Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[basa48]

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

............... the judge said" 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."

And that was one of his kinder comments.

I do believe the judge was biased. Of course one could not set an individual limit higher than one set by the lender. That is absurd and the judge was absurd to put it that way. The legal argument was that the words Approved Limit and Individual Limit are confusing to the borrower as they do not identify that this is meaning the Credit Limit (as specified incidentally in the Regs)

Lets not forget that Ms Slater was the claimant in this, why did she just not wait for the company to take her to court and then appeal if she lost to the high court. I think we both know the reason, and that is because these claims had been lost many times before and no permission to appeal had been granted due to the lack of merit.

I've never heard this particular claim before, i.e. confusing wording, contrary to the Regs being grounds for invalidating an agreement. I also think the argument did have considerable merit. It goes against the word of the Act / Regs if not the spirit.

I too wonder why Mrs Slater brought this case if it weren't designed to set precedent in favour of the lender knowing she would lose. Also, IMO, to make sure she lost she appeared to change her evidence.

[Guest]

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

I do believe the judge was biased. Of course one could not set an individual limit higher than one set by the lender. That is absurd and the judge was absurd to put it that way. The legal argument was that the words Approved Limit and Individual Limit are confusing to the borrower as they do not identify that this is meaning the Credit Limit (as specified incidentally in the Regs)



I've never heard this particular claim before, i.e. confusing wording, contrary to the Regs being grounds for invalidating an agreement. I also think the argument did have considerable merit. It goes against the word of the Act / Regs if not the spirit.

I too wonder why Mrs Slater brought this case if it weren't designed to set precedent in favour of the lender knowing she would lose. Also, IMO, to make sure she lost she appeared to change her evidence.

Hi

Yes the judge was totally off his chump, i think he my have been an egg employee.

High court judges eh they just don't make em like they used to. But what do you do?

Ms Slatter, yes a riddle that.


Peter

[Guest]

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

Hi
Sorry in a silly mood last night.
Don’t really want argue these points because I know that I am correct, only because over the last three years I have looked into this extensively and checked with professional advisers on many occasions, so if you want the answers I will explain or if you don’t understand my explanation I will try and clarify, but I have done all the arguing about this I am going to, the points I raised when I first saw these arguments are exactly the same as the judged decided three years later and that is good enough for me to be doubly sure I am right.
You may say I am being arrogant in this (cue clever clogs) but I don’t think so, there is lots of things I do not have a clue about however this is not one of them.
Anyway back to the point raised by Basa.
The prescribed term for credit on a credit card agreement is not the same as the same on a fixed sum or other agreement, it does not have to give a precise sum upon execution, the purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the debtor know the maximum amount that she can spend up to, does this explain the judges comment here,” 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." In other words the judge thought that the agreement gave sufficiently clear indication of her limit. In fact he thought (as I did) that it would be “Beyond sense” that anyone would think otherwise,
This was for many people the main stay of their case, all the people that followed the huge thread on cag relied on this and perhaps the interest issue (which was equally flawed and equally dismissed out of hand).
No one was told to say that they did not see their T and Cs, and that was the only issue that brought about any debate, I hope you see my point. If the case had been won on this point it would have not made a halfpennies worth of difference to all these people, because as I said, these were not the arguments that were recommended, and not the ones they put on their defence statements, those points were thrown out. This is a smoke screen, a feeble attempt to justify what was a total waste of time and money for many involved.

Peter

[basa48]

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

..................................the purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the debtor know the maximum amount that she can spend up to, does this explain the judges comment here,” 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." In other words the judge thought that the agreement gave sufficiently clear indication of her limit. In fact he thought (as I did) that it would be “Beyond sense” that anyone would think otherwise,.............

I agree with most everything you've said, but yet again there appears to be a smoke screen going up as to what I perceived should be the argument.


This is NOT that the credit limit was incorrectly specified, but that the credit limit was never specified.

Only Egg knew that the term Approved Limit (or Individual Limit) meant the Credit Limit.

Approved Limit could have meant anything - a daily spend limit, a maximum 'one off' spend limit - anything.

Even if you accept Flaux's comment; "that the word “limit” in the agreement was uniquely a reference to the credit limit" (which I do not, but I wasn't the judge) the words themselves not being a specified in the Regs should have lost the lenders the case.

According to the Regs Sched 6 Para 3 the term should be the credit limit.

It is all a hollow argument now so I will dwell no longer. Save to say I believe this whole thing has been manipulated in favour of Egg using the Bankers champion.