yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Case No: 9CC00161/MC684
is that the right case number for Slater v Egg ?

[lovethebanks]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

AC

It gets worse...read this appeal in Brandon

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Consumer credit legislation was brought in to protect consumers and try and prevent creditors from carrying on as they pleased. Creditors however often decided to do as they liked anyway and the judges are just giving it the rubber stamp.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

sarcastic moi.

surely not

Seriously though yes absolutely. Handed down on the 9th though.

There must come a time when we start thinking about getting a copy from another source, a lot of people out there depending on this.

Petr

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter, there is no need for sarcasm!

Personally speaking, I was somewhat dismayed to learn of the Judgement, via a letter that was sent to another member by Egg.

IMO, it is of great importance that, members read the Judgement in its entirety for themselves and from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No doubt, pt will provide us all with a copy the Judgement.

Shall we wait AC
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi
Yes IMO A good thread is one that gathers number of educated opinions from different sources , discusses them gathers more information then comes to a collective decision.
This is the strength of forums like these.
A bad thread is one that takes one person at his or her word , does not challenge or question , then proceeds without really having understood or explored the issues.
Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No doubt, pt will provide us all with a copy the Judgement.

[militantconsumer]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

People are being sued because their creditors allege that they are owed money--nothing to do with free advice or information available on this and dozens or other free forums on the internet on in any number of publications.

Err... no. If it wasn't for forums like this one and others then most people would assume they had no right to challenge their creditors and would just keep paying. We are an example of somebody being sued because we listened to free advice or information on forums.

Free advice should be treated as such whether garnered from a forum or from a chat to the guy next door.

The only advice that anyone should act on is that paid for and received by a professional legal advisor like a solicitor or a barrister.

Internet Forums are an excellant medium to discuss your problems but are only an online version of your local pub.

The question to ask yourself is would you go to court after chatting to a complete stranger down the pub?

The local pub is full of people I know and I don't want them all to know about my finances. These forums are anonymous.

Not everybody can afford to pay a solicitor or barrister and they are desperate for the advice given on sites such as CAG, MSE and this one.

My local pub is not full of people experience in consumer credit issues.

What is the point of this forum and others if it is not for people to get advice without having to pay a solicitor and a barrister?

Obviously we take responsibility for our own decisions such as deciding to stop paying a creditor. However, when I have offered advice to other posters I have also felt responsibility for the consequences and tried to follow up for months afterwards to see how their cases are going.

It is no good offering people advice and then, if it turns out to be wrong, saying they shouldn't have listened to it in the first place!

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Question though if these threads are so excellant then why are people getting sued?

People are being sued because their creditors allege that they are owed money--nothing to do with free advice or information available on this and dozens or other free forums on the internet on in any number of publications.

Free advice should be treated as such whether garnered from a forum or from a chat to the guy next door.

The only advice that anyone should act on is that paid for and received by a professional legal advisor like a solicitor or a barrister.

Internet Forums are an excellant medium to discuss your problems but are only an online version of your local pub.

The question to ask yourself is would you go to court after chatting to a complete stranger down the pub?

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

I'll just quote, easier lol.


LRSP :: Law Reports



Less than 2% of all judgments are reported in law reports series. Decisions of the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords) and the Court of Appeal predominate because of the weight accorded them by the doctrine of precedent. Only a small proportion of the thousands of first instance cases in the High Court are reported.
When a judgment is reported it can be found in a published law report series. When the Law Reports were proposed in 1863, it was suggested that they should include all cases which:

• introduce, or appear to introduce, a new principle or a new rule
• materially modify an existing principle or rule.
• settle, or materially tend to settle, a question upon which the law is doubtful
• for any reason are peculiarly instructive.' (ICLR)

Judgments that interpret new statutes or interpret statutes newly are also often reported. Judges can recommend decisions for reporting, but this decision is generally made by the editors of the various law report series. This means that cases of specialist interest may be overlooked, whilst cases that add nothing new but give an impression of broad coverage may be included.
Unreported judgments

Unreported judgments can be read in court transcripts. Transcripts become available very quickly and are posted on court websites and on www.bailii.org without catchwords or headnotes or 'cases cited' or other such indexing-type information. Among the legal databses, Casetrack, Lawtel and Lexis post transcripts fairly quickly, with some indexing information. Permanent reference copies of unreported judgments are sometimes available from a limited number of courts and are deposited in the court libraries.
Since about 2001, judgments in transcript form have been cited by the neutral citation. Unreported judgments before 2001 are cited by court and date of judgment.

Unreported judgments sometimes become authorities, however they must be used with caution. In the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords), if counsel wish to cite an unreported judgment, they must seek prior leave which will only be granted upon the assurance that it contains an authorative statement of a relevant principle of law not to be found in a reported case (House of Lords Practice Directions and Standing Orders. Jan 1992)

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

The Judgment is unreported so we have to wait for the transcript to be published. Or for a party to the case to publish it. Hopefully PT will summarise what happened later.

No one is being banned. Can we concentrate on the Judgment and the case and not the conspiracy theories and personal arguments. Whatever the background the main part of the judgment is that the technical argument of the wording of Amount of Credit won't cut it to make an agreement unenforceable.

I'm sure those of you from CAG can pass the news over.

JI
Again this is not my area so i wonder if you could enlighten me.
If a cse is unreported does that mean that the judgement is not available, or just thqat the proceedings were not recorded.

If the judgement is not available what happens to the cases that were put on hold awaiting this case.

Peter

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

The Judgment is unreported so we have to wait for the transcript to be published. Or for a party to the case to publish it. Hopefully PT will summarise what happened later.

No one is being banned. Can we concentrate on the Judgment and the case and not the conspiracy theories and personal arguments. Whatever the background the main part of the judgment is that the technical argument of the wording of Amount of Credit won't cut it to make an agreement unenforceable.

I'm sure those of you from CAG can pass the news over.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

OK, I am fed up with PeterBard's petty sniping disguised as innocent questions and I wish he would just get banned from this site because he is doing the same thing as he did on CAG.

BUT, there are lots of people who have been following PT's excellent threads on that other forum and are now coming unstuck because they assumed their agreements were unenforceable and are now getting sued by creditors.

It would be really helpful if PT could give some kind of GENERAL guidance to those people (including me) about what they should be doing now. Offering to settle for a percentage of the balance? Holding out for removal of defaults from their file as part of a settlement? Or using different arguments in court? What do Egg normally settle for in these circumstances?

Regarding Ms Slater, does this person have any connection to a now defunct reclaiming company? Because I have read on MSE that it was run by people with the same surname and that it dealt with similar cases.

Not trying to cause trouble or embarrassment, trying to understand the situation.

Hi

Sorry to irritate you so much.

Question though if these threads are so excellant then why are people getting sued?


Peter

[militantconsumer]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Because I am a suspicous bugger, I would be interested to know what happened re Ms Slater.

OK, I am fed up with PeterBard's petty sniping disguised as innocent questions and I wish he would just get banned from this site because he is doing the same thing as he did on CAG.

BUT, there are lots of people who have been following PT's excellent threads on that other forum and are now coming unstuck because they assumed their agreements were unenforceable and are now getting sued by creditors.

It would be really helpful if PT could give some kind of GENERAL guidance to those people (including me) about what they should be doing now. Offering to settle for a percentage of the balance? Holding out for removal of defaults from their file as part of a settlement? Or using different arguments in court? What do Egg normally settle for in these circumstances?

Regarding Ms Slater, does this person have any connection to a now defunct reclaiming company? Because I have read on MSE that it was run by people with the same surname and that it dealt with similar cases.

Not trying to cause trouble or embarrassment, trying to understand the situation.

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

AC

It gets worse...read this appeal in Brandon

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

I have just returned from a few days off, and am met with this!
Appropriate news, for a rainy bank holiday weekend..
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Because I am a suspicous bugger, I would be interested to know what happened re Ms Slater. You see, here is a lady who has got expensive legal representation, paid for by insurance. Who tells her brief one thing and then gets up on the witness stand and says something else entirely. Now this makes me wonder why she would have done this? The one thing that always worried about this case was that we were taking the fight to them (the banks) and thus (just like Carey) the onus of proof was on us to show that Approved limit didnt equate to credit limit. That makes me nervous. Had it been the other way round - had Egg had to prove their case - I would have been much happier. So, going back to Ms Slater, what was her game? If you were an exec in Egg, would it not be just great to get someone to bring a case against you, who then goes on to the witness stand and contradicts her witness statement. Hardly makes it easier for her to win the case, does it? If that is what she wanted, because now Egg can throw Slater v Egg Banking against us? If you know what I mean?
What would be VERY useful, would be if we could get a copy of the judgement up for a look, to see what went wrong, and to see what can be rescued. As we all saw with Carey - and indeed with most judgements - "the devil is in the detail".

Agree, it would be of benefit to read the judgement.