Egg...

alterego_2

They aren't failing to uphold the law, they are being obstructive to you trying to reclaim unlawful charges.

Isn't that the same thing? If the charges are unlawful, then they are breaking the law by applying them, surely? I'm not trying to split hairs, and I know how legal distinctions can look pretty fine to ordinary mortals, but it would be nice to know if I have defence if they take me to court (my point being that they won't want to do it, if it might put their charging scheme under the spotlight).

At the moment, money's very tight, and I'm making a virtue of a necessity, if you like, but I am pretty fed up with Egg, having already been brushed off by them about 18 months ago.

natweststaffmember

alterego wrote: »

They aren't failing to uphold the law, they are being obstructive to you trying to reclaim unlawful charges.

Isn't that the same thing? If the charges are unlawful, then they are breaking the law by applying them, surely? I'm not trying to split hairs, and I know how legal distinctions can look pretty fine to ordinary mortals, but it would be nice to know if I have defence if they take me to court (my point being that they won't want to do it, if it might put their charging scheme under the spotlight).

At the moment, money's very tight, and I'm making a virtue of a necessity, if you like, but I am pretty fed up with Egg, having already been brushed off by them about 18 months ago.

Unfortunately their charges haven't been taken through the court process so that a precedent is set since county court does not set case law precedent. They're not breaking the law, they are just not allowing a case to go to court and trying to fob you off.

alterego_2

Thanks again NWSM. I had this from them yesterday:

"The office of fair trading deemed it fair that Egg could charge £16 due to the fact that you have 24 hours access to you account and you can access it anywhere in the world."

I think they mean 'your account' but I didn't see anything about 24-hour access in OFT842! How this affects their charging process is pretty hard to fathom, too...

They are now offering a refund of £4 per charge. How can I politely tell them to stuff it?

natweststaffmember

alterego wrote: »

Thanks again NWSM. I had this from them yesterday:

"The office of fair trading deemed it fair that Egg could charge £16 due to the fact that you have 24 hours access to you account and you can access it anywhere in the world."

I think they mean 'your account' but I didn't see anything about 24-hour access in OFT842! How this affects their charging process is pretty hard to fathom, too...

They are now offering a refund of £4 per charge. How can I politely tell them to stuff it?

OFT842, point 1.14, Remind them that you are trying to save them additional court costs by settling the claim.

alterego_2

Does the OFT actually mention Egg anywhere in their rulings? I've seen it suggested that their 'direct debit' model counts as an 'exceptional factor' as mentioned in OFT842 para.1.9 but I can find no mention of Egg as an example in that document. In any case, if it's all electronic, how can late payment cost them anything beyond the extra interest that they will add in the normal way?!

alterego_2

Does anyone know if Egg's online 'messenging' counts as correspondence for legal purposes? If not, can I ask for it on their paper, possibly as part of a request for statements?

They're digging their heels in so far. Who did muletman (p.18 and above) mean by 'claims financial'?

natweststaffmember

alterego wrote: »

Does anyone know if Egg's online 'messenging' counts as correspondence for legal purposes? If not, can I ask for it on their paper, possibly as part of a request for statements?

They're digging their heels in so far. Who did muletman (p.18 and above) mean by 'claims financial'?

Yes to online messaging.

muletman is talking about a claims management company.

alterego_2

Thanks again, NWSM. I assume it's still worth asking for statements, if only to show serious intent?

'messenging'='messaging' of course! I knew it didn't look right...

alterego_2

Does the presence of a disputed amount (£220 of penalty charges) in the balance make a difference to recovery if the matter comes to county court? I seem to recall that CCA's are harder to enforce if the sum involved is under dispute, but I can see that they might be legally separable!

natweststaffmember

alterego wrote: »

Does the presence of a disputed amount (£220 of penalty charges) in the balance make a difference to recovery if the matter comes to county court? I seem to recall that CCA's are harder to enforce if the sum involved is under dispute, but I can see that they might be legally separable!

what are the circumstances?