Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

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

If the so called 'packs' were assembled manually, it is more than possible that Ms. Slater, did not receive the T&C's.

Did anyone else receive one of the so called 'packs'?
And were there 6 pages of T&C's in 2003?
there certainly were not 6 pages in 2002.

I didn't get one that's for sure. But it is clear that Slater shot herself in the foot with the "it rings a bell." Doh!

[Angry Cat]

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

If the so called 'packs' were assembled manually, it is more than possible that Ms. Slater, did not receive the T&C's.

Did anyone else receive one of the so called 'packs'?
And were there 6 pages of T&C's in 2003?
there certainly were not 6 pages in 2002.

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

I see your point but remember that soon the majority of transactions will be handled on-line and there cannot be a presumption of fluency nor should payments necessarily be assumed to have to be made on-line either. That may be the case say 5 years ago but not necessarily now (or say in a few yaers time).
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I can understand the Judge believing the company over an individual when they have systems and processes in place etc, and how easy is it to prove that you haven't had something? although she may have seen the terms at a seperate time through the history of the account, the likelihood is that she did receive them and has forgotten.

Can someone clarify which terms we are talking about - those that are referred to in the agreements ?

The problem with that is it only works one way. When I don't receive a default notice its my fault.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
The judge is still living in the UK of 10+ years ago

[Amethyst]

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

Also this:

"45. Furthermore I reject any suggestion that a person who has signed up with a company whose universally known raison d’être is to operate online can complain at a requirement that her payments should be made by electronic means. In other words, I reject the suggestion that a consumer who has knowingly signed up for such a type of business model should then be entirely free to make payments outwith that model.
46. I can see no reason how the term in question can be complained of as unfair."

Just because its made on-line why should the punter buying this way be treated any differently from someone filling in a paper application? The majorioty of fianncial transactions will be dealt with this way sooner or later and not everyone is fluent, knowledgeable, literate etc. Its like the judge is saying the caveat emptor rule applies to on-line fiancial arrangements. To me that term is unfair.

mmmm well EGG is an online company, you apply online, deal online and thus you expect to pay online. So I dont think the not everyone is fluent etc on puters is a good argument for the unfairness of a term for an online company, cause if they werent fluent etc, they wouldnt have an account with them anyway ?

[Amethyst]

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

IMO that's the most telling part of the judgement. If only she had denied receiving them rather than saying "it rings a bell"...she may not have received them at all. If she hadn't, the outcome would be quite different.

I can understand the Judge believing the company over an individual when they have systems and processes in place etc, and how easy is it to prove that you haven't had something? although she may have seen the terms at a seperate time through the history of the account, the likelihood is that she did receive them and has forgotten.

Can someone clarify which terms we are talking about - those that are referred to in the agreements ?

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

Also this:

"45. Furthermore I reject any suggestion that a person who has signed up with a company whose universally known raison d’être is to operate online can complain at a requirement that her payments should be made by electronic means. In other words, I reject the suggestion that a consumer who has knowingly signed up for such a type of business model should then be entirely free to make payments outwith that model.
46. I can see no reason how the term in question can be complained of as unfair."

Just because its made on-line why should the punter buying this way be treated any differently from someone filling in a paper application? The majorioty of fianncial transactions will be dealt with this way sooner or later and not everyone is fluent, knowledgeable, literate etc. Its like the judge is saying the caveat emptor rule applies to on-line fiancial arrangements. To me that term is unfair.

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

TERMS NOT SENT TO CLAIMANT


The judge said if she hadn#t received the terms and conditions then the agreement would be irredeemably unenforceable. Ms Slater didnt recall having them and they werent filed with other important documents as she usually kept them. She did say that the T&C's rang bells with her though, and that introduced enough element of doubt for the judge to agree that EGG usually sent terms with agreements and that in all probablity it did the same in this case.

IMO that's the most telling part of the judgement. If only she had denied receiving them rather than saying "it rings a bell"...she may not have received them at all. If she hadn't, the outcome would be quite different.

[Amethyst]

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

Okay the Judgment, I do have some queries on it, if anyone knows the answers it would be appreciated

ISSUES

TERMS NOT SENT TO CLAIMANT
WORDING OF CREDIT LIMIT
CONFUSING WORDING OF INTEREST RATES APPLICABLE
REQUIRMENT TO PAY BY CERTAIN METHODS OR INCUR A CHARGE

2. The parties have cooperated in admirable fashion at reducing the original number of issues in the light of developing authority. This judgment will address the remaining ones in the order in which they came before me.

Do we know what other issues were involved in this that were sorted out prehearing due to the other cases, such as Carey and co ? Might be useful to have a full list of the issues and the authoritys.


TERMS NOT SENT TO CLAIMANT

Were the terms and conditions of the agreement sent to the Claimant?
3. Although not one of the listed issues, the Defendant was content for the question to be raised and ruled upon.

The judge said if she hadn#t received the terms and conditions then the agreement would be irredeemably unenforceable. Ms Slater didnt recall having them and they werent filed with other important documents as she usually kept them. She did say that the T&C's rang bells with her though, and that introduced enough element of doubt for the judge to agree that EGG usually sent terms with agreements and that in all probablity it did the same in this case.


WORDING OF CREDIT LIMIT
The major contentious credit limit issue seems in the judges view to be simple to resolve

I disagree. I think it entirely clear that the word “limit” in the agreement was uniquely a reference to the credit limit. I also think it to be clear that the Defendant was to determine the credit limit whether by setting it without the Claimant’s involvement or by setting it with the Claimant’s involvement and that the Claimant would be notified accordingly. It was beyond sense for anyone reading the words to think that it would be open to the Claimant to set herself a limit higher than that approved of by the Defendant.

• It seems to me that the authorities with which I have been generously provided add neither limitation nor complication to what is intended to be a straightforward exercise from which the consumer is intended only to benefit where there is a real potential for confusion or other departure from the statutory requirements. Neither is the case here.

CONFUSING WORDING OF INTEREST RATES APPLICABLE
The next issue was the Interest rate on the credit - which was also claimed to be confusing the way EGG has worded it on the agreement. The Judge disagreed.


REQUIRMENT TO PAY BY CERTAIN METHODS OR INCUR A CHARGE
The next is whether it is unfair of EGG to require payments by Direct Debit, Debit Card or direct transfer from an EGG account else charge a £2 fee.

Judge said

Indeed, despite the wording of Clause 5.1, it seems that she would avoid a £2.00 charge were she to pay by debit card.

and

45. Furthermore I reject any suggestion that a person who has signed up with a company whose universally known raison d’être is to operate online can complain at a requirement that her payments should be made by electronic means. In other words, I reject the suggestion that a consumer who has knowingly signed up for such a type of business model should then be entirely free to make payments outwith that model.
46. I can see no reason how the term in question can be complained of as unfair.

So any thoughts on any of that lot ?

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

PT, I think that is a wise move and so I look forward to hearing from your cases won or lost and your personal analysis of them. Keep the head up and don't let the bstards get ya down!

Amen to that! Provided that by "the bstards" you mean Egg Banking plc

[leclerc]

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

id prefer not to comment any further,

the cases i am now dealing with will be done so in private and when the judgments are released then i will provide them and people can then do with them what they will

PT, I think that is a wise move and so I look forward to hearing from your cases won or lost and your personal analysis of them. Keep the head up and don't let the bstards get ya down!

[firefly]

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

Hi PT whats your take on this whole eoisode.Are we completely dead in the water or what?
Firefly

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

Wow, thanks Angry Cat. I didn't know about this and its amazing reading!

[Angry Cat]

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

For the benefit of those who did not previously know:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/...2008/149.shtml

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-...in_page_id=506

Last but not least:
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-advi...-3-2bn/a421038

[Angry Cat]

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

http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/P...7-4e4eb806cbbd

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79d0fd8c-9...44feabdc0.html

Of course, they will find for the lenders as we approach the double dip!

[basa48]

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

I think both case and judgement were flawed.

But I also think the judiciary are looking for every and any way to find for the lenders.