Egg Loan

[surycts7]

Re: Egg Loan

Thanks for your reply .Yes i recieved a letter saying . see attachment .just need to decide what to doi next .write to them again saying you have sent an incorrect CCA ,contact the ombubsman or find a no win no fee lawyer and take them to court

[oscar]

Re: Egg Loan

What they have given you is a standardised template response.

I wouldnt be overly worried at present.

HOWEVER - if it were me, I wouldnt be taking THEM to court, there is no point in going to FOS as they cant/dont deal with CCA issues.

If it were me, I would wait a little while.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

Whilst they may be enforceable in their own right the s77 copy can't be if it's not "honest and accurate". It can't be "honest and accurate" if it'd different from the original in a substantive way.

M1

It has nothing to do with "honest & accurate". Carey was clear with recons and so long as it recreates using the same content & form (from ANY) source, then it becomes enough to claim with.

If it is substantially different to the original, but the content & form are the same then according to Waksman, that's acceptable!

They can recreate it on the back of a snickers wrapper, but it must contain the same content & form, ie you can't add missing bits just to make it "good" - but if the PT's etc are the same (as the original) the fact a term is different doesn't necessarily stop a judge finding in their favour. Yea if they send a totally different version that's a different thing altogether..

I'm just clarifying, don't misinterpret Carey or the provisions within.

(1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;
(2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;
(3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;
(4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;
(5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;
(6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;
(7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;
(8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in Adris should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in Yunis should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.

[surycts7]

Re: Egg Loan

thanks for that . the question is still what to do next .
the point where i want to get to is to be able to force /convince Arrow global to write the debt off and remove the default
the recon has a major flaw as it has a tick box from well after the date the loan was approved and the contact history shows that the loan was applied for by phone . the terms and conditions mention sharing the informtion with other pru compaines but what i can find out egg wasn't linked to the pru till after 2006. the reasoning being that it shows thatb they have reconed an agreement but got it badly wrong and that they forged the information that they did not have ,

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

Hiya

Ok sadly the default will stay. Head to our legal section & find McGuffick v RBS. That's the precedent for defaults, insofar as if it's a true reflection of account conduct then it can remain.

The recon is your lifeline IF they attemp to legalise things as you'd then argue that what they rely on as a true copy (in line with Carey) fails at every corner. That would most likely win it for you, our on-site solicitor Paul will be best served with this as that's his speciality and if they did start action I'd deffo refer you to him for a defence.

However you can never tell them the flaws; keep that under your hat. You need to cease all payments and see what happens. Stop worrying about DPA breaches and the like, you'll lose as you signed an active agreement authorising the sharing of data. I've tried and failed this point right to the top.

Move on. Stick with the points you CAN win such as their s.77 failings. I would simply send this back to arrow --> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

Do not edit it and do not tell them the flaws

[oscar]

Re: Egg Loan

Do not edit it and do not tell them the flaws

What? Like I did with MBNA??

Pity they were too dopey to work it out! (just as well really)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

What? Like I did with MBNA??

Pity they were too dopey to work it out! (just as well really)

But now you're converted mate

[mystery1]

Re: Egg Loan

It has nothing to do with "honest & accurate". Carey was clear with recons and so long as it recreates using the same content & form (from ANY) source, then it becomes enough to claim with.

If it is substantially different to the original, but the content & form are the same then according to Waksman, that's acceptable!

They can recreate it on the back of a snickers wrapper, but it must contain the same content & form, ie you can't add missing bits just to make it "good" - but if the PT's etc are the same (as the original) the fact a term is different doesn't necessarily stop a judge finding in their favour. Yea if they send a totally different version that's a different thing altogether..

I'm just clarifying, don't misinterpret Carey or the provisions within.

MBNA vs McCULLAGH [2010] - allaboutFORUMS

And of course from Carey "(12) Obviously, in theory, there is more possibility of error if a creditor reconstructs from sources other than the executed agreement itself but for it to be able to reconstruct at all it will need the details of the debtor, the type of card and the date when made. If it has such details, it appears that there is no real difficulty in ascertaining the applicable terms including the relevant Prescribed Terms. And if so, there is unlikely to be a real risk of inaccuracy; I do not accept that a reconstituted copy is simply based on "mere assertion" by the creditor. It must - of necessity - be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made. That a creditor needs to take care when providing the copy is highlighted by the fact that it is implicit in its duty (as stated by Mr Gun Cuninghame) that it is an "honest and accurate" copy;"

M1

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

MBNA vs McCULLAGH [2010] - allaboutFORUMS

And of course from Carey "(12) Obviously, in theory, there is more possibility of error if a creditor reconstructs from sources other than the executed agreement itself but for it to be able to reconstruct at all it will need the details of the debtor, the type of card and the date when made. If it has such details, it appears that there is no real difficulty in ascertaining the applicable terms including the relevant Prescribed Terms. And if so, there is unlikely to be a real risk of inaccuracy; I do not accept that a reconstituted copy is simply based on "mere assertion" by the creditor. It must - of necessity - be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made. That a creditor needs to take care when providing the copy is highlighted by the fact that it is implicit in its duty (as stated by Mr Gun Cuninghame) that it is an "honest and accurate" copy;"

M1

McCULLAGH = County court mate - Carey (High Court) holds more weight

Don't confuse matters, sometimes being simple is actually the best way forward hence I am repeating my last comment, do not rely too heavily on the accuracy and instead concentrate on the content and form.

I do agree with the McCULLAGH judgment but sadly what I think matters not. You cannot really argue a county court verdict against a High Court judgment, as you know full well

[surycts7]

Re: Egg Loan

Ok sadly the default will stay. Head to our legal section & find McGuffick v RBS. That's the precedent for defaults, insofar as if it's a true reflection of account conduct then it can remain.

would the following argument hold much sway .
Egg have produced a CCA that was for an online application where the required T&Cs are online .
I can prove that the application was by phone and that by logic no contract was sent out and therefore no T & Cs were recieved (as they have reconed an online application)
when i got in to financial difficulty it was egg that advised that i would need to miss payments in order to be allowed to restructure the debt repayment but at no point was defaults mentioned or explained .
The statement about what happens if you missed payments was never recieved as it is in the T and Cs.
My argument would be that as they failed to issue me with the Terms and conditions i had no information on what to make decisions on in regards missed payments etc etc .
regards

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

Nope, you have no argument - answer the following (the proof test)...

1. Did you open the account? Yes/No
2. Did you fail to repay the agreed minimum? Yes/No

If yes to any of the above then you cannot fight the default.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

My argument would be that as they failed to issue me with the Terms and conditions i had no information on what to make decisions on in regards missed payments etc etc .
regards

Doesn't matter the fact you know that all agreements contain information about sharing, so pleading ignorance is no defence. The fact remains, did you ever benefit from the finance? Yes, hence you agreed to their terms.

Sorry mate, that's the way it is - as I say there is case law precedent so pointless arguing a lost cause....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan

Exactly. It doesn't amount to enforcement and the problem is banks etc use the default to get back at you. The ico don't demand default removal. Nor would the FOS in this instance.

The fact it's UE is the best news. Sod the default. One default won't cause u that much harm.

[surycts7]

Re: Egg Loan

hi all .
being a while .new job on a fishing boat .
finally got the courage to cancel my direct debit to Arrow global so will have to wait and see what they do next .
will keep updating
regards