions", which are just printed off.

They also advise " we now expect proposals for repayment within 10 days, failing which we will commence legal action for the full amount.

They have ignored the fact that they terminated the account on the back of a faulty DN, they also indicated that they do not have a copy of that DN.

Please can anyone advise the appropriate way to respond

[Amethyst]

Re: egg and BRIAN CARTER

Why do you think the agreement is unenforceable ?

Whats faulty about the DN ?

Need to know those bits before you decide whether to negotiate a settlement or push him to take you to court and defend.

How much is the debt ?
Is it still owned by Egg ?

[josh]

Re: egg and BRIAN CARTER

H there the credit card debt is for 7150 pounds, I was on a CCCS plan and paying £5.00 monthly as I had lost my job and I am on DLA due to ill health.

They accepted the payments until 2007 then send a DN with 12 days to rectify, while that was still active they then sent a termination notice, at that point due to the "aprroved limit" arguments and the termination, I disputed the account, this remained as such until 2009, Then they started sending it round to different DCA, the last one being Fredricksons and then BC, in which they have ignored the termination of the account and sent a copy of the 2001 agreement, with loads of terms and conditions, I know for a fact that these are not genuine or from 2001, as I have SAR from Egg and there were only 3 documents which formed the agreement "approved limit".

I have currently advised them the account is terminated and as such I accepted this as unlawful recission.

I hope the matter is clearer than before now!!

Thanks

[basa48]

Re: egg and BRIAN CARTER

H there the credit card debt is for 7150 pounds, I was on a CCCS plan and paying £5.00 monthly as I had lost my job and I am on DLA due to ill health.

They accepted the payments until 2007 then send a DN with 12 days to rectify, while that was still active they then sent a termination notice, at that point due to the "aprroved limit" arguments and the termination, I disputed the account, this remained as such until 2009, Then they started sending it round to different DCA, the last one being Fredricksons and then BC, in which they have ignored the termination of the account and sent a copy of the 2001 agreement, with loads of terms and conditions, I know for a fact that these are not genuine or from 2001, as I have SAR from Egg and there were only 3 documents which formed the agreement "approved limit".

I have currently advised them the account is terminated and as such I accepted this as unlawful recission.

I hope the matter is clearer than before now!!

Thanks

You do know the Approved Limit' argument is now dead ? - Slater v Egg.

Your only get outs now are the invalid DN and the termination during the term of the DN.

You should just remind BC / Fredricksons of that fact and that as a result the agreement is dead and your only liability is the arrears as shown on the DN.

Did you get the classic 'Ending you agreement' letter in 2008?

[josh]

Re: egg and BRIAN CARTER

Hi thanks Basa no the account was defaulted due to me being on a reduced income and paying minimum payments to them - they decided to DN after the 2nd reduced payment and then terminated the account in February 2007.....

I will have to pursue the DN/terminated course of defence - to date they have ignored this fact and carried on regardless

[basa48]

Re: egg and BRIAN CARTER

Hi thanks Basa no the account was defaulted due to me being on a reduced income and paying minimum payments to them - they decided to DN after the 2nd reduced payment and then terminated the account in February 2007.....

I will have to pursue the DN/terminated course of defence - to date they have ignored this fact and carried on regardless

They will continue to ignore the facts, particularly if they make uncomfortable reading from the DCAs perspective, i.e. you have a good case.

Beware that some judges find a day or so short of 14 for remedy to be de minimus, especially if it can be shown you were unlikely to pay !! They say the debtor did not suffer prejudice by not having enough time since they were never going to pay anyway!!