yup Pt2537 is here now too

[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).

[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

[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

[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

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

[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 )

[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

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)

[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).

[rawsteak]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi There,

Sorry If I double-posted - trying to upload the images is a new thing for me!!

Glad to find you PT, I was following you and wondered what happened when your comprehensive post "disappeared" from the CAG forum.
I am so pleased you're still about, I was worried that all the Egg challenges (including mine) were "lost".

Anyway, down to the serious stuff, cut a long story short, I have challenged Egg about the "approved Limit" issue and got as far as replying to their defence of "McGuffick" with the letter that was suggested on your thread.

I have had a response from Egg as follows (picture attached) and I am worried that the recent Judgements they quote: "Alexandra Slater V Egg 2010" and "Sternlight V Barclays" will be the end of my challenge.

Can someone advise accordingly, and if you need to know, the alleged debt is just over £1000.

Thanks

G.

[rawsteak]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi There,

Glad to find you PT, I was following you and wondered what happened when your comprehensive post "disappeared" from the CAG forum.
I am so pleased you're still about, I was worried that all the Egg challenges (including mine) were "lost".

Anyway, down to the serious stuff, cut a long story short, I have challenged Egg about the "approved Limit" issue and got as far as replying to their defence of "McGuffick" with the letter that was suggested on your thread.

I have had a response from Egg as follows (picture attached) and I am worried that the recent Judgements they quote: "Alexandra Slater V Egg 2010" and "Sternlight V Barclays" will be the end of my challenge.


Can someone advise accordingly, and if you need to know, the alleged debt is just over £1000.

Thanks

G.

[MandM]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi MandM

Nice to see another familiar face I was recently denied posting access to Cag for some unknown reason and had already been posting here, so here is now home for me too, and a very nice one it is!

Nellie (Landy) x

I recognised the cat before I spotted the name! Nice to see you, and so many others too

M

[nelliewops]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Evening chaps


M

Hi MandM

Nice to see another familiar face I was recently denied posting access to Cag for some unknown reason and had already been posting here, so here is now home for me too, and a very nice one it is!

Nellie (Landy) x

[pompeyfaith]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

MandM

Thank you that is one of the reasons i stayed here familiar names and a better layout of the site i like the chat box on the forums home page the RSS feed etc

It is also warming that familiar people are still coming here PF

[MandM]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Indeed all the better for being here you will find this lot very friendly with no back stabbing although i was not party to any of it otr it was becoming depressing reading all that s*** so i upped sticks and moved here then i checked in otr following day to find they had upgraded and could not get used to it and all my theads and subs blocked so it was a case of f*** it so this is my new home

Some good guys and gals getting needlessly gagged. PT included. Found my way here some months back but never contributed.

Still finding out how everything works (and the smilies are better :beagle

Hope that dog of yours is doing fine and that life has improved for you too. You're a welcome discovery, found so many other familiar names aswell. Quite comforting.

M