Egg CC agreement 2001 -Enforecable?

i8egg

Hi, can anyone offer advice please or point me to another relevant forum.

I am having a big argument about PPI with egg and requested and received my CC agreement from them, signed 21/7/2001. The thing is, it looks like it could be unenforceable i.e. No actual Credit Limit shown only the words "we will tell you from time to time the Approved Limit which we have chosen for the account".

Has anyone come accross and Egg 2001 agreement, is it enforceable?

They are really being quite obnoctious, I am out of work and the PPI is not kicking in and egg are denying any obligaiton as it was solf online. If this agreement is not enforceable then I may take that approach instead.

Thanks in advance.

fermi

The prescribed terms for a Credit Card 2001 (running account) agreement to be enforceable in court are:

• A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

• A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and:

• A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following:-

(a) Number of repayments;
(b) Amount of repayments;
(c) Frequency and timing of repayments;
(d) Dates of repayments;
(e) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

So on the face of it that statement in particular would not render that agreement unenforceable.

However, Egg agreement from that time are notorious for their lack of compliance with the regulations, so it may be best to post with further details on the DFW or CAG forums.

withnell

Hasn't a judge just frozen loads of these claims, where people try to get out of paying what they owe? If you spent it, you should pay it back.

Andy_Ches

withnell wrote: »

Hasn't a judge just frozen loads of these claims, where people try to get out of paying what they owe? If you spent it, you should pay it back.

I totally agree, if the money is genuinely owned...pay it back.

Parki_2

I would get onto them if they arent playing ball. I have always found Egg difficult to deal with though. Slow and notes are often misplaced.

never-in-doubt

withnell wrote: »

Hasn't a judge just frozen loads of these claims, where people try to get out of paying what they owe? If you spent it, you should pay it back.

No he's frozen a select few and in cheshire. Who are you to judge whether they should pay it back? we have laws to dictate right and wrong and clearly, an unlawful CCA means you do not have to pay it back.

Morals don't come into it i'm afraid - when it's a choice of feeding your kids or paying MBNA trust me, anyone who says they'd pay MBNA needs serious help!

EDIT: I used MBNA as an example. If you want it specific to the OP then i'll change it to egg!

Degenerate

never-in-doubt wrote: »

we have laws to dictate right and wrong.

So anything that isn't illegal is right?

Morals don't come into it i'm afraid - when it's a choice of feeding your kids or paying MBNA trust me, anyone who says they'd pay MBNA needs serious help! :rotfl:

They certainly would need serious help, if they pay MBNA when the money is owed to Egg.

never-in-doubt

Degenerate wrote: »

So anything that isn't illegal is right?

Where did I say that exactly? An unlawful document however, is not going to be enforced.

Degenerate wrote: »

They certainly would need serious help, if they pay MBNA when the money is owed to Egg.

I was using it as an example.

Ok, deranged fool, stop following me around the forum posting non responsive, critical rubbish that is seen to be hijacking threads which you have no relevant input for.

All i'll do is show you up to be the fool that you really are, playing with words against two of us didn't work yesterday and it certainly won't work today either! :rotfl: