yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Murky waters indeed.

[militantconsumer]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Clearly, this matter is extremely unfortunate!

Just had a quick look on MSE, of which I am not a member.
MC's post concurs with what is being stated over there.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=870601&page=2

We know that the judges are anti CMC's...things are becoming clearer now.

And I am not saying that PT works for a CMC, as he does not.

Yes, I read that stuff on MSE as well.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but I just saw people saying 'poor Ms Slater, she must have got confused in front of the judge' and I thought people should at least know what seems to be the background to the case.

<comment removed>

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Clearly, this matter is extremely unfortunate!

Just had a quick look on MSE, of which I am not a member.
MC's post concurs with what is being stated over there.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=870601&page=2

We know that the judges are anti CMC's...things are becoming clearer now.

And I am not saying that PT works for a CMC, as he does not.

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Now counting down until this post gets deleted or I get banned............

If this gets me banned from LB, so be it.

No one is being banned for goodness sake, this is not CAG! Have a read of our 'moderation' policy

FORUM RULES - Please Read - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[WendyB]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Militantconsumer, why are you counting down. This is not OTR and posts don't get deleted or people banned at the drop of a hat.

I have been following the judgement, or trying to anyway as CCA isn't my thing. Your post has given a different but plausible perspective.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[QUOTE=pt2537;168924]I could answer the points,

but i do believe it would then start more trouble than its worth so i shall refrain,

I can only say that my client changed her testimony and that accounts for the terms and conditions issue.


That's a sickener. I assume this was your strongest argument and a valid one but hard to prove if it was claimed that it was diligent business practice to send the terms and conditions. I've lost on this very issue even though it was denied that the t&cs were received.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Agreed. She was under pressure from Egg's counsel but it was the job of her barrister to ensure she was prepped. It is hard to imagine how something so essential as this was overlooked...

Courts are foreign territory for the general consumer. Ms. Slater could have suffered a fit of nerves, thus the error. Or, there could be another reason why she changed her story...
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I could answer the points,

but i do believe it would then start more trouble than its worth so i shall refrain,

I can only say that my client changed her testimony and that accounts for the terms and conditions issue.

I would post the very good skeleton argument, which my counsel put a lot of work into, however, i do honestly believe it would simply be a point for PB to continue to criticise.


As i said, in view of the fact that i am simply trying to do my job, i shall say no more on this subject

Fair enough, PT.

[pt2537]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

I could answer the points,

but i do believe it would then start more trouble than its worth so i shall refrain,

I can only say that my client changed her testimony and that accounts for the terms and conditions issue.

I would post the very good skeleton argument, which my counsel put a lot of work into, however, i do honestly believe it would simply be a point for PB to continue to criticise.


As i said, in view of the fact that i am simply trying to do my job, i shall say no more on this subject

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

FFS. No, he wasn't, and that is the point.

He simply spouted off, turned it personal, then gloated when a perfectly valid and well planned Claim did not win.

If we all followed this so called advice, we may as well all bend over now, and take what is coming.

If this gets me banned from LB, so be it.

Cheers,
BRW

Clearly, I agree!

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

I believe that both Peter and PT have a lot of valuable advice to offer peeps in need of help. It would be absolutely great if they could put this behind them and give peeps advice that is badly needed.

CMC's have a lot to answer for as they have stirred up all this CCA flaws, which may or may not be valid. Unfortunately the general public do not understand and will be taken in by there heavy sales pitches.

Please Peter and PT try and work together instead of against each other.

Tuttsi

Here, here

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

I believe that both Peter and PT have a lot of valuable advice to offer peeps in need of help. It would be absolutely great if they could put this behind them and give peeps advice that is badly needed.

CMC's have a lot to answer for as they have stirred up all this CCA flaws, which may or may not be valid. Unfortunately the general public do not understand and will be taken in by there heavy sales pitches.

Please Peter and PT try and work together instead of against each other.

Tuttsi

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Why on earth would that get you banned? Anyway regardless, PB has a point of view, PT has a point of view, you have a point of view, I have a point of view, lots of other people have points of view, be exceeeeeeeeeeeeeeedingly boring if we all agreed or if anyone who didnt agree with, ummm everyone else?, got banned wouldn't it ?

I never read the EGG thread that seems to be behind all of this over on CAG. I appreciated lots of you have left CAG over that and other issues. But do we really want the same thing on here ? PB has made his final point, PT has said he won't comment any further on the case, so I think it is time to just let it lie, and actually look at the judgment rather than picking on who said what when.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

PB was proved right.

FFS. No, he wasn't, and that is the point.

He simply spouted off, turned it personal, then gloated when a perfectly valid and well planned Claim did not win.

If we all followed this so called advice, we may as well all bend over now, and take what is coming.

If this gets me banned from LB, so be it.

Cheers,
BRW

[WendyB]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Yes AC we are all left in no doubt that there is bad feeling between the two "camps" as it were, but can we please please please just move on, stop trading personal insults and lay the whole thing to rest. Didn't a lot of people move over here from CAG because of all the arguing? So why be so intent on carrying it on now. It's in the past, leave it there.

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Bloomin eck some of you people are so spiteful its unbelievable. I've only been using these forums for about 4 months and I'm shocked at how viscious and personal you get.

There's a principle here called freedom of speech and when you hear something you don't like you gang up together like a flock of birds.

PB was proved right.
PT did his level best and is continuing to fight cases. Great.

We need the dialogue as basa says. what we don't need is the bitching.