yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Angry Cat]

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

As ever, you prevaricate!

Central Trust Plc v Spurway [2005] CCLR 1

And before you come back and remind us that the above related to s77; we know.

Anyhow, I will post no more about the matter until Tuesday.
As per Leclerc's advice regarding le soleil!

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

[quote=Angry Cat;167924]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

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


OOH so bold, Nattie

Hi Missed the bit about the post being unecessary.
perhaps if you looked at the posts preceding it in contexet.

I seem to get a lot of my posts transported from other sites and posted out of context.
Not that i appolgise for the contents of the post as far as i can see it is 100% accurate unless you can point out otherwise

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

As ever, you prevaricate!

Central Trust Plc v Spurway [2005] CCLR 1

And before you come back and remind us that the above related to s77; we know.

Anyhow, I will post no more about the matter until Tuesday.
As per Leclerc's advice regarding le soleil!

Prevaricate what

I gave you a atatement of fact

and THe case you mentioned was nothing to do with section 77 it was a fixed sum agreement if that is what you mean.

Yes for general information the figurre that appeared to be prescribed term total credit was technically incorrect.

Hence the breach

NO such thing in a credit card

Peter

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

I believe there were a number of challenges put forward by PT and co one of which was the multiple agreement argument. I take it this failed too?

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

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.

HI
I would love to answer this but i am affraid i dont understand what you are saying.
When did i say i wouldnt comment till tuesday?

What exactly do you need clarifying.

Unfrotunately court cases are won and lost on silly arguments.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I believe there were a number of challenges put forward by PT and co one of which was the multiple agreement argument. I take it this failed too?

Hi
I hope not because that really is a complete dead end.

Peter

[leclerc]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi

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

Here but a minor misread on my part re the caveat.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

HI
I would love to answer this but i am affraid i dont understand what you are saying.
When did i say i wouldnt comment till tuesday?

What exactly do you need clarifying.

Unfrotunately court cases are won and lost on silly arguments.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hi
I hope not because that really is a complete dead end.

Peter

Are you saying the multiple agreement argument was a bad one?

[ItWasn'tMe]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

With all due respect to the more established dogs here (tongue in cheek), the problem about taking a case to Court is that counsel opinion can differ even on the same clear cut wording of statute or a previous precedent.

We are all entitled to our opinions on whether a case would be successful or not, but it is the Judge's opinion that matters.

Some of you might have thought Slater was a waste of time, others that it was worth pursuing but the point is that, as you are so divided, so too is legal opinion. If the case had no merits, then counsel would have pointed that out right in the beginning. This case obviously had merits because no self respecting counsel would advise to go to Court for a case if they knew the possibility of success was remote and again, the insurance company would not insure against a loss if there was a remote possibility of success. To put it simply, the Judge would have heard authorities, reason and logic, and policy arguments with the most important being authorities. I am speculating here but if the authorities for Slater were not present or were actually differentiated by Egg, then it would come down to reason and logic, and policy as the points to argue for Slater. To not get bogged down in the details of how a Judge would come to a decision and to keep it short, if the Judge is not convinced by the reason and logic arguments, which is reliant on witness statements and cross examination a lot more than an authorities argument would, then the case could in all probability fail.

The thing that Slater did was to clarify statute even further which is good and some might argue against these types of cases going to Court, but then, how would everyone know what they can or cannot do. The cases may go against the consumer but it informs the consumer what can and can't be done so that is not at all a bad thing. So there is never a case without merit, but there is always a case which clarifies the law book further.

[lovethebanks]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

With all due respect to the more established dogs here (tongue in cheek), the problem about taking a case to Court is that counsel opinion can differ even on the same clear cut wording of statute or a previous precedent.

We are all entitled to our opinions on whether a case would be successful or not, but it is the Judge's opinion that matters.

Some of you might have thought Slater was a waste of time, others that it was worth pursuing but the point is that, as you are so divided, so too is legal opinion. If the case had no merits, then counsel would have pointed that out right in the beginning. This case obviously had merits because no self respecting counsel would advise to go to Court for a case if they knew the possibility of success was remote and again, the insurance company would not insure against a loss if there was a remote possibility of success. To put it simply, the Judge would have heard authorities, reason and logic, and policy arguments with the most important being authorities. I am speculating here but if the authorities for Slater were not present or were actually differentiated by Egg, then it would come down to reason and logic, and policy as the points to argue for Slater. To not get bogged down in the details of how a Judge would come to a decision and to keep it short, if the Judge is not convinced by the reason and logic arguments, which is reliant on witness statements and cross examination a lot more than an authorities argument would, then the case could in all probability fail.

The thing that Slater did was to clarify statute even further which is good and some might argue against these types of cases going to Court, but then, how would everyone know what they can or cannot do. The cases may go against the consumer but it informs the consumer what can and can't be done so that is not at all a bad thing. So there is never a case without merit, but there is always a case which clarifies the law book further.

I'm more worried by the feeling that the courts are now favouring creditors. The publicity surrounding the CCA and the mass of advertisements from claims management companies may be leading to the courts taking a firm line against debtors.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Pt

Are there any positives to come out of all this?

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

not really

I think part is appeal-able, but without the backing of the insurers, its unlikely

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

not really

I think part is appeal-able, but without the backing of the insurers, its unlikely

What did the Judge make of the multi-part agreement argument?

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

not really

I think part is appeal-able, but without the backing of the insurers, its unlikely

Then, the judgement needs to be overturned by another...

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Are you saying the multiple agreement argument was a bad one?

Hi

I think that section 18 was concieved in order to clarify the regulations and agreements and there places within the act and to stop creditors from avoiding regulation.
I do not think that it can be used as a tool for makeing regulated agreements unenforceable
peter

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

On the multiple agreements subject, bit randomly but while you CCA peeps are looking , these flexiloans - where you have a lump sum advance and a total charge for credit, but then it rolls over and you use the loan account like a credit card with a credit limit, monthly payments etc - would that be a multi agreement ?

[The Debt Star]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi

I think that section 18 was concieved in order to clarify the regulations and agreements and there places within the act and to stop creditors from avoiding regulation.
I do not think that it can be used as a tool for maaking regulated agreements unenforceable
peter

Peter, the problem I have with this point is that if a creditor controls the destination of some of the credit but not the rest, e.g. a consolidation of debt, but the agreement is not multiple and says that the debtor is being advanced the whole amount but isn't, then its a partly restricted and partly unrestricted agreement. Such an agreement should either be multiple or there should be 2 agreements. Otherwise it is misleading and should be uneforceable for lack of clarity.

I was also under the impression that the draftsman of the CCA 1974 differed from the courts on the interpretation of ss 11 and 18?