Tweet
Hi Niddy, I found you here after noticing you weren't posting on the MSE forums any more. 
I have had a long-standing dispute with Egg over enforceability of a card from 2003. I made my original CCA request a couple of years ago and what they sent me had the usual issues - "approved limit" and reconstituted documents rather than an original agreement. The usual to-ing and fro-ing ensued.
However, as the amount was less than 10k, I remember being advised to consider reaching a settlement with them. I was also concerned about blotting my clean CRA files (I couldn't give a monkey's now as I never intend to get in debt ever again in my life)and about "late fees" and interest being applied if I stopped making payments.
Then came the Slater v Egg judgement, which I know has put a lot of people off fighting even though it is not directly relevant to cases such as mine. But the problem is that the only legal opinion that actually matters is that of the judge on the day and I was worried about having to pay their legal fees on top if the judge sided with them.
So I thought I would be pragmatic and get some debt counsellors to get the account frozen and negotiate reduced payments or a substantially reduced full and final settlement.
I had been assured the account was frozen while it was "on hold". It has since been passed to a DCA and I was sent a demand to pay the full outstanding balance, which was nearly £600 more than it was in February.
This has pissed me off big time, as the whole point of getting the debt counsellors involved was to avoid precisely this kind of extortion!
I have maintained in all correspondence with Egg that I considered the account to be unenforceable. And quite frankly, I want to resume the unenforceability route as I don't see that I have anything to lose now.
I've deliberately kept details out of this post for obvious reasons, but will happily email you Jpegs of the alleged "agreement" and correspondence if you would like to see them.
I'd just like some advice here on whether or not it is advisable to resume unenforceability instead of continuing with these debt counsellors.
Thanks.
I have had a long-standing dispute with Egg over enforceability of a card from 2003. I made my original CCA request a couple of years ago and what they sent me had the usual issues - "approved limit" and reconstituted documents rather than an original agreement. The usual to-ing and fro-ing ensued.
However, as the amount was less than 10k, I remember being advised to consider reaching a settlement with them. I was also concerned about blotting my clean CRA files (I couldn't give a monkey's now as I never intend to get in debt ever again in my life)and about "late fees" and interest being applied if I stopped making payments.
Then came the Slater v Egg judgement, which I know has put a lot of people off fighting even though it is not directly relevant to cases such as mine. But the problem is that the only legal opinion that actually matters is that of the judge on the day and I was worried about having to pay their legal fees on top if the judge sided with them.
So I thought I would be pragmatic and get some debt counsellors to get the account frozen and negotiate reduced payments or a substantially reduced full and final settlement.
I had been assured the account was frozen while it was "on hold". It has since been passed to a DCA and I was sent a demand to pay the full outstanding balance, which was nearly £600 more than it was in February.
This has pissed me off big time, as the whole point of getting the debt counsellors involved was to avoid precisely this kind of extortion!
I have maintained in all correspondence with Egg that I considered the account to be unenforceable. And quite frankly, I want to resume the unenforceability route as I don't see that I have anything to lose now.
I've deliberately kept details out of this post for obvious reasons, but will happily email you Jpegs of the alleged "agreement" and correspondence if you would like to see them.
I'd just like some advice here on whether or not it is advisable to resume unenforceability instead of continuing with these debt counsellors.
Thanks.
Comment