Thread: Help with Defence please!!!!

Good Afternoon All,
I need some serious help here if someone can spare the time.
I have a thread on the legal forum (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-northern.html) which has been going on for some time now. In fact this one is for my wife, I also have an identical one going on for exactly the same thing, but things are progressing differently (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-northern.html)

The jist of it is (for the first case)

• Northern Rock gave my wife a loan
• Ran into difficulty with payment, and NR not very helpful, so had to stop payment and hope to God ther was a problem with the CCA.
• CCA looked ok at first
• default notice looked ok at first
• termination notice the same

On closer inspection it emerged that

• we were sold PPI with the loan (single premium policy)
• the default notice contains an amount, correct at date 18/02/09
• Same day we made a token payment of £5
• Termination notice came with £5 not added to account
• So there is a discrepency between what they are claiming for, and the amount that is actually owed... ie:it's £5 out!

so step by step
PPI

• we are defending the claim with the main crux of the argument being about PPI policy
• PPI checkbox was ticked and signed, but I guess they have to prove it was willingly accepted, so their solicitor is now looking for call recordings of the application for the loan.
• We are claiming the agreement is unenforceable by virtue of the fact that.....
• the amount for PPI was included in the total charge for credit
• interest of 8.9% was added to the amount for PPI
• We maintain that this makes the prescribed terms incorrect and therefore the agreement unenforceable.

We have had a SJ hearing which was struck out on the basis of the incorrect amount on the Default Notice compared with the Termination Notice, and the amount they are claiming for.

Technically the DN is valid I think as we made the token payment on the day it was issued. But the Termination Notice did not take into account the payment we made.
Frankly, it may be just a fiver out, but had we paid more or even the full amount that was due....I doubt they would have considered that either and it would still be incorrect.
So I do not want the £5 to be seen as a slight oversight!!....they still got it wrong and terminated the agreement based on inaccurate information!

The case has been allocated to FAST TRACK unfortunately due to the "complexities of the PPI issue", and we have to have a Witness statement and a new defence submitted by the 12th Oct.

I really need to get this one right as it may prove very costly if we lose.

Do we have a case?

Based on the PPI aspect, is the agreement unenforceable? I know these policies have now been banned, but has an agreement ever been deemed unenforceable based purely on PPI policies?

I know the case law is there for London North Securities v Meadows, but I have heard of no other cases like this.

Obviously the Solicitor will be trawling through her database now for relevant law at the time, but I cannot find any others to support my case.

Can anybody help me to get a rock solid Defence and Witness Statement together?


Incidentally, for my own case with NR, a CMC has been ordered by the Judge...so I will have to see where that goes!

I have been advised that you folks here are the experts when it comes to PPI....can anyone assist please?

Kind Regards

Have a read of post 154 on this thread....


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2470841

Originally Posted by middenmess

Have a read of post 154 on this thread....


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2470841

Wow!!!!! Happy Days!!! That is good news...that must be very recent then? :O I wonder when the full case details will be available?

Wow...I am reading this...
http://www.competition-commission.or...nd_app_2_5.pdf ...very interesting!

How would I find out if NR received commission on the back of the PPI policy sold to myself and my wife?

Thinking out loud hear...
By virtue of the fact that they supposedly asked if we wanted the cover, and the fact that there is a tick box to choose on the agreement would surely imply that it was optional?

The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 say that the only way interest can be added to the policy as has been done in our cases is if they policy was COMPULSORY!!! Then they can do it.

The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 say that if the policy is OPTIONAL, then the policy amount cannot be added to the total charge for credit, and therefore interest cannot be added by including the policy in the total amount of the loan.

What happened in our case is
1. they ask you if you want it....cant really remember if they did actually ask, this made it optional as far as i can make out....
2. they included the total amount of the Policy with the total amount for the loan, and benefited from a nice 8% interest on the policy too!

This alone surely makes the agreement unenforceable? I mean as a result of this, the prescribed terms have got to be wrong which of itself makes the agreement unenforceable??

Can someone tell me if im barking up the right tree here please?

If I can show NR received Comission on top of it all, then I think we would have a really good case.

As this is allocated to the Fast Track, I am tentative and nervous. Can anyone offer an opinion please?

That link Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases. helps confirm this, but when its you about to put a lot on the line, you have to do a lot of thinking!!

If we are wrong we could see a claim for £3k (and £7k for mine) run into a lot more if they win!!

Help lol

This might help...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-late-3-a.html

you can go straight to post 49 by Noomill061 if you don't want to read it all.

Originally Posted by middenmess

This might help...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-late-3-a.html

you can go straight to post 49 by Noomill061 if you don't want to read it all.

Hi Middenmess,
Thanks so much for your respones tonight...much appreciated. I will take a read of that now I am enthralled and appalled by the competition comissions enquiry into PPI ... and now the practice of selling PPI policies is banned... that adds strength to our case too

Thanks a lot for pointing me in the right direction...my wife and I are v grateful

Hey...just took a quick look.... I have seen this before lol.. I recognise the v large bundle you received lmao

Originally Posted by alanalana

Hello Lux,

I am not up to speed on legal arguments but this link may help you.

• PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements

It is from a very recent case where PPI mis-selling resulted in the collapse of the case.

Hope it helps

aa

Thanks AlanAlana
I will take a read now ... thanks for your help

I am posting this on this forum too if someone can sanity check the facts so far?


The Events leading to the current action being taken
1. On or about the 5/6/07 I rang Northern Rock regarding one of their low rate loans.

2. I explained to the agent of my requirements and after a lengthy phone call it was decided that I could borrow a total of £4k at a rate of 8.9% interest over 4 yrs (48 months).

3. I have no recollection of any discussion/explanation regarding "Payment Protect Gold" being part of the overall Credit, or that I would have to pay consequent interest as a result of the application of this product.

4. In general I make a point of NOT accepting Payment Protection Insurance for any financial agreements, and so is surprised this has been applied to the agreement.

5. From the resulting Consumer Credit Agreement (Exhibit xxxx), it is clear that my signature is indeed in the relevant section relating to "Payment Protect Gold", however it is not admitted that I was made sufficiently aware of the terms and conditions of the product, nor of the fact that premiums for this product would be paid up front to another party, and added to the total loan amount, total charge for credit at a contractual rate of 8.9%.

6. Indeed, because of the fact that I make a point of not accepting "Payment Protect Gold", am of the opinion that the only way I would accept such an agreement is if it was indicated that obtaining the funds would not be possible unless the insurance element was accepted.

7. The fact that the insurance is not cancellable without terminating and restructuring the entire agreement strengthens my opinion that the Insurance policy was not optional in any sense, and merely a way of capitalising on a supposed low rate loan which would purely "line the pockets" of the claimant for the duration of the loan.

8. I have since become aware that the practice of selling PPI policies in this way has since been banned and deemed undue enrichment for financial organisations with little or no benefit for the consumer.

9. I received the Consumer Credit Agreement via post, signed it and returned it to Northern Rock Offices

10. I admit not examining the Financial details of the agreement, but had no reason to as funds agreed for the loan (£4k) would be advanced.

11. I was unaware of the additional application of PPI premiums to the total loan amount and therefore not aware that I would as a result be paying much more per Month than if the PPI policy had not been added.

12. I continued to make payments towards the loan from April 2007 until Feb 2009, when myself and my family encountered financial difficulty due to the possibility of my husband almost being made redundant.

13. Financial advice indicated that as this any my other unsecured loans were a much lower priority than my Mortgage and Council Tax etc. I was advised to contact my creditors to advise them of my situation.

14. On or about the 18th Feb 2009, I contacted Northern Rock to make them aware of my situation and on that date offered a token payment of £5.

15. Northern Rock accepted my payment of £5 and I attach a bank statement from that time as evidence of that transaction (Exhibitxxxx).

16. Some time after that phone call, I received a Default Notice (Exhibitxxxx) stating that the arrears amount at that time was £xxxxx.

17. On or about the xx/xx/xx I received a Termination Notice (Exhibitxxxx) stating an arrears amount of £xxxxx.

18. This amount failed to take into account the token payment made on the 18/02/09.

19. I am of the opinion that regardless of the amount of the token payment, indeed, had the payment even been the amount in full, the account would still have been terminated in this manner

20. On or about the xx/xx/xx I received notification of legal action regarding the Loan.

21. Upon commencement of Legal action I requested a copy of my Credit Agreement from Northern Rock.

22. After examining my Credit Agreement, it became clear that there was a problem with the amount initially borrowed and the amount required to be repaid.

23. Though I had borrowed an initial amount of £xk at a rate of 8.9%, applying that rate to the amount did not reflect the amount to be repaid.

24. After adding to the total amount for the loan, the total amount for the PPI policy, which had been applied, it was evident that Northern Rock had lumped the two totals together and added 8.9% interest to both the loan and the PPI Policy.

25. I began investigating this practice by studying
a. reports from the Competition Commission into the sale of PPI policies, (Exhibitxxxx)

b. the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and 2006 s???? (Exhibitxxxx)

c. The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980,(Ehibitxxxx)

d. Case notes from London North Securities Ltd v Tony James Meadows & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 956 (27 July 2005)(Exhibitxxxx)

26. I drew the following conclusions,
a. PPI Policies should always be an optional component, and not a condition of obtaining credit

b. PPI should be thoroughly assessed by the seller to ensure the product is suitable for the receiver.

c. PPI can only be included in the total Charge for Credit if and only if the PPI policy is a condition of obtaining funds

d. Northern Rock will most likely have received "secret" Commission from Pinnacle Insurers for selling an entire policy up front, resulting in an "unfair relationship" (Exhibitxxxx) making the agreement unenforceable.

e. By virtue of the fact that a tick box and signature box is provided for consent to provide PPI on the Consumer Credit Agreement, it is taken that this policy is an optional component.

f. PPI cannot be included in the total charge for credit where an insurance policy is offered as an optional component.

g. The application of the PPI policy in this manner, makes the prescribed terms incorrect, and therefore invalidates the agreement.

Hi,
Can someone take a look at my defence so far, mainly centred around PPI at the moment, and let me know how it sounds? Have I left anything out etc?

Thanks In Advance

IN THE xxxxxxxxxx COURT

CLAIM NO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Between

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claimant

and

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Defendant

_________________________ _______________________

Amended Defence

_________________________ _________________________

1. This Defence is made in addition to my Defence dated ????? 2009 in opposition to the Claimant’s claim dated 22nd April 2009 and by which the Claimant contends I have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim against me.
2. It is intended to demonstrate by way of this defence, that the defendant, who does not deny entering into a Loan Agreement with the Claimant, actually entered into an agreement with the Claimant, which from the moment of commencement was unenforceable due to
1. The method of selling Personal Protection Insurance to the defendant.
2. The method with which Personal Protection Insurance was applied to the account.
3. The consequences of the method used to apply Personal Protection Insurance to the account on the Prescribed Terms of the agreement.
4. The hidden financial gain of the Claimant as a result thereof leading to an Unfair Relationship in financial favour of the Claimant.
5. The Claimants inability to execute a Default Notice which is in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act on which this agreement was based (1974)6. The Claimants inability to terminate the agreement correctly using the most accurate financial information at the time of termination.

3. This Defence will also reference the following in support of the Defendant.
1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s127(1)(i)
2. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.142 (1) (b)
3. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 s.19-22 (applicable amendment to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for agreements made after the 6th April 2007)
4. The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980
5. The Competition Commissions Report "Market investigation into payment protection insurance" (s.6.107)
6. The Competition Commissions Report "Market investigation into payment protection insurance" (Conclusions on Profitability)
7. London North Securities Ltd v Tony James Meadows & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 956 (27 July 2005)

The Credit Agreement

1. The Defendant entered into an agreement with the Claimant on or about the 5/06/07 for an amount of £4000.00, agreed by telephone with an Agent employed by the Defendant.2. An additional Premium of £915.00 was added to the total amount of the agreement by way of Personal Protection Insurance (Loan Protect Gold).3. The Defendant contends that she cannot recall a discussion existed in relation to purchasing PPI, and if it did, the Defendant contends that it was not sufficient to make an informed choice about accepting PPI.4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a conversation occurred which provided sufficient information by the Claimants representative, and which confirms that this Product was willingly accepted by the Defendant.

· A) The Defendant researched the issues surrounding the OFT’s concerns over the lack of guidance and advice given in relation to PPI. The Defendant recalls that examples of a Northern Rock PLC Loan application form contemporary to the time that the Account was started in April 07 appear to imply that it was compulsory for PPI to be agreed to for credit to be considered, or that it was otherwise not made clear whether or not it was compulsory.
· B) There was no statement under what circumstances that payment on any claim would be made and what exclusions would apply and in which circumstances.
· C) The Defendant did not receive a policy certificate or schedule.
· D) No guidance was given as to whether other, better value insurance policies were available from other sources.

· E) It was never disclosed that the Claimant would receive Commission for selling the Policy.

5. The APR agreed at the time was at a rate of 8.9% which should have been applied to the total loan amount only.
6. It has transpired that the agreed APR of 8.9%, was also applied to the PPI premium of £915.00 .
7. The interest to be accrued from the PPI Premium was also added to the Total Charge For Credit.
8. The Courts attention is drawn to the outcome of

London North Securities Ltd v Tony James Meadows & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 956 (27 July 2005)

"Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal on the sole ground that, although the amount paid to discharge the arrears was part of the credit, the amount paid by way of the insurance premium was part of the total charge for credit, not of the credit itself, and therefore the amount of credit was incorrectly stated in the credit agreement and the credit agreement is unenforceable."

9. The Claimant maintains and will continue to maintain that this PPI policy was an optional component which the Defendant agreed to by way of signing her consent on the Credit Agreement.
10. Again, the Claimant is put to strict proof that such is the case.
11. However, if this PPI policy is optional, why then has the Claimant included the PPI Premium in the Total Charge for Credit?
12. It is clearly stated in the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, s.4(c)(i), that the only instance by which a policy of insurance can be added to the total charge for credit is when the Policy is not an optional component. Should this be the case, then it is clear that the Claimant never intended there to be a choice as to whether PPI should be applied to the account, thus making their consent field in the Consumer Credit Agreement useless and misleading.

Total Charge for Credit

3 Total charge for creditFor the purposes of the Act, the total charge for the credit which may be provided under an actual or prospective agreement shall be the total of the amounts determined as at the date of the making of the agreement of such of the charges specified in regulation 4 below as apply in relation to the agreement but excluding the amount of the charges specified in regulation 5 below.

UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1980/51-100/Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980/51)/Part II Total Charge for Credit/4 Items included in total charge for credit

4 Items included in total charge for credit

Except as provided in regulation 5 below, the amounts of the following charges are included in the total charge for credit in relation to an agreement:--(c) a premium under a contract of insurance, payable under the transaction by the debtor or a relative of his, where the making or maintenance of the contract of insurance is required by the creditor--

(i) as a condition of making the agreement,

13. It is clearly stated in the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 s.5(c)(i) that where a Policy of insurance is an optional component, it cannot be added to the total charge for credit. Indeed, it is specifically mentioned as an exclusion, which the Claimant has blatantly chosen to ignore.

Total Charge for Credit

5 Items excluded from total charge for credit(1) The amounts of the following items are not included in the total charge for credit in relation to an agreement:--

(c) any charge relating to an agreement which is an agreement to finance a transaction of a description referred to in
paragraph (a) or (b) of section 11(1) of the Act, being a charge which would be payable if the transaction were for cash;
(i) a premium under a contract of insurance other than a contract of insurance referred to in
regulation 4(c) above.

The Consequences of this are as follows.
14. As a result of including an item which should be excluded under the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, the Claimant has breached s.60(1)(b) and s.60(2)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Specifically, the amount and rate of the total charge for credit are subsequently incorrect.

60.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—
(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

15. As a result of including an item which should be excluded under the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, the Claimant has breached s.61(1)(a)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Specifically, as a result of the total charge of credit being incorrect as stated in para 16 above, the agreement does not and never has contained the correct financial information, meaning the prescribed terms are incorrect.

61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor owner,and
(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

16. As a result of contravening these two sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the entire agreement is deemed unenforceable under s127.1(a)(i)(2)

127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—
(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements),
(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question
17. The Defendant has been severely Prejudiced by the non declaration of Commission which the Claimant will have received from their insurers for selling the PPI Policy.
18. The Defendant has been severely Prejudiced by the financial gain of the Claimant through applying Interest to the PPI Policy and including it in the total charge for credit.
19. The Court is requested to enforce its powers under section 127(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to render the agreement unenforceable, and to order the return of the entire amount of the PPI policy from which the Claimant has been enjoying profit and commission, and/or any premiums paid to date plus interest at 8% under s.69
20. By way of an example of how much profit the claimant may have been received as a result of selling the PPI Policy, I refer now to the inquiry held by the Competition Commission into the selling of Personal Protection Insurance. Ultimately its findings were to lead to the overall ban of selling PPI products, and in particular Single Premium Policies such as the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.
21. Section 6.107 of the Competition Commissions enquiry examines the commission rates and share of profit between lenders and their underwriters.

s.6.107. We examined the contracts between retail PPI distributors and their underwriters in order to collect data on commission rates and the share of profit. We found that commission rates ranged between [50–60] and [70–80] per cent and that profit share ranged between [60–70] and [90–100] per cent.44 Details of each contract that we looked at are set out in Table 6.10. This data is useful as it corroborates the data on typical distributor income levels shown above.

22. In a later statement (s6.134 - 136 – conclusions of profitability), it is evident that the Claimant and other lenders will have been significantly benefitting from these PPI policies unbeknown to their customers for a number of years.

6.134 On the basis of the above model, including the assumptions discussed in paragraphs 6.106 to 6.129, we concluded that retail PPI distribution is highly profitable. Commission levels are high in relation to the costs incurred in selling retail PPI and the capital requirements are low, reflecting the low-risk nature of the activity.
6.135 Although the RoE we found was extremely high compared with the cost of capital, it was lower than in Section 4 where we found RoEs of almost 500 per cent
. We considered this to be because distributors’ revenues are directly linked to the level of GWP per policy (through the fixed percentage commission rate) and these are lower for retail PPI than for other types of PPI. We found that the average income per customer per year was no more than £4153 for all retail PPI distributors, compared with £160 for a PLPPI policy; however, the costs per policy are not materially different.

6.136 We looked at commission rates over the last six years and found that there had been no material change. We had no evidence to suggest that costs had been materially higher in previous years, and we therefore concluded that these levels of profitability had persisted over at least the last five years.

23. This information has never been shared between the Claimant and the Defendant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they did not receive Commission payments as a result of selling this PPI Policy.

24. The Defendant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Claimant, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.

25. In the light of the contentions made above, the Defendant asks that the court also consider that an "unfair relationship" existed under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Unfair relationships

140A Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors

(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—
(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
(c) any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

(2) In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor).

(3) For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor.

(4) A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

(5) An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C)."

20 Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships

"140B Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships
(1) An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following—
(a) require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person);
(b) require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement;
(c) reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;
(d) direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security;
(e) otherwise set aside (in whole or in part) any duty imposed on the debtor or on a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;
(f) alter the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
(g) direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between any persons.

(2) An order under this section may be made in connection with a credit agreement only—
(a) on an application made by the debtor or by a surety;
(b) at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings in any court to which the debtor and the creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the agreement or any related agreement; or
(c) at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any other proceedings in any court where the amount paid or payable under the agreement or any related agreement is relevant.

(3) An order under this section may be made notwithstanding that its effect is to place on the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, a burden in respect of an advantage enjoyed by another person.

26. It is believed that the Defendant has now shown in a number of ways how the Consumer Credit Agreement entered into on or about the 5/06/07 is unenforceable under section 127 and section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act.

Originally Posted by car2403

We really need to see the agreement, here. If it's unenforceable, that should be your first point of attack, with the PPI issues coming a close second.

Are you able to scan/post up a copy of the agreement, with personal details/identifying data removed?

Hi Car,
It has been posted on my thread in the legal forum....the guys theresuggested it was unenforceable because the PPI being added to the total charge for credit made the prescribed terms incorrect and therefore unenforceable.

The suggested starting a thread here too for advice on the PPI issues

Originally Posted by car2403

I'm lost - can you post a link to the thread/post with the agreement?

hi car2403...sorry ..not bein on in a while .. baby keepin me busy
here is the CCA with financial information

Hi car,
Can you say why you think it is enforceable? I hope you're wrong lol
This could cost a lot of money if it is enforceable. I have had a lot of folk here say it isn't, so it would be good to get an `enforceable' opinion! That's what the other side will be trying to get across, so I'd like to hear your opinion if you have the time?
Thanks