Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

So help me with this: how do i compose a letter that (a) asks for their bank details and (b) denies they have a right to collect the debt? Or am I missing something? No, don't answer that.

they do have a right (ie arrow)!!

You're writing to arrow thus it'd be "as per your assignment letter of (enter date) please provide your bank details to allow me to continue paying the monthly premium I have paid egg for the last XX months"

That's it.

However, hold fire for now. See my last post.

[caspar]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

I think I'm losing the will to live!

I've been arguing for the past 5 hours they could assign it FFS.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

What do you mean they bundled a fixed term & running account together?

They CANNOT do that without your explicit consent usually via consolidation by way of new loan with a new agreement and account number - cos it'd be a new product.

Can you clarify what happened instead of springing these wee surprises on us

Cheers. For now don't send anything cos we need to try snd sort things one way or another. If you're confused, spare a thought for us

Man, its a long story! Here's the Debt Star's Adventures in Humpty Dumpty Egg land.....

Egg sold me a consolidation loan in 2005 (this is the current loan) with a different number and with no PPI attached to it. This is Loan 2.

Loan 2 was sold to me to consolidate an older Egg loan (Loan 1) taken out in 2004 and an Egg credit card. Loan 1 and the cc had PPI. Loan 1 had single premium PPI sold at the outset but the loan itself only ran for 1 year before being consolidated into Loan 2 BUT the entire amount of single premium PPI was added to the consolidation balance.

With me so far? So from 2005 I had in fact been paying for something i nhad no use or benefit of (Loan 1 PP1) plus interest added onto that balance by Egg.

I was therefore mis-sold Loan 2.

I initially looked at UE and multiple agreements etc. In my FOS complaint form i went in heavy on the mis-selling but FOS not interested in that; they focussed on the PPI and the adjudication was pretty good on the PPI. Egg were told to repay the cc PPI plus interest; to calculate the monthly repayments I had made towards Loan 2 in excess of what I needed to make; pay 8% interest on the excess payments due to the carry over of Loan 1 PPI; calculate new closing balances for the card and loan 1 prior to their consol into loan 2; refund any overpayment after the deduction of arrears; pay £PPI premiums and interest 100 compensation; repay loan 1 PPI premiums plus interest; offset the difference on loan 2 but pay me the 8% additional interest direct.

All Egg have done, out of all of the above, is pay the cc PPI plus interest and reduce loan 2 by a sum of money that appears to equate to the offset of the carry over premiums from loan 1. I say "appears" because the bank have not sent any calculations or any letters to mne whatsoever. I only know they have reduced the balance because I checked my credit file.

I wish I could say and they all lived happily ever after, but I can't.

[caspar]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

So I guess it's fair to say this goes a little beyond the legality of assignments!

[The Debt Star]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

So I guess it's fair to say this goes a little beyond the legality of assignments!

No, it doesn't. It has been adjudicated.

It is about the assignment.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

I think I'm losing the will to live!

I've been arguing for the past 5 hours they could assign it FFS.

Caspar if you read back thru the threads you'll see that I have been variously advised that Egg could not assign an account in prior dispute. Now it seems that they can but, as Garlok admitted, even he was surprised at this.

[caspar]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

DS,
I know you've been advised that. That was all I had read until tonight as well, so rather than take someone else's word for it, me being me and a stubborn old git, I tried to find the law that backed up this claim.

I couldn't find it, but did in the process find a fair bit suggesting it was OK to assign it. There's Acts of Parliament I haven't even mentioned yet on this thread!

I too am surprised, but, taking it a step further, it's better to find out now than in a courtroom.

I'm glad we can have this debate amicably. At the end of the day, hopefully it not only gives us a better understanding, but anyone else who reads this thread as well.

It will also change the way we advise others in future - that is why reasoned, amicable debate is healthy, even if it does get frustrating at times.

Off to bed soon,

Probably catch you tomorrow!

Caspar if you read back thru the threads you'll see that I have been variously advised that Egg could not assign an account in prior dispute. Now it seems that they can but, as Garlok admitted, even he was surprised at this.

[caspar]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

No, it doesn't. It has been adjudicated.

It is about the assignment.

It does, because although its been adjudicated, Egg still have a fair way to go to fulfil their obligations under that adjudication. That's what I meant.

[garlok]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Hi Guys,

You have moved things on a bit since I had to leave last night. I am not really into the PPI thing anyway but from what I have gleaned in the past and the quick look ups I managed to do yesterday evening I have an idea as to what may be happening.

As DS says in his post 29, the debt is not in dispute. In fact it cannot be in dispute because of the PPI issue. PPI is not a fundamental part of the regulated agreement, it is merely a product or service sold to the card holder, in these case by the card provider. Of course it may have been mis-sold and usually has been but as part of the basic running credit agreement it is not.

From the bits of the acclaimed judgement I have managed to examine, I do not think it is quite the outright victory many have claimed it to be. As usual with these things there are some bits of subtle wording which the creditors are going to make as much hay out of as possible to mitigate their losses. This is what the FOS are alluding to in DS's case here. The debt i.e the regulated agreement is NOT in dispute, to quote Niddy here "regulatory dispute". I still hold the view that in a "regulatory dispute" the account cannot be sold and would stand to be corrected. However thought about logically there is one law above everything else which governs this and that is the Law of Market forces. Would you buy what is just an accounting asset that carries the potential for very expensive litigation? No you wouldn't.

I know, I know, Lowells are the exception that proves the rule. I think this Arrow lot are a bit sharper at the top end. In looking at this I came to the conclusion that all of the wording has been carefully chosen both in the judgement and the follow ups by OFT, FOS, FSA etc to ensure that this does NOT spill over in the regulatory side of any dispute. The two elements have been very effectively put into two quite separate compartments. Yes I am cynical!

The only overlap I can see having an effect and that is temporary is in the balances quoted on s87(1) DNs and Demands for Sums not yet due on what are commonly called "terminations".

However DS as you are making monthly payments on a fully agreed basis (I hope you hold documenatation!) then Arrow have inherited this arrangement and must abide by it. That is the baggage that goes along with all of these things and like they say to us "caveat emptor" buyer beware. If they don't like it or want to play hardball then I would play their game and use everything i could against them including starting right at the beginning with a s78, DPA SAR, CPUTR. and pay them nothing. You have shown, demonstrably so, to any court, complete reasonableness in attempting to make arrangements, they have not. No court will refuse to take that into account.

Is not EGG part of Barclays now via take over or inheritance from one their other acquisitions? From distant past is not EGG paperwork defective anyway? Hence Barclays will try to divest themselves of as much trouble as they can as quickly as they can.

By the way I would NEVER voluntarilty send any I & E information to anyone unless ordered to do so by a Court of Law and then only via that court. That is the road to financial suicide in my opinion.


regards
Garlok

Is that a start for you?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Is not EGG part of Barclays now via take over or inheritance from one their other acquisitions? From distant past is not EGG paperwork defective anyway? Hence Barclays will try to divest themselves of as much trouble as they can as quickly as they can.

Noooo, they simply sold off a lot of their accounts, as per citi did when they sold up to Opus....

Selling their credit card book, is not the same as becoming part of the same company! Egg is owned by CitiBank

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

All Egg have done, out of all of the above, is pay the cc PPI plus interest and reduce loan 2 by a sum of money that appears to equate to the offset of the carry over premiums from loan 1. I say "appears" because the bank have not sent any calculations or any letters to mne whatsoever. I only know they have reduced the balance because I checked my credit file.

I wish I could say and they all lived happily ever after, but I can't.

Ok mate but there is one thing here that's being overlooked....

You were mis-sold the second loan in entirety so they cannot enforce this, ie how can they consolidate a loan that was wrong at outset...?

Mate, seriously, you ought to be looking at ways to get the lender to accept total write off with a threat of taking action. In any case i'd not be repaying them, you'll not get a CCJ as the whole thing is a joke - no?

Anyways, off to read Garloks post... see what he says

[garlok]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Sorry should have used the examples of a loan rather than card etc but the principles are the same.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Sorry should have used the examples of a loan rather than card etc but the principles are the same.

regards
Garlok

Agreed with most of your last post mate however the actual dispute should be raised with the actual product as a whole, ergo the account and the sum involved should BOTH be disputed (both as a mis-sale and both as incorrectly calculated thus rendering it void from inception) - personally, from my POV I think he needs to seek proper advice regards this, if anything revoke the previous FOS judgment citing a new more complete complaint - bear in mind Egg still have not honoured the original adjudication so the FOS need to start issuing fines anyway.

Point is, this needs to go higher than your adjudicator as he should have picked up on the mis-sold loan and advised you that that in itself warrants dispute - let alone the PPi element of things.

Now to put into layman, if they put things back prior to the mis-sale of PPI (as they should when you reclaim), everything should be retrospective to the event taking place, clearly this is not the case here and so TDS needs to continue with the complaint, taking the whole approach of total mis-sale of product. NOT just the PPI mis-sale.

Does any of this make sense to anyone other than my intuitive mind?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Sorry should have used the examples of a loan rather than card etc but the principles are the same.

But mate, are they? One is a running account with variable rates etc the other was fixed rate, ie agreed and set-out at inception which displays amounts etc that will be repaid, if this fundamental issue is wrong from outset then the whole loan becomes void as it cannot be regulated based upon an opening fault/error whatever

See what I mean?

[garlok]

Re: Egg Loan Transferred to Arrow Global

Yes Niddy, I see where you are coming from. Now we have more of the facts, the outstanding loan is in my view void. Thats it, it cannot be enforced would be my stance.

What I was trying to put across was that in principle, to use your wording a "regulatory dispute" cannot exist on the pure basis of a PPI issue. Hence DS would continue paying his 20 quid a month as agreed with the OC to the new owner. However if they were not prepared to continue then I would have hit them with everything I could.

NOW we are in posession of the facts, I would stop paying and tell them to foxtrot oscar pretty damn quick. I would also be putting together a reclaim of all monies paid, statutory interest and interest in restitution to boot. Just to get the status quo restored. That would rock them on their heels if not put it to bed altogether.

regards
Garlok