yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Well at least we know the result of Slater v Egg now Cheers RS.

Are you appealing PT ? (assuming Eggs view of things in the letter is vaguely accurate )

We note your reiteration of your argument in relation to the use of the term "Approved Limit". You allege that we have failed to comply with section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA) by failing to include all of the terms prescribed by schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act (agreement) Regulations") on the basis that the credit limit is described as the "Approved Limit". This allegation is incorrect. The form of agreement used by Egg contains all of the relevant information prescribed both by Schedule 1 and by Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations. "Approved Limit" is specifically defined in Condition 1.3 of your agreement as the amount you can borrow from time to time on the account and is therefore clearly understandable. There is no requirement under the CCA to use a particular term or phrase when describing the amount of credit. The description of the credit limit complies with paragraph 8(b) of schedule 1 of the Agreement Regulations. This has been confirmed by the High Court in Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking plc (9 August 2010, high Court, Mold District Registry, unreported).

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Sternlight v Barclays is http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/C...mentFinalF.pdf if you havent got it RS. Assuming you have McGuffick

And my opinion, such as it is worth, is that the risks are far greater than any possible gain to you. But wait on PT as obviously he knows exactly what happened in the Slater v Egg case and Egg could always be eggs-aggerating. (sorry too hard to resist)

[pt2537]

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

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Ouch. You must be gutted PT You put a heck of a lot into this one.

Any chance of the judgment copy as theres lots of peeps waiting for it to continue or drop cases (as its unreported I assume that's difficult? so if not probably a decent summary rather than people relying on what EGG say in their letters )

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Sternlight v Barclays is http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/C...mentFinalF.pdf if you havent got it RS. Assuming you have McGuffick

And my opinion, such as it is worth, is that the risks are far greater than any possible gain to you. But wait on PT as obviously he knows exactly what happened in the Slater v Egg case and Egg could always be eggs-aggerating. (sorry too hard to resist)

Hi
Yes lets wait

Peter

[militantconsumer]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi PT
Sorry to hear about this one.
Does this mean that the other things you raised about APRs of cash advances etc. were not accepted by the court either? And so basically is there now no grounds for defending on these pre-2007 Egg card agreements?
MC

[righty]

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

How awful PT There's nowt worse than a client misleading their legal advisors. I do hope you'll be sending them a bill

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

How awful PT There's nowt worse than a client misleading their legal advisors. I do hope you'll be sending them a bill

well, its something we are considering, for sure,

when you read the judgment you will see why it went against us, but there we go, on the same day, we slaughtered cabot, so you win some you lose some

[militantconsumer]

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).

[Guest]

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

[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

[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?

[Guest]

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

[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.

[Guest]

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