Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[Amethyst]

We do not have a copy of the full judgment as yet as it is unreported. This was received in a letter from Egg to 'rawsteak' regarding his claim on the same premise as Slater v Egg, confirming the case received a negative judgment. It is not being appealed. UPDATE - we now have a copy of the judgment which backs up what EGG have stated below.

We note your reiteration of your argument in relation to the use of the term "Approved Limit". You allege that we have failed to comply with section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA) by failing to include all of the terms prescribed by schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act (agreement) Regulations") on the basis that the credit limit is described as the "Approved Limit". This allegation is incorrect. The form of agreement used by Egg contains all of the relevant information prescribed both by Schedule 1 and by Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations. "Approved Limit" is specifically defined in Condition 1.3 of your agreement as the amount you can borrow from time to time on the account and is therefore clearly understandable. There is no requirement under the CCA to use a particular term or phrase when describing the amount of credit. The description of the credit limit complies with paragraph 8(b) of schedule 1 of the Agreement Regulations. This has been confirmed by the High Court in Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking plc (9 August 2010, high Court, Mold District Registry, unreported).

Case No: 9CC00161/MC684

[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.

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

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

[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.

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

I am not trying to sidetrack but just wondered what happens when a card is lost or stolen and a new account number is given and on the CRA's report shows the original card account as now closed with a zero balance. However any remaining balnce is then put on the new account.

Does the original Credit agreement cover the new card or should there be a new credit agreement?

Milly

HI Milly

I do not think that they would have have set up a new or modifying agreement as long as all the terms and conditions of the new card remain the same, howeveer section 85 of the act say that they should have sent you a set of the T and Cs that apply to the agreement allong with the new card.
Peter

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

Yes and the next question is, Why would she feel that she had to go to court to try and set precedent anyway?

Any ideas

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

not gonna get drawn into this again peter so dont bother

all i will say on the subject was that the dishonesty clearly swayed the judge into siding with the Defendants interpretation

as i said i had a barrister prepared to work on no win no fee which means that he risk assessed the case and thought the prospects were good and the case was arguable. our view was the same.

Furthermore if the case was void of merit then the court has a duty under the overriding objective to strike out the claim under its own motion

so fact of the matter is the case was arguable

HI Paul nice to se you , you are becoming quite a regular over here.

Fact is Paul anything is arguable. 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 coments.

Lets not forget that Ms Slater was the claiment 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.

Peter

[pt2537]

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

Yes thanks.

So if this had not occured and the case would have been won, would this have altered the position of all those who challenged their agreements on the "Applied limit", "Incorrect interest rates", scenario ? Which was the main thrust of your argument as i remember.

Were people also advised to say that they had not seen thier T and Cs?

The prescribed term issues were supposed to set important precedents for the hundreds of people who stopped paying their contracts.

Peter

not gonna get drawn into this again peter so dont bother

all i will say on the subject was that the dishonesty clearly swayed the judge into siding with the Defendants interpretation

as i said i had a barrister prepared to work on no win no fee which means that he risk assessed the case and thought the prospects were good and the case was arguable. our view was the same.

Furthermore if the case was void of merit then the court has a duty under the overriding objective to strike out the claim under its own motion

so fact of the matter is the case was arguable

[millymollymoo]

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

I am not trying to sidetrack but just wondered what happens when a card is lost or stolen and a new account number is given and on the CRA's report shows the original card account as now closed with a zero balance. However any remaining balnce is then put on the new account.

Does the original Credit agreement cover the new card or should there be a new credit agreement?

Milly

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

HI
Just as a point it is perfectly reasonable to argue incorrect execution under section 61 and lack of copy agreements under section 62.
The prescribed terms would have had to be included in the signature document, the T and Cs could be a separate document.
Peter

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

I think it would be difficult to argue you have not seen the T&Cs whilst arguing the meaning of 'limit' or the way the interest rate was quoted. Those two items being part of the T&Cs.

To me this is where the case fell down in that on one hand there was an argument about the meanings of certain terms and on the other that the creditor suggesting she never saw the terms?????

I think it would be difficult to argue you have not seen the T&Cs whilst arguing the meaning of 'limit' or the way the interest rate was quoted. Those two items being part of the T&Cs.

To me this is where the case fell down in that on one hand there was an argument about the meanings of certain terms and on the other that the creditor suggesting she never saw the terms?????

HI

Yes and neither argument had any real merit

Pet

[basa48]

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

Yes thanks.

So if this had not occured and the case would have been won, would this have altered the position of all those who challenged their agreements on the "Applied limit", "Incorrect interest rates", scenario ? Which was the main thrust of your argument as i remember.

Were people also advised to say that they had not seen thier T and Cs?

I believe that the prescribrd term issues were the points that were the inportant presedents for the hundreds of people who stoped paying their contracts.

Peter

I think it would be difficult to argue you have not seen the T&Cs whilst arguing the meaning of 'limit' or the way the interest rate was quoted. Those two items being part of the T&Cs.

To me this is where the case fell down in that on one hand there was an argument about the meanings of certain terms and on the other that the creditor suggesting she never saw the terms?????

[millymollymoo]

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

Thanks PT :tinysmile_grin_t:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

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

Sorry Milly for the message xx

Hey hunbun sorry for what message lol xxxxxx

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

Yes thanks.

So if this had not occured and the case would have been won, would this have altered the position of all those who challenged their agreements on the "Applied limit", "Incorrect interest rates", scenario ? Which was the main thrust of your argument as i remember.

Were people also advised to say that they had not seen thier T and Cs?

The prescribed term issues were supposed to set important precedents for the hundreds of people who stopped paying their contracts.

Peter