Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

QC15

Alexandra Slater -v- Egg Banking Plc

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3360 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Abby.


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has apparently been confirmed by PT on another site Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has apparently been confirmed by PT on another site Jon.

 

Which other site?

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thread was eggsecuted


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...