Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[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 ?

[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 ?

[The Debt Star]

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

[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.

[The Debt Star]

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

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!

Sarah Sheppard, did not get her facts quite right!

Anyone, who has had an egg credit card/loan will know exactly what was sent and there were no packs also;

Egg, did not always send all the documents that were required.
However, as we now know that, the so called packs, were manually assembled.
Therefore, that provides an explanation as to why.

Pity, Ms. Slater changed her mind (for whatever reason) and stated:
"Rings Bells". (what an odd phrase to use in a court)

[The Debt Star]

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...

[militantconsumer]

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

Right, I think I can shed some light on all of this.

Firstly, I have an Egg Card which I took out in May 2000. I still have all the paperwork. It is all printed on both sides on paper with a light green band on the top (Egg branding). It is 3 pieces of paper, i.e. 6 pages. Page 1/2 is the agreement and printed both sides. Page 3/4/5 is the T&Cs. Page 6 is blank.

Until I scanned this up onto a CAG forum topic, it was still stapled. I am not 100% sure if I put the staple into the documents in 2000 or if it was already stapled when it arrived in the post. I believe the latter, as there would have been two copies.

Back in 2000, although Egg was an online bank, physical signatures were still legally required for credit agreements. (That changed on a date I have forgotten)

Even 10 years ago there were machines for printing and automatically stapling documents. The idea that there were teams of people in Derby "forgetting" to put things in envelopes is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Anyway, lots of you are speculating about why Ms Slater said the wrong thing in court.

You need to bear in mind the following in all this speculation:
1. The Slater family ran a now defunct credit card reclaiming company (or two)
2. That company referred work to a solicitor in Wales which does Egg cases.

So Ms Slater used her OWN PERSONAL Egg Card in a test case BROUGHT AGAINST EGG (not the Bank suing her) in order to try and set a precedent in the High Court that could then be used to render further Egg agreements unenforceable, which would be to the commercial gain of credit card reclaiming companies.

Meanwhile lots of people on CAG and elsewhere have been busy not paying their Egg Card payments, believing the agreement to be unenforceable.

So, why would Ms Slater not say the right thing in court, and why did the solicitors lose the case? Who knows, but I'm not surprised PT doesn't want to comment about the whole unfortunate episode.

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

[Angry Cat]

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

[quote]: 11. I further accept that, at the time in question, the Defendant operated a system that automatically considered requests for cards and, if the computer said “yes”, generated the documents that constituted packs that appear to have been assembled and posted manually. Thus, if there was a mistake by the Defendant in putting the pack together, the reality must be that it occurred at the manual stage.
[quote]
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Right, I think I can shed some light on all of this.

Firstly, I have an Egg Card which I took out in May 2000. I still have all the paperwork. It is all printed on both sides on paper with a light green band on the top (Egg branding). It is 3 pieces of paper, i.e. 6 pages. Page 1/2 is the agreement and printed both sides. Page 3/4/5 is the T&Cs. Page 6 is blank.

Until I scanned this up onto a CAG forum topic, it was still stapled. I am not 100% sure if I put the staple into the documents in 2000 or if it was already stapled when it arrived in the post. I believe the latter, as there would have been two copies.

Back in 2000, although Egg was an online bank, physical signatures were still legally required for credit agreements. (That changed on a date I have forgotten)

Even 10 years ago there were machines for printing and automatically stapling documents. The idea that there were teams of people in Derby "forgetting" to put things in envelopes is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Anyway, lots of you are speculating about why Ms Slater said the wrong thing in court.

You need to bear in mind the following in all this speculation:
1. The Slater family ran a now defunct credit card reclaiming company (or two)
2. That company referred work to a solicitor in Wales which does Egg cases.

So Ms Slater used her OWN PERSONAL Egg Card in a test case BROUGHT AGAINST EGG (not the Bank suing her) in order to try and set a precedent in the High Court that could then be used to render further Egg agreements unenforceable, which would be to the commercial gain of credit card reclaiming companies.

Meanwhile lots of people on CAG and elsewhere have been busy not paying their Egg Card payments, believing the agreement to be unenforceable.

So, why would Ms Slater not say the right thing in court, and why did the solicitors lose the case? Who knows, but I'm not surprised PT doesn't want to comment about the whole unfortunate episode.

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

MC, the docs were not stapled together. However, I agree there were only three peices of paper.

[Amethyst]

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

I really can't imagine why someone from a CMC, closed down or not, would want to destroy a possible precedent setting in the consumers and thus CMCs favour. I think this conspiracy theory is way off tbh.

I think under pressure and possibly being shown copies of documents, anyone not entirely confident and comfortable in a court situation might, without realising the consequences say something like 'it rings a bell' when shown a document. She was praised for her honest account of things and I don't think for a minute this case was 'thrown' in any way. The arguments were just not strong enough and tbh, even though most of you may disagree, I think the judgment shows a lot of common sense.

Also remember this bit

: 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.

[WendyB]

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

Can someone please clarify someething for me, it's been bugging me and I couldn't grasp why, then it's suddenly hit me. I always understood that unenforceability could only be used as a defence, not a cause of action? So what is different here? This is bound to be something completely obvious and I am going to make myself look very stupid but hey ho...

[EXC]

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

It seems to me that it might be worth obtaining the transcripts of the hearing as some of the contentious issues will certainly have been discussed and might shed some light on the Judge's reasoning.

[pt2537]

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

in the time i have been at the firm, we have lost 4 cases, including slater, balance that with successes, and well, it pales into insignificance

yet no one remembers what we did for those who we won on, but people are quick to pick up on the 4 losses

and this is btw not to mention the 100s of cases which have settled before trial.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
oh and BTW re the article in the guardian, we won that one too, and settled the debt for the gentleman

[WendyB]

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

Can someone please clarify someething for me, it's been bugging me and I couldn't grasp why, then it's suddenly hit me. I always understood that unenforceability could only be used as a defence, not a cause of action? So what is different here? This is bound to be something completely obvious and I am going to make myself look very stupid but hey ho...

I would appreciate no further discussion on this matter.


The Egg judgment is there for all to read and you are most welcome to discuss the legal arguments and decisions within that judgment on this thread.

Oh good, any chance someone could answer my question then please. Preferably in words of not bery many syllables and in laymans terms as far as possible. Do feel free to point out the blatantly obvious as I have no doubt missed it
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Can someone please clarify someething for me, it's been bugging me and I couldn't grasp why, then it's suddenly hit me. I always understood that unenforceability could only be used as a defence, not a cause of action? So what is different here? This is bound to be something completely obvious and I am going to make myself look very stupid but hey ho...

I would appreciate no further discussion on this matter.


The Egg judgment is there for all to read and you are most welcome to discuss the legal arguments and decisions within that judgment on this thread.

Oh good, any chance someone could answer my question then please. Preferably in words of not very many syllables and in laymans terms as far as possible. Do feel free to point out the blatantly obvious as I have no doubt missed it

[Amethyst]

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

Wendy, that is a question I don't know the answer to however we discussed it in some depth with Hunter and DJ last year, and it would be interesting to have other views on this; Basically Hunter was saying you cannot take unenforceability to court you have to wait for the creditor on all issues (I disagree) and DJ says you can't for breaches of 77 / 78 as there is no cause of action, but can for missold ppi, hidden commissions and the like (ie things you have paid that you should have back). I don't know where that leaves general technical issues as seen in this Egg claim though;


Bear in mind Hunter is very heavily on the side of Credit Card Killer and Basil Rankine, and DJ is involved with Century21 CMC, and you need to read the whole thread this is taken from to follow the discussion but the basic premise of the argument was;

(b) claims by the debtor?

13. As stated above, where section 127(3) applies, it can be raised either as a defence to a claim by a creditor, or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b). Importantly, however, this is not the case in respect of breaches of sections 77 or 78. Indeed, the power to make a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142 arises only where “a thing can be done by a creditor…on an enforcement order only”. However, whereas improperly executed agreements can only be enforced on such an enforcement order (sections 65(1), 127(1)(a)), there is no such provision in respect of non-compliance with sections 77 and 78; indeed, as stated above, the sanction for such non-compliance is an inability to enforce for so long as the default continues (sections 77(4), 78(6)). As was held in Rankine at paragraph 15[1]:

“Thus the power to make a declaration under section 142(1) exists only in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order. The court cannot do so in a case where a lender has failed to comply with a request made under section 78 and accordingly there is no power to make a declaration in this regard even if the court finds that the defendant did not comply.”

14. In short, therefore, where there has been non-compliance with sections 77 or 78 it will not be possible to issue a claim for a declaration of unenforceability. Accordingly, in the absence of the creditor bringing a claim against the debtor (to which there is, as stated above, an unanswerable defence in the form of a stay), instructing solicitors would need to negotiate a compromise with the creditor under which the creditor agrees to release the outstanding credit.

The reasons as to why the industry in regards to issuing a CLAIM in relation to seeking a declaration of unenforceability is a scam is as follows:

The most important & leading case law in regards to unenforceability is HH Judge Simon Brown QC's judgement in Ra**** Vs Others.

HH Judge Simon Brown QC confirmed in paragraph 15 of the judgement that the power to issue a declaration under section 142(1) [unenforceability] exists ONLY in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order.

A debtor can only seek a declaration under section 142(1) of the Act if a lender has issued a claim against the debtor thus providing the court the power to grant an enforcement order.

Furthermore a debtor can only seek a declaration under section 142(1) by way of an APPLICATION to the court and not a claim.

A debtor therefore has no cause of action to issue a claim against the lender to seek a declaration under section 142(1).

UNENFORCEABILTY IS A LEGAL DEFENCE TO A CLAIM ISSUED BY THE LENDER

The court ruling above clarifies that no person has a cause of action for a claim in relation to seeking a declaration of unenforceability.