Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Alexandra Slater -v- Egg Banking Plc


QC15
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4955 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Alexandra Slater -v- Egg Banking Plc - judgment 9 August 2010.

 

Has anyone got any news on this one - apparently it seems that it has gone in Egg's favour, the case is apparently unreported so how does one go about obtaining a copy of the same. Any help appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexandra Slater -v- Egg Banking Plc - judgment 9 August 2010.

 

Has anyone got any news on this one - apparently it seems that it has gone in Egg's favour, the case is apparently unreported so how does one go about obtaining a copy of the same. Any help appreciated.

 

On another forum it's reported that the client changed their story when on the stand and this was a different story to what they had told their legal team and counsel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what website is that? would like to read it, or can you cut and paste for us?

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zzzzzzzz

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this earleir today ...

 

Egg CCards - Approved limit v Credit Limit - Judgement .. not yet published

 

 

Hi all

 

I know that a lot of people are waiting for this, and that PT has said that he won't be putting the Judgement on here following a slight falling out...

 

Apparently
Egg
link3.gif
when now being challenged by a Debtor on the Approved v Credit Limit - have responded with this ...

 

"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

 

Sure someone will post up the judgement when published, but thought it worth posting this for those who are waiting on this aspect of their CCA to see if it could be challenged.... I know there will now be a lot of disappointed bods .. (believe there's no appeal to be lodged)

 

(also thanks to the individual who provided me with this info....)

 

Abs xx
:Cry:

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly urge everybody to wait until the actual judgement is available, before accepting anything Egg or any DCA say regarding this case. It wouldn't be the first time that Banks and DCA'S have tried to pick the bits out of a judgement that suits them. We need to see the actual details before everybody decides that the approved limit isn't worth pursuing. Also I beleive that this case dealt with some other issues and we all need to know the details of these to see whether theres other avenues to Pursue.

Take Care

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also on another site where there are quite a few ex-CAGers inc PT and PeterBard.....don't feel it appropriate to mention it on here. Maybe you'll stumble on it like I did if you do a google on credit related issues.

 

Point to note - he hasn't posted the whole case transcript Jon if thats what your searching for ... I thought the main argument of that case was the approved v credit limit statement ... what else was being challenged? I'd be interested to know as I have an Egg card myself.

 

Abs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also on another site where there are quite a few ex-CAGers inc PT and PeterBard.....don't feel it appropriate to mention it on here. Maybe you'll stumble on it like I did if you do a google on credit related issues.

 

Point to note - he hasn't posted the whole case transcript Jon if thats what your searching for ... I thought the main argument of that case was the approved v credit limit statement ... what else was being challenged? I'd be interested to know as I have an Egg card myself.

 

Abs

 

Hi Abby, yep i've found that site, looks like the approved limit issue is lost. I could be wrong but I thought various other Egg issues were also part of this case. Might be better if they weren't as that will leave another route open,

I'll PM you later with the other issues when i've checked them out again.

Take care

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great you found it ...

 

I know what a bummer on the approved limit ... but as you say there may be more than meets the eye on it ..

 

I haven;t requested a copy of my agreement yet .. is in a reduced payment agreement with Cabot who bought the debt... but I've trawled through my DN from Egg and can't spot any flaws .... yet .. !!

 

Think I'll request the CCA from Cabot and see what comes up ..

 

Abs x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Excuse my ignorance but it seems everybody knows about this 'other forum' but me ... Is it MSE by any chance? I really dislike that site, rubbish layout and full of self-appointed moral high ground occupants ... If someone could PM me a link to the relevant thread I'd be most grateful.

 

Also, why is there not more discussion on here regarding the Egg issue? The 'Egg Banking Plc.' thread has disappeared, and I can't find any other threads discussing the future of 'Approved Limit' Egg victims. Have people given up? What is going on??

 

Regards

 

ph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Without sounding too thick!!....how does this change the position re Prescribed Terms on Egg agreements?

 

I was waiting for a reply to my Account In Dispute letter which i sent to Egg 6 weeks ago. Received a reply yesterday with ref to Slater v Egg and also Waksman.

 

Can post the letter is it is of interest.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know why all discussion seems to have died, following this ruling. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Caggers out there with 'Approved Limit' Egg agreements, who would like to know where they stand now. The old (long removed) Egg thread had other knowledgeable people posting on it, not just pt and PB - where are they??

 

I'm beginning to think that some sort of censorship has been put in place - this silence is very worrying indeed.

 

ph

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know why all discussion seems to have died, following this ruling. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Caggers out there with 'Approved Limit' Egg agreements, who would like to know where they stand now. The old (long removed) Egg thread had other knowledgeable people posting on it, not just pt and PB - where are they??

 

I'm beginning to think that some sort of censorship has been put in place - this silence is very worrying indeed.

 

ph

 

Older threads often lose their ability to attract new postings.

 

Why not start a new thread complete with eye catching title to rekindle the debate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably because we all know that going to court is pointless because the system just grinds debtors down regardless.

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...