Brandon Case

[Drowning but not sunk...]

If anyone is interested- may have already been posted?

 

The Brandon V Amex case has been adjourned for new hearing with two judges time allocation 1 hour date to be confirmed..

[Chipmeister]

This must surely be potential good news? Fingers crossed!

[Drowning but not sunk...]

If its not been dismissed out of hand then possibly yes. It may be a case thst they are going to apply the letter of the law - we can only hope! 14 days means 14 days!

[dizzyblonde1966]

well fingers crossed here

Guess the judge could have thrown it out if he thought it had no chance of success,

Will amex go all the way with this now, or settle out of court not wishing to risk setting a precadent if it goes against them etc ,?

or am I being too optimistic;-)

 

According to the other thread, the judge today was master of the rolls, which were reliably informed isnt anything to do with breadmaking, ;-)))) but is indeed a judge who has specific legal knowledge of the case in question

 

DB x

Edited December 6, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[cecilrhode]

can someone post a link to the thread if there is one, or even better supply short description of the judgement beiing appealed?

[rockabilly1]

Iy you tpye "American Express Services Europe PE Limited vs Ian Karl Robert Brandon" into googgle it's the first link...

[rockabilly1]

Does Brandon have a lawyer? I'll bet AMEX have roled out the big guns....

[dizzyblonde1966]

Does anyone know when the appeal is now going to be heard.?

Has any date or timescale for when it should be heard been set?

 

DB x

[frettful38]

subbing

[bertramr]

Date set for 3rd February 2011 according to HM Courts service website.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Thanks for that bertramr...do you perchance have a link to the relevant page, pretty please

 

Elsa x

[dizzyblonde1966]

Date set for 3rd February 2011 according to HM Courts service website.

 

Thanks, much appreciated,

 

DB x

[bertramr]

Thanks for that bertramr...do you perchance have a link to the relevant page, pretty please

 

Elsa x

 

I can't post links as I haven't done enough posts on here yet but you should be able to use this:

 

hmcourts-service (.gov.uk)

 

Then in the case tracker for civil appeals

 

either search for Brandon

 

or case number 20101463

Edited December 10, 2010 by bertramr

[GuidoT]

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20101463

 

Summary Case Details for 20101463

 

 

Case Reference:B2/2010/1463

Title:Ian Karl Robert Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd

Type:Permission to Appeal

Appeal/Application:for permission to appeal and a stay of execution

Hearing Status:Fixed on 03-Feb-11

Venue:London

Constitution:

LORD JUSTICE PILL

LORD JUSTICE LLOYD

LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON

Case Results

 

 

Track Your Case

 

Current Status:Awaiting a hearing - see Hearing Status

Tracking Information:08-Dec-10: Case passed to List Office

25-Aug-10: Case renewed to oral hearing

30-Jul-10: Permission to Appeal referred to Lord/Lady Justice

02-Jul-10: Bundle(s) approved

22-Jun-10: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents

21-Jun-10: Case file passed to Case Management

 

 

Last Updated:09-Dec-10

[Undercover-Elsa]

Thanks both..was in a rush and couldn't for the life of me find the Case Tracker link. Bookmarked it now to prevent further blonde moments

 

Elsa x

[24233513afw]

Subbing for future reference.

[cecilrhode]

Is Mr Brandon on this site, or elsewhere debating his stance?

 

If its not been dismissed out of hand then possibly yes. It may be a case thst they are going to apply the letter of the law - we can only hope! 14 days means 14 days!

 

On the above point, the judge said that he *Brandon) didn't suffer any prejudice by the lack of 14 because the account wasn't closed immediately. That seems to me a bit like someone stealing your car and then saying you weren't using it at the time so didn't suffer prejudice or lack of use. By serving the DN, they hoped to give themselves the right to close the account by virtue of the CCA clause. The fact they didn't so so right away was their choice, but after receiving the DN Brandan, was entitled to expect the agreement would be ended at the end of the 14 days. He may have been able to pay money to rectify if given the full 14 days, but wasn't able to in the time actually given. (I'm sure this point has been debated often elsewhere)

 

The judge didn't seem sympathetic to the lack of time allowed, but how short a time will they allow? 6 days? The Act says 14 days for a reason, and isn't concerned with the degree of prejudice suffered.

 

When the judge quoted from the agreement:

“We can end this agreement at any time by giving immediate notice.

Alternatively, we can stop you from using the card. If we end the

agreement you must pay all money you owe on the account.”

 

He doesn't seem to have realised that that clause undermines the protection given by the CCA. If an account is in default but rectified with the period allowed by a DN, close the account anyway using the above clause. Or, even easier, why bother with DNs? Just end the account using the above clause. Such a clause is not compatible with the requirements of the CCA and shouldn't be allowed.

 

But does the judge have the experience and common sense to see that? Probably not.

 

I'm not hopeful of a good result.

[Chipmeister]

Is Mr Brandon on this site, or elsewhere debating his stance?

 

 

 

On the above point, the judge said that he *Brandon) didn't suffer any prejudice by the lack of 14 because the account wasn't closed immediately. That seems to me a bit like someone stealing your car and then saying you weren't using it at the time so didn't suffer prejudice or lack of use. By serving the DN, they hoped to give themselves the right to close the account by virtue of the CCA clause. The fact they didn't so so right away was their choice, but after receiving the DN Brandan, was entitled to expect the agreement would be ended at the end of the 14 days. He may have been able to pay money to rectify if given the full 14 days, but wasn't able to in the time actually given. (I'm sure this point has been debated often elsewhere)

 

The judge didn't seem sympathetic to the lack of time allowed, but how short a time will they allow? 6 days? The Act says 14 days for a reason, and isn't concerned with the degree of prejudice suffered.

 

When the judge quoted from the agreement:

“We can end this agreement at any time by giving immediate notice.

Alternatively, we can stop you from using the card. If we end the

agreement you must pay all money you owe on the account.”

 

He doesn't seem to have realised that that clause undermines the protection given by the CCA. If an account is in default but rectified with the period allowed by a DN, close the account anyway using the above clause. Or, even easier, why bother with DNs? Just end the account using the above clause. Such a clause is not compatible with the requirements of the CCA and shouldn't be allowed.

 

But does the judge have the experience and common sense to see that? Probably not.

 

I'm not hopeful of a good result.

 

Alas, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If these are the T&Cs then to hell with an act of Parliament!! The Judge may also need reminding that the default notice compliance period was changed from 7 days to 14 for a reason...

[diddydicky]

i am sure that the act intended that where the creditor ended the agreement other than by s87- it was intended that the debtor would repay the outstanding debt in the same manner as he had been doing (monthly payments)

 

for any judge to say that this clause in an agreement (for the reasons stated above) cannot be an unfair term of trading- they would have to be nuts or bent.

[GuidoT]

The case is still listed for tomorrow, so I wish Mr Brandon well.

[diddydicky]

yes, although it would be useful to know what the grounds of appeal are!!

[GuidoT]

This may be of interest, I think Flaux was the same judge Mr Brandon had in the High Court.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?292722-Court-of-Appeal-Judgement-HSBC-v-Brophy-***LOST***&p=3282008&viewfull=1#post3282008

[GuidoT]

Oh I see it has now changed to vacated, no hearing today then.

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20101463

[frettful38]

Thanks for that info GuideT but what does vacated mean please?

[Chipmeister]

This explantation from the HM Courts Service website:

 

Vacating fixtures

There are occasions when circumstances, outside the control of the List Office, may necessitate them having to vacate a hearing at very short notice. Sometimes this can be as late as 4.30pm the day before the case is listed. This could be as a result of a case unexpectedly overrunning, a judge becoming unavailable, or other reasons. In deciding which hearing has to be vacated, the List Office will assess the cases listed for the following day and take the following factors into consideration:

• Which case/s, if removed, will cause the least disruption to the list (the aim is to adjourn as few cases as possible, ideally one)
  
• How many cases need to be adjourned given the reduced listing time available
  
• Have any matters previously been adjourned by the Court
  
• The urgency and age/s of the matter/s listed
  
• Where the parties and/or their representatives are based (this is relevant as in some cases the parties travel to London the day before the hearing)
  
• Whether it is appropriate to 'float' the case in the event of another listed matter going short (cases will not be floated without the consent of the parties)
  
• The likelihood of a judge becoming available to hear a floated case
  

After taking these factors into account, the list office decide upon the case(s) which will have to be re-fixed and will inform the parties concerned that their hearing has been vacated. The case record will be noted that the matter is not to be adjourned by the Court again. The Court will also endeavour to refix the case on the next available date convenient to the parties.