yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

PT, you have suggested that Ms Slater, when she went on to the witness stand, told a different version of events than was contained in the witness statement, and in her discussiions with her legal team. Two questions

1. how significant do you consider this was in the final judgement?
2. why would she do this? One can only assume that this is a woman of at least normal intelligence and that she would know that this is hardly going to help the chances of her case being successful. This seems extremely odd to me.

Seems very odd to me, also!

What were her legal team doing and;
why go against their legal advice?

IMO, it doesn't add up.

The above was my immediate reaction and after sleeping on it, my reaction remains the same.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Seems very odd to me, also!

What were her legal team doing and;
why go against their legal advice?

IMO, it doesn't add up.

The above was my immediate reaction and after sleeping on it, my reaction remains the same.

Hi
Must admit to being a bit confused by this.


How would a witness statement influence a technical case like this, i understood she was being represented, surely the judge wold not expect her to explain the technicalities involved in the action for unenforceability of the agreement.

Peter

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi
Must admit to being a bit confused by this.


How would a witness statement influence a technical case like this, i understood she was being represented, surely the judge wold not expect her to explain the technicalities involved in the action for unenforceability of the agreement.

Peter

You weren't confused an hour prior to posting the above when you posted on CAG....

Just to puta stop to some of this bull

THe case failed because it was based on a missinterpretation of the legislation it was never going to succeed, a judge is never going to take the view of a a lay witness into consideration against the pleadings of a barrister, on a techinical matter like this.

Complete hogwash, this is why he is refusing to post the judgement, he has had this in his posetion for three weeks if someone had not recieved a letter from

Egg mentioning that the judgment had been made no one would know about it yet.

Cant understand why people are so gullible

Peter

Isn't it time you two 'stepped out side' and sorted out whatever issues you have with each other?

Your spat with PT or PT's spat with you threatens to overshadow what threatens to be a serious problem for people with claims with egg.

[The Debt Star]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

A copy of the judgement needs to be posted soonest. Then we'll know if there is still any mileage left in the prescribed terms argument. It may be that this unrecorded case was simply decided on the facts rather than on the technical merits of the argument.

[WelshMam2009]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

A copy of the judgement needs to be posted soonest. Then we'll know if there is still any mileage left in the prescribed terms argument. It may be that this unrecorded case was simply decided on the facts rather than on the technical merits of the argument.

It strikes me that Judges are over-stepping the mark in some instances and seem to believe that they have the jurisdiction to re-write/over rule statute.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

You weren't confused an hour prior to posting the above when you posted on CAG....



Isn't it time you two 'stepped out side' and sorted out whatever issues you have with each other?

Your spat with PT or PT's spat with you threatens to overshadow what threatens to be a serious problem for people with claims with egg.

Hi

Hi yes confused frustrated, you bet dont you think its time you stopped using this percieved vendetta of mine as an excuse for not answering the questions.

This is what got my goat the last time.

Answer the question

Dont continue making excuses for him ansd inventing conspiricy theories

The only thing that is currently ovrshadowing this is hes refusal to post the judgement, lets face it if it wasnt for the fact that someone got a letter from egg we still wouldnt know if judgement had even been passsed, i know more ecxcuses to come.

Wake up

Ther is no spat ther is no vendetta i have not pursued this with one half of the vigour i would if it was anyone else because i have been asked not to but i tell you i am getting very tired of this.

Peter

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Can we just wait for the judgment on Tuesday pls. We know the basics. I don't think it matters who said what to who or where etc blah, the judgment says basically

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).

and if thats what anyone case was built on then they need to know that asap.

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Those people who wished to know the facts of argument used in court could have attended. Just as i did. The case was heard by the judge and it is his choice when to hand down judgement. We will get to hear it when Pt is able I am sure.

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peterbard

Dont continue making excuses for him ansd inventing conspiricy theories

Please be so kind to point out to me where in my post I made excuses for PT or invented a conspiracy theory.

When you can't it would be polite to say so.

Also your post from yesterday evening on this thread was a waste of time........

Pointless theorising really.
I dont know if this is a factor or just me getting above myself but if it makes a difference i promise not to comment or refer to the judgement either here or on any forum if it is posted this weekend for say at least a month.
People need to see this

Peter

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peterbard

Please be so kind to point out to me where in my post I made excuses for PT or invented a conspiracy theory.

When you can't it would be polite to say so.

Also your post from yesterday evening on this thread was a waste of time........

Hi
You still havent answered the question just muddied the water with this vandetta nonsense.

Yes it wa a waste of time i thought perhaps it may have helped get the Judgement availabe for the rest of you,worth a try.

At least now i will be free to disect it and point out the many areas where i was absolutely correct

Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi
Must admit to being a bit confused by this.


How would a witness statement influence a technical case like this, i understood she was being represented, surely the judge wold not expect her to explain the technicalities involved in the action for unenforceability of the agreement.

Peter

As far as I am aware, one of the main issues, as per 'sturway' was;
would a lay person fully understand the term(s): Limit, Limits or Approved Limit, as opposed to the term, Credit Limit?

She either understood or, she did not understand.

I am presuming of course, that Ms. Slater was not fully conversant with the Consumer Credit Act and Regs., at the time of application, as most of us were not.

Why on earth, would she change her mind?

Or, is there more to this than meets the eye?

[leclerc]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

id love to, but i live on the southcoast and my office is north Wales, so its 280 miles to my office.

So it will have to wait til im back in the office as im spending some quality time with my children

So that means Tuesday so take your arguments everyone else and shove them where the sun does not shine.
On Tuesday, bring them back out when the sun hopefully will be shining and you can read the judgement in full.
I won't be commenting on the judgement simply because I have the faintest idea but can we stop the nonsense until we have read the full judgement on Tuesday. If you want to bicker or speculate then please do so via PM cos quite frankly it's boring(perhaps helping others might be more useful ).

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

You weren't confused an hour prior to posting the above when you posted on CAG....


Quote:
Just to puta stop to some of this bull

THe case failed because it was based on a missinterpretation of the legislation it was never going to succeed, a judge is never going to take the view of a a lay witness into consideration against the pleadings of a barrister, on a techinical matter like this.

Complete hogwash, this is why he is refusing to post the judgement, he has had this in his posetion for three weeks if someone had not recieved a letter from

Egg mentioning that the judgment had been made no one would know about it yet.

Cant understand why people are so gullible

Peter [Quote]

IMO, the above post was totally unecessary.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

So that means Tuesday so take your arguments everyone else and shove them where the sun does not shine.
On Tuesday, bring them back out when the sun hopefully will be shining and you can read the judgement in full.
I won't be commenting on the judgement simply because I have the faintest idea but can we stop the nonsense until we have read the full judgement on Tuesday. If you want to bicker or speculate then please do so via PM cos quite frankly it's boring(perhaps helping others might be more useful ).

OOH so bold, Nattie

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

As far as I am aware, one of the main issues, as per 'sturway' was;
would a lay person fully understand the term(s): Limit, Limits or Approved Limit, as opposed to the term, Credit Limit?

She either understood or, she did not understand.

I am presuming of course, that Ms. Slater was not fully conversant with the Consumer Credit Act and Regs., at the time of application, as most of us were not.

Why on earth, would she change her mind?

Or, is there more to this than meets the eye?

Hi this is a matter of inderstanding the regs nothing to do with the judjement.

No AC you understand incorrectly.
As far as enforcebility of the agreement is concerned all the matters is complience with the minimum requirements outlined in schedule six,

Section 127(3) does not care about whether or not who understands what that is a schedule 1 matter. at most a section 65 breach

Any way going back to the egg thing Mrs Slaters understanding is irrelavant the mater is ,is the agreement properly executed or not

Peeter

[leclerc]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi this is a matter of inderstanding the regs nothing to do with the judjement.

No AC you understand incorrectly.
As far as enforcebility of the agreement is concerned all the matters is complience with the minimum requirements outlined in schedule six,

Section 127(3) does not care about whether or not who understands what that is a schedule 1 matter. at most a section 65 breach

Any way going back to the egg thing Mrs Slaters understanding is irrelavant the mater is ,is the agreement properly executed or not

Peeter

Peter, were you commenting directly on the judgement after your previous post of stating that you would not do so until Tuesday.
If the answer is yes then you need to slap yourself and if it was not in relation to the judgement then you need to be more clearer in your post on another forum if CAG classed as "another forum" as per your own specific post yesterday.
Let's at least nail down one part of the silly argument which is based on written words and actions.