yup Pt2537 is here now too

[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

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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

[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.

[Eggbound]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hello, I was a lurker next door and panicked somewhat, to see the Egg Thread Disappearance; I'm so glad that PT is here.

I don't understand all the legalese, but get the gist! I too have a 2001 Egg CC agreement so was interested in the outcome of this case, although I've not instigated any 'fight' yet.

Have a nice weekend everyone!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

i live on the southcoast

and a fine place to live too

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

PT are you going to be posting up a copy of the approved Slater V Egg judgment this evening or do we have to wait until Tuesday ?

I, for one, would rather see a copy of the full approved judgment rather than a summary!

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

[basa48]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Seems to me that the courts and the banks are slowly closing each down and every argument we can use against the lenders. Even though the judgments stretch and even bend the Act by going against its true meaning each time, they both know there are few if any can afford to appeal.

It is clear there IS a conspiracy to save the banks from more embarrassing losses (funny how Waksman seem to keep cropping up).

I personally think I'm now screwed following the Slater and Brandon cases.

It's a fix!!!!!

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

ODC, just want to say your Avatar rocks man. Good one.
No surrender!

[WelshMam2009]

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?

It happens under stress SFU. Counsel are employed to dis-credit and confuse witnesses about their evidence. Without going into too much detail, I have regularly attended court in the past (for my employer) with expensive legal representation. I have seen employees give once answer to Counsel, literally minutes before going into the court room and then give a different answer once they're in the box and under cross-examination!

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.

Agreed. I've always maintained that I would never initiate court action but would let the creditors do it instead. I guess all Egg have to do now is to refer to Ms Slater's case to prove their point.


My only take on this case, as with all of them actually, is that, as has been said before, it is something of a lottery. THE LAW IS AN ASS!! I have won cases that I didn't think we had a chance with and lost others that I thought were a dead cert...sometimes on the same day!!

I can't help but think that the economic climate has something to do with the recent surge in adverse judgements also but then again, that might just be the conspiracy theorist in me!

Oh well, I guess the letters from Apex will be starting again!!