Former Egg Accounts - Fees

[supermac9]

Now that Barclaycard have taken over my old Egg accounts, will there be any mileage in me trying to get my fees back? I tried with Egg earlier this year and was basically told where to go, and I get the impression from other threads that I would have been flogging a dead horse going down the FOS route.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[supermac9]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

I have written to barclaycard about this - I've started with a closed account so I don't have any worries about them doing too much in response to this (apart from throwing some money at me!).
Will post updates.

[leclerc]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

likelihood is no cos of 6 year limit. I have an interesting claim currently going through the fos at the moment with reference to credit card claims. Am awaiting an ombudsman decision currently and will then take it further if needs be.
Am also looking at other things credit card related and FOS but will keep that one under the old hat for now

[supermac9]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Letter from Barclaycard at the weekend knocking-back my old Egg Card fees claim, trotting out the same reasoning as Egg have done previously (i.e. £20 down to £16 being reasonable etc.).
Considering my options, if I have any.

[supermac9]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Just a quick point to add to this - in their letter Barclaycard state that they have a policy of refunding fees where they are asked to do so.
So the moral of the story is just ask and you will receive!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Egg fined £721,000 for mis-selling PPI | Money | guardian.co.uk

[Bill-K]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Well, that's a point, AC. Was there any PPI on these accounts, Supermac ?

[Algee]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Supermac

They all knock you back initially, but if you threaten court action and follow it through, they have all, at least in my case, paid up. I might add that that included Egg.

Alan

[Angry Cat]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

To be precise:



The following information includes such details of the supervisory, disciplinary and civil regulatory action (but not criminal action) which may have been taken by the FSA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 or civil penalties which may have been imposed by the FSA under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 in relation to Egg Banking Plc and which the FSA considers it appropriate to publish. The FSA's Register does not hold information on action taken by other enforcement agencies.


Date: 09/12/2008 Type of action: Fines
On 9 December 2008 the FSA imposed a financial penalty of £721,000 on Egg Banking plc (Egg) in respect of breaches of Principles 3 and 6 of the FSA's Principles for Businesses and a related rule between 14 January 2005 and 17 December 2007 (the Relevant Period) in relation to non-advised telephone sales of credit card payment protection insurance (PPI).
Egg agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. It therefore qualified for a 30% (stage 1) reduction in penalty, pursuant to the FSA's executive settlement procedures. Were it not for this discount, the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £1,030,000 on Egg.
The breaches relate to Egg's failure:
(1) to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems (Principle 3); and
(2) to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly (Principle 6).
The following breaches have been identified:
(1) Egg failed to take reasonable care to establish and maintain a sales process which ensured that customers were treated fairly;
(2) approximately 40% of Egg's telephone sales of credit card PPI failed to comply with the Principles for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) failing to obtain clear consent to the purchase of the policy;
(b) failing to obtain clear and explicit consent from the customer to proceed with the sale on the basis of limited information only;
(c) inappropriate handling of customers' objections to purchasing PPI, over-emphasising customers' ability to cancel the policy in the initial free period, and in some cases putting undue pressure on customers to purchase PPI; and
(d) failing to give adequate responses to customers' queries on the price of, or exclusions applicable to, PPI policies, and in some cases providing information that was inaccurate;
(3) Egg failed to establish and maintain adequate monitoring procedures, failed to ensure that all relevant management information was escalated to enable the firm to identify problems with the sale of credit card PPI in a timely manner, and did not take effective action to improve its sales processes as a result of information which was escalated.
Egg's breaches are viewed as particularly serious as:
(1) the problems in Egg's sales process were identified by the FSA, and not by Egg's own systems and procedures;
(2) since September 2006 the FSA has published a number of Final Notices highlighting PPI failings. In particular, in January 2007 the FSA published a Final Notice in relation to store and credit card PPI which included failings similar to those found to be present with Egg's credit card PPI; and
(3) the failings arose against the background of a series of high profile communications by the FSA highlighting the need for firms to ensure that their PPI sales processes were meeting FSA requirements.
Egg's failures therefore merit the imposition of a substantial financial penalty. In deciding upon the level of disciplinary sanction, the FSA recognises the following measures taken by Egg which mitigate the seriousness of its failings:
(1) Shortly after the commencement of the FSA's investigation, Egg voluntarily suspended all telephone sales of credit card PPI pending its outcome.
(2) From 1 May 2007 onwards, when Egg was acquired by Citibank NA, the firm was taking proactive steps to improve its compliance with its regulatory obligations, for example meetings between monitoring staff and compliance were formalised, compliance sign-off of bonus schemes was implemented, new call monitoring and appraisal forms were introduced and RAG (red, amber, green) ratings were introduced in call monitoring to assess risk.
(3) Egg and its senior management worked in an open and entirely cooperative way with the FSA from the outset of the investigation through to settlement of the case.
(4) Effective from January 2008 and by agreement with the FSA, Egg engaged a third party to assist Egg in crrying out an internal investigation. The investigation was conducted in open and constructive manner, with results being shared with the FSA. The FSA was able to place complete reliance on the results of the internal investigation in dealing with this matter.
(5) Egg has agreed with the FSA to carry out an independently supervised customer contact and redress exercise as follows:
(a) All customers who were sold Egg credit card PPI policies by telephone during the Relevant Period will be contacted, save those who have already received a full refund, and those who cancelled the policy without ever paying a premium.
(b) The initial customer contact will be by letter, the forms of which have been agreed with the FSA. The letter will give a telephone number for customers to call if they require further information or have any concerns about the policy or the way it was sold to them. Egg has agreed to pay redress to customers where appropriate.
(c) Any refund will consist of the return of all premiums paid plus a payment of interest on each premium. Egg is likely to have to pay about £1.67 million in redress for every 10% of customers who receive such a refund.
(d) The design and implementation of the exercise will be supervised by a firm of accountants, who will provide an independent quality assurance report to the FSA.
(e) Egg will report to the FSA on the outcome of the exercise, including the number of customers contacted, the number of customers who received some form of redress, and the total amount of refunds paid.
The FSA considers that the remedial action committed to by Egg and the proposal to conduct a customer contact exercise and to pay compensation are significant steps in demonstrating the firm's commitment to treating customers fairly. These are particularly important mitigating factors which, along with all other relevant factors, the FSA has taken into account in making its decision on the level of penalty

[Angry Cat]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

For the avoidance of doubt, EGG were the worst at refunding fees.
Most people including myself had to take them to court in order to reclaim.

The fine imposed by the FSA on EGG will no doubt be of benefit many who were mis-sold PPI.
Further, EGG mis-sold PPI well before the FSA took over the so-called regulation of general insurance.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

likelihood is no cos of 6 year limit. I have an interesting claim currently going through the fos at the moment with reference to credit card claims. Am awaiting an ombudsman decision currently and will then take it further if needs be.
Am also looking at other things credit card related and FOS but will keep that one under the old hat for now

I presume you believe that section 5 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980 would prevent you from claiming?

Have you considered the effect that section 32 (link) might have, in that the limitation period would only start when you had discovered the concealment, deception or mistake?

[supermac9]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Thanks for the various responses - I think Barclaycard are simply trotting out the same responses that Egg would send - i.e. about £16 being reasonable.
I have nothing to lose with this, and probably quite a bit to gain, so I'll set the ball rolling with the FOS etc.
For info, no PPI with these.

[supermac9]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Quick update - FOS (adjudicator) have taken the side of Barclaycard (much as I expected) and have told me to forget it - probably no point in asking for an Ombudsman to consider it, but I feel like doing this anyway just to keep them busy.

[Bill-K]

Re: Former Egg Accounts - Fees

Go for it, I say, Supermac. Nowt to lose but some printer ink, paper, and a stamp - or just a few electrons if you email them !!!