yup Pt2537 is here now too

[seriously fed up]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

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".

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Sadly we wont be appealing

The evidence altered on the stand, what our client said in her witness statement and in conference with counsel, was not what she said on the stand,

The insurers will not support an appeal

HI
Not sure I understand this ,my fault I am sure.
The issue was the enforceability of a regulated agreement on technical grounds due to prescribed terms irregularities.
Presumably a detailed POC/ defence was issued and argued by your barrister, but the judge chose to be led by the opinions of an unqualified witness.
What exactly was her testimony, did she say that she in fact found the credit limit quite understandable perhaps or perhaps she said the interest rate was in fact correctly stated .
What a mistake to make
Peter

[Shepherdess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Ouch. That's a huge blow.
So sorry to hear it Pt, but massive respect for fighting the fight.

Shepherdess

[firefly]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

So PT does this mean that all the waiting for the Egg case has gone down the drain for those hoping for a positive result.After all this time.Blimey!!!
Firefly

[seriously fed up]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Sadly we wont be appealing

The evidence altered on the stand, what our client said in her witness statement and in conference with counsel, was not what she said on the stand,

The insurers will not support an appeal

You had said here CCA case recent judgments for reference - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
that you would shortly have a copy of the case. Will you be able to post it up here for others to have a look at.

[Breeze]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi Messy

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi Peeps

First post but lurked a long time

I was more summery over there .... :tinysmile_kiss_t4:

Hi SB-My brain must be improving as I got that straight away--normally I'd be scratching my head in exasperation trying to work out cryptic clues

[Breeze]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi Peeps

First post but lurked a long time

I was more summery over there .... :tinysmile_kiss_t4:

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi
Oh i see

In what way ws it distinguished>

Peter

I mean to me Heath was a much stronger case.

Unregulated /regulated as opposed to restricted unrestricted(arguably.)

Perhaps that why it was distinguished.

Peter

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Thanks for that.

That might explain why Egg suddenly refunded all the premiums and interest (well, netted them off the amount they are claiming anyway).

Presumably if the judgment confirmed they are multiple agreements then it would mean not just a refund of PPI but would also make the whole agreement unenforceable (and so we could additionally claim the PPI refund as a cash payment as in Wilson -v- County Trust).

Is there a copy of the judgment anywhere as I just googled it but couldn't find it.

If we settle out of court what kind/level of deal should we be aiming for?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Well that's why it's a good thing if yates and nemo was distinguished from heath.

Hi
Oh i see

In what way ws it distinguished>

Peter

[militantconsumer]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

settled out of court,

But

HHJ Platts judgment in yates and nemo confirmed that they are multiple agreements and distinguished Heath too

Thanks for that.

That might explain why Egg suddenly refunded all the premiums and interest (well, netted them off the amount they are claiming anyway).

Presumably if the judgment confirmed they are multiple agreements then it would mean not just a refund of PPI but would also make the whole agreement unenforceable (and so we could additionally claim the PPI refund as a cash payment as in Wilson -v- County Trust).

Is there a copy of the judgment anywhere as I just googled it but couldn't find it.

If we settle out of court what kind/level of deal should we be aiming for?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

HI

I thought heath lost on appeal perhaps i got it wrong.

Peter

Well that's why it's a good thing if yates and nemo was distinguished from heath.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

settled out of court,

But

HHJ Platts judgment in yates and nemo confirmed that they are multiple agreements and distinguished Heath too

HI

I thought heath lost on appeal perhaps i got it wrong.

Peter

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Could it be that the legal elite are giving erroneous opinions in order to secure a fat cheque from the insurers?

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

PT, as you are back on here, where have you got to with your section 18 multiple agreements arguments against Egg on its pre-2007 loans with PPI added but no separate prescribed terms? Have there been any cases on this yet (both my friend and also spamhead on this forum are now being sued on such agreements).

settled out of court,

But

HHJ Platts judgment in yates and nemo confirmed that they are multiple agreements and distinguished Heath too

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

PT, as you are back on here, where have you got to with your section 18 multiple agreements arguments against Egg on its pre-2007 loans with PPI added but no separate prescribed terms? Have there been any cases on this yet (both my friend and also spamhead on this forum are now being sued on such agreements).

Hi

Yes how is that going

Peter