Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[Amethyst]

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

I hope you do not mind but I posted a copy of the judgement on CAG.

If you are unhappy with this I will remove it.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3110242

Absolutely fine, it's there where it is needed most (I only haven't cause I can't)

(edit: just looked at your post Guido, that is the complete judgment you have posted)

[GuidoT]

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

Absolutely fine, it's there where it is needed most (I only haven't cause I can't)

(edit: just looked at your post Guido, that is the complete judgment you have posted)

I thought it was given the sequential numbering, I have now edited my post.

I did not mean to stir things up again between individuals again.

We should refrain from the personal remarks, they are just pointless.

[The Debt Star]

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

This was an incorrect assumption always has been and a lot of people paid for this error.

This does not mean that egg alaways get their sums right like any other creditor they can make mistakes and the agreement may be unenforceable becauylse of them, but the case proves there is nothing wrong with the formating of the document.
Peter

Yes, I agree, that has to be right. But it was only proved an incorrect assumption in court and it was the right thing to do if only to clarify where we all stand.

You were right and have been proved right but to bring the action was also right. Where it all went wrong is that many people have disputed their accounts because of it.

Q. Those disputes must now be ended but presumably Egg have to honour the disputes as legitimate insofar as freezing charges and interest while they ran? Because of course until judgement was entered no one knew for certain what the outcome would be. I am thinking here that we should not have to pay all of our charges and interest and repayments for the periods of dispute? Just start paying Egg or their DCAs again.

[The Debt Star]

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

Mis-sold PPI and the 'Unfair Relationships Test, will now be the way to go.

.

Glad to hear it AC. We need to keep up the pressure on Egg because they'll be cock-a-hoop now. Take a look at my thread http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=24152
Part of my complaint was the prescribed terms argument but other aspects include the PPI / fiduciary relationship and also mis-selling generally of a consolidation loan generally.
The Slater case shouldn't, necessarily, have much impact on this. The effect it may have uis to make Egg complacent and bolshy, perhaos opening up other avenues of dispute...

[Angry Cat]

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

No, the judgement was flawed!

[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.

[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!

[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

[The Debt Star]

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

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

[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

[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!

[The Debt Star]

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

[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 ?

[The Debt Star]

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.

[The Debt Star]

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.