Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

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

PT trying to contact you urgently, ur PM's are off

Sorry Milly for the message xx

[pt2537]

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

The fact was and its not clear from the transcript but she changed her position from her witness statement

what she said in the statement was the terms were not provided, but the rest of the application was

on the stand she said she couldnt recall the cover letter or any of the other contents.

Problem with that was that the cover letter told her where to send the application when completed. without it the judge pointed out to her in the hearing transcript, she could never have known where to send the application which she conceded, and thus her evidence was discredited

hope this helps the debate

Laterz

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

Personally the way I read how the judge or clerk or whoever wrote that transcript of the hearing was almost ridiculing her.. rings a bell, rings a bell but then says that rang no bell.

Its not suposed to be funny. My point was that she did say in around about way that the She didn't see the T&C's.

There is a consultation paper I am sure I read on the net (will look again) about people being afraid to stand up for their rights against these banks, who intimidate by bring barristers into the courtroom.

Its supposed to be there for people who have genuinely got a reason to complain , after all the banks force your hand by consistently not offering a refund in many cases (true some are for other reasons like interest etc) and yet soon as filed ..wallop an offer:censored:. So what are you supposed to do.?

Judges seem to be going the same way. Honestly re read the para about the 'bells' and you might see what I am talking about. I am sure the girl was not a simpleton as thats how I read the transcript at the beginning.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



Yes I understand, however in some cases the banks are lying their :censored: off! As was the truth in my O/H's case.

HI

You are very astute if i may say, that is exactly what the judge is doing, notice the bit were he says something like, "obvioulsy honest and upright citisen", if his tongue was any further in his cheek he would have to see a dentist.

The truth is that the case was based on the other three points, mainly that the prescribed term for credit was incorrectly labled, the "no copy agreement" was an after thought to the main argument, she thought she would not have to use it, hence the half hearted response.

Peter

[millymollymoo]

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

Personally the way I read how the judge or clerk or whoever wrote that transcript of the hearing was almost ridiculing her.. rings a bell, rings a bell but then says that rang no bell.

Its not suposed to be funny. My point was that she did say in around about way that the She didn't see the T&C's.

There is a consultation paper I am sure I read on the net (will look again) about people being afraid to stand up for their rights against these banks, who intimidate by bring barristers into the courtroom.

Its supposed to be there for people who have genuinely got a reason to complain , after all the banks force your hand by consistently not offering a refund in many cases (true some are for other reasons like interest etc) and yet soon as filed ..wallop an offer:censored:. So what are you supposed to do.?

Judges seem to be going the same way. Honestly re read the para about the 'bells' and you might see what I am talking about. I am sure the girl was not a simpleton as thats how I read the transcript at the beginning.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

HI Molly

Yes the same could be true of any agreement, smile sweetly at the judge and say i never saw any terms and conditions your honour honest.

It could have worked here as well, unfotunately it would not have helped the hundreds of people who built their cases on the other three arguments.
In fact i for one am glad that it didnt work, because it would have confused he issue and caused a lot of problems for those that did.

Peter

Yes I understand, however in some cases the banks are lying their :censored: off! As was the truth in my O/H's case.

[basa48]

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

HI Molly

Yes the same could be true of any agreement, smile sweetly at the judge and say i never saw any terms and conditions your honour honest.

It could have worked here as well, unfotunately it would not have helped the hundreds of people who built their cases on the other three arguments.
In fact i for one am glad that it didnt work, because it would have confused he issue and caused a lot of problems for those that did.

Peter

The whole point here again is that it is for the creditor / claimant to prove she never signed a compliant agreement which no-one yet seems to realise is all but impossible. For a creditor to prove she did sign a compliant agreement on the other hand is a whole different ball game.

I do wonder if some of these 'hallmark' cases are not 'set ups', because they are all very ill advised for the reasons I have given.

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

HI Molly

Yes the same could be true of any agreement, smile sweetly at the judge and say i never saw any terms and conditions your honour honest.

It could have worked here as well, unfotunately it would not have helped the hundreds of people who built their cases on the other three arguments.
In fact i for one am glad that it didnt work, because it would have confused he issue and caused a lot of problems for those that did.

Peter

[millymollymoo]

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 read this from the judgement

'However the copy of the relevant terms and conditions (TB/5/b/386) rang no bells.'

[Amethyst]

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

Wouldnt statements of account be better got under the DPA (Transaction lists?)

I think if people have been on hold pending the outcome of Slater v Egg and there are no other issues in their case (ie Slater v Egg resolved the issues) they should be in contact with Egg to arrange repayments of their account. Of course it depends on individuals circumstances. I'd post a thread about your specific case to discuss your options as to the way forwards.

[pt2537]

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

I will asnwer the question posed at me, simply by saying this,

NCF is right, i did not advocate stopping payments, i did advocate asking for stay in proceedings pending the outcome of this case.

I am disappointed that the case didn't go our way, but the High Court has ruled and given us a definitive answer, so we all know where we stand,

As for won cases, yes, i do have a number of people whose cases our firm have won, and these are post Carey v HSBC
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

1/ Do those of us who have not receaved anything from egg for over 12 month because of the confusion caused by this case (i.e. the creditor is obliged to supply statements of account) have a case or is this just tenuous?

I dont get you? what confusion? Egg had the largest firm of Solicitors to my knowledge on this case, they handled it, so i dont see why Egg would have any confusion at all

I cant answer a question i dont understand, sorry

[ncf355]

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

2/ PT alot of people followed your egg thread and rightly or wrongly stopped payments because of it. You do bear the weight of this on your shoulders? Can you at least list or give links to the judgements you have won to show how well constructed arguments actually win in these cases. All the cases I have found post 2009 seem to be in the banks favour.

Hmmm

I dont believe PT at any time advised people to stop payments on their account?

This being the case, why should he feel responsible?

He has always held the same advice that most sensible people give on here, that we can prepare to our best ability but we are still open to the judge lottery when it comes to results



I also note with interest this is your first post on this forum - not the best way to introduce yourself

:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[freethemice]

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

I would like to ask 2 questions to further this debate:

1/ Do those of us who have not receaved anything from egg for over 12 month because of the confusion caused by this case (i.e. the creditor is obliged to supply statements of account) have a case or is this just tenuous?

2/ PT alot of people followed your egg thread and rightly or wrongly stopped payments because of it. You do bear the weight of this on your shoulders? Can you at least list or give links to the judgements you have won to show how well constructed arguments actually win in these cases. All the cases I have found post 2009 seem to be in the banks favour.

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

yes, pls post up a copy Barrowby

[Amethyst]

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

9th August ?

A copy might be of interest so others can see what to expect.

[barrowby]

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

Hi, Just joined and getting up to speed on Slater case. I have just (yesterday) received a letter from the Egg re an A/C in Dispute letter that I sent.

It mentions (a lot) Slater and a bit of Waksman.....not sure if a copy would help anyone?....like others...not sure what to do now. The Egg have not yet flexed the Court muscle...but I feel this could be soon!.....time for negotiations?

P.s....note the point above re the date of the Slater agreement....when was this?

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

That case could have gone so differently if it hadn't been so flawed ie "it rings a bell"; later agreement; and the claimant being a CMC etc. Wasted opportunity.