yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Guest]

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

[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:

[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 Messy

[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.

[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

[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

[Guest]

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

[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".

[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.

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

AC

It gets worse...read this appeal in Brandon

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[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.

[Guest]

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

[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.

[Guest]

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