Taking payment from closed account

Joe_Bloggs

I stand by all of my proposals. They were not frivolous but thought out to maintain a balance.

Consumers have very little to do with the writing of contract terms. They are seldom read and often interpreted incorrectly. Accept what you think you understand or walk away is the default strategy. Not everyone can be a lawyer but I can understand the ambition.

As a consumer you may sign up to fair or unfair terms. How can one tell ? Terms and condition require legal brains to cook up. It should be no great surprise that they are unreadable and beyond the interpretation of the average Joe.

Perhaps there should be a time limit on the term 'continuing'. Why should continuing be forever ?

Clearly CPP are resourceful in the field of acquiring payments. Clearly chip and pin is working.

However it is not the done thing to bury your head in the sand when others are sending you bills. Better to find out why!

J_B.

Ramearess

Write to egg infrom them you cancelled your contract with them over one year ago so you have no legal obligations to pay there is no agreement between the two of you to do egg should recover the payment from the PPI company who by the way you will still have to pay if you hadn't recived the letter you may of been able to get out of this.

Under contract law once a contract is completed it's finish and neither party can be held liable for anything under the contract. This doesn't negate other laws that may also apply.

The term saying you are liable for further transactions is an unfair term and condition how could anyone deem it fair that you can't leave this contract.

Write to any closed accounts you have informing them that you do not authurize any payments on the account.

chattychappy

Ramearess wrote: »

Under contract law once a contract is completed it's finish and neither party can be held liable for anything under the contract.

Nonsense. The contract will be terminated either according to a termination clause or when both parties have completed performing their obligations. If there has been a breach, either side has up to 6 years to claim.

A payment authorised whilst the account is open remains an outstanding obligation.

You have a point about fairness - but in this case the OP received a notice, had the opportunity to cancel and didn't. So nothing unfair IMHO. The term that allows this to happen can hardly be said to be unfair else there would be quite a business of cardholders authorising payments and then cancelling cards to avoid payment.

Even if the OP did succeed in getting payment stopped, this would still leave owing the debt.

The thread is quite old. In a lot of these cases they do agree to cancel though.