1. Home
  2. UK Finance Discussions
  3. Misrepresentation by Egg (sorry to cross post)
  4. Page 2

Misrepresentation by Egg (sorry to cross post)

It's a curious industry in that the "good" customers are those who live on a knife-edge, keeping their cards at or near to their credit limits, yet usually just about managing to make the minimum payment each month but no more, and occasionally missing a payment.

Whereas customers who are financially sound and pay off the full balance each month are "acceptable" customers because the card issuers make some money off the margin charged to retailers, but nowhere near as much as they earn in interest from the "good" customers. "Bad" customers are those who regularly miss payments, exceed their credit limit. and become bad debts.

So a "good" customer can very easily fall over the precipice and become a "bad" customer without ever being merely "acceptable".

Mike.

Reply to
Mike Mann
Loading thread data ...

"Ian Henden" wrote

Think of all the (expensive) work which surrounds those letters ...

Reply to
Tim

Reply to
Ian Henden

Probably would have been better doing that BEFORE they emailed him saying they'd reinstate the card. I think that, if pushed, they'll find that the new offer they made by email damages their ability on this particular occasion to enforce part(s) of the original terms. Next time he defaults perhaps they'll be less rash.

I don't condone his dilatory behaviour but am just suggesting how he might fairly quickly restore himself to the position he expected to be in - while ignoring the silly question about "redress" concerning the £280 he (eventually) paid under, in his view, false pretences.

Reply to
not

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

You made no reference to this, only "the number of times I've been over the credit limit". What did you expect people to infer form this? Had you said "the number of times my account has gone over the credit limit because of bank c*ck-ups", that would have told an entirely different story.

And what were you expecting as a response? Do you really think you can sue Egg for the 280 because under some quirky law you somehow don't owe it any more? You borrowed the money, so you have to pay it back. If your credit card company subsequently decided to cancel your account (which they are completely within their rights to do under the terms and conditions which you signed), then you can't bleat that it's not fair. In much the same way as you have the right to terminate your account, so do they.

Grow up, pay up and get on with your life.

Reply to
Paul Roberts

"Ian Henden" wrote

And how much do you think the IT Department salaries cost the company each year, in total??!

Reply to
Tim

So what ? At the end of the day you still have to pay the debt. Your bank would be liable for any costs incurred. The payment that you made was not in "good faith" but a debt that you owed.

Reply to
Zoe Brown

In message , Tim writes

A few hundred rupees?

Reply to
spamdump

Probably quite a lot.

Of which tuppence each can be attributed to the cost of generating these form letters, sent out automaitically when certain conditions apply. Plus the cost of envelope, paper and stamp. Still not more than 50p.

>
Reply to
Ian Henden

LOL

Reply to
usualsuspect

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.