mcuth v Egg ****won****

[angry cat]

Whats happening Michael?

 

I've submitted my AQ, should I reply to the Egg Defence?

 

AC:)

[mcuth]

Hi AC

 

Whats happening Michael?

 

I've submitted my AQ, should I reply to the Egg Defence?

 

AC:)

 

Well, I spoke to the court just before I went away, and they said it's not necessary to reply to the defence immediately if you don't want to - you can wait for the judge's order on what to do next. That's what I intend to do.

 

I've heard nothing from the court since I returned my AQ on 5th September, the deadline for return was 21st September. I didn't realise that the Defendant gets an AQ too, so no doubt the court will wait for both to be in and then write with an order. I suspect I should hear something soon, if Egg have returned their AQ on time of course....

 

Oh, I finally got a reply from the court the other day that I couldn't have the default judgement I applied for on 21st August as a defence had been filed. That letter was dated 7th September. Now, the court received my default request on 23rd August (it's stamped as "received" then), Egg's defence was dated 25th August, but not faxed til 29th August (8 days after the service deadline of 21st August) - the court's notice of defence was dated 4th September. How pathetic, and geared against the small guy if the banks can get away with being so late.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Rang the court today - apparently Egg's AQ was lodged on 26th September (late again, I see ), and I should hear something from the court within the next 10 days or so....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Received "General Form of Judgement or Order" from Swindon CC - "It is ordered that the claim be stayed until 1st March 2007" - at the bottom is a note: "PLEASE NOTE: There are a considerable number of these cases throughtout (sic) England & Wales. There is likely to be a test case in the near future". That's not "There is a test case", but "There is likely to be a test case" :rolleyes:

 

I have a bit of a family emergency that's keeping me occupied elsewhere at the moment, but I know I have to come back to them within 7 days now - hopefully later this week I should be able to crack on......

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

As detailed in this thread, going to send the following letter to the court tomorrow to see if I can get the stay removed and/or a transfer to the Mercantile Court - that might just push things along.

 

The District Judge

Swindon County Court

The Law Courts

Islington Street

Swindon

Wiltshire

SN1 2HG

Dear Sir/Madam

mcuth v Lloyds TSB Bank PLC – claim number 6SN02738

&

mcuth v Egg PLC – claim number 6SN02736

I respectfully request that the stays on the above cases, which were ordered on 28th & 29th September 2006 respectively, be removed per the following.

 

Human rights

The stays interfere with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”. It is submitted that in cases for sums of £354.66 & £85.22 respectively, a stay of 5 months which depends on unspecified litigation unconnected to the instant cases between two other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant cases, is not reasonable.

Indeed, it is unlikely that there will actually be a test case proceeding to hearing as specified (see “Test Case” & “Other Cases” below).

 

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my cases are allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to these cases. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

The Defendant in case 6SN02738,Lloyds TSB Bank PLC (“Lloyds”), has already settled at least 28 similar cases. A list of these 28 cases where Lloyds was the Defendant is attached (Appendix 1). In most of these cases, Lloyds actually filed a defence to the case and returned their Allocation Questionnaire, obliging the Claimant to do the same. However, in every one of these cases, Lloyds settled the matter before any hearing.

In 2004 the head of personal banking of Lloyds, Peter MacNamara, stated in a Radio 4 interview that Lloyds makes big profits from its default charges and that this money was being used to fund free banking for its customers. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording if the Court wishes.

Other cases

It is true that there are currently many other cases which are litigating against banks on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the court may be unaware that, so far, the vast majority have been settled before any hearing, with only a handfull proceeding as far as a hearing.

 

Attached to this letter is a sample list of 244 cases, complete with County Court reference numbers (Appendix 2), of which the Claimant is aware and which have been issued since January 2006. All of these cases have been settled before a full hearing. Many of these cases even received default judgments against the Defendant banks in question, which has then been set aside on application by that bank and which has further been settled by that bank rather than go to court.

In two cases the Court has even ordered standard disclosure against Defendant banks but those banks have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties.

It is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to go to a hearing - that it will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court. It is further submitted that the Defendants in the instant cases have no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right. A stay is supportive of the banks’ litigation strategy - which is to take the Claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the case.

It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

The Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the Status Quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the Claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks’ activities which the Claimant submits are unlawful.

 

Test Case

It is agreed that a case in which the issues were fully argued would be of enormous benefit. However, as has been explained above, the banks have so far settled every one of the 244 example cases in Appendix 2, and it is clear that it is their abusive litigation strategy which is responsible for the problem of the large number of cases being started against them. Every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the Defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided in court.

My cases present another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as, should the defendants lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the court hierarchy. It is respectfully submitted that the Court’s order to stay the case creates more uncertainty and more difficulty.

It is respectfully submitted that, if the predicted test case referred to by District Judge Carron in the orders, was actually in the course of a trial at the present moment so that it was more certain that the matter would be tried and that a decision would be likely to be reached, then there would be good grounds for staying all similar actions including my own.

However, it is respectfully submitted that none of this is at all clear and on the evidence of all of the cases conducted so far it is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to be heard at all.

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCR”) gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

The OFT conducted a 2 year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks. The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

However, it is submitted that the issue of a test case and the definitive settling of the banks’ penalty charging system is a matter to be borne by the OFT or some other public body who are tasked and resourced to deal with this matter. It is not a burden to be suffered by the private citizen and in particular by myself in the instant cases.

 

Additional orders

If the Court does accede to my request for a removal of stay then I respectfully request that the cases be allocated to the Small Claims track but that the Defendants be ordered to make standard disclosure. It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bringing these and other similar cases to a speedy and just conclusion.

 

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges

In the alternative, a number of cases have recently been transferred to various Mercantile Courts for hearings, and in the majority have been settled before even the Case Management Conference was held. The Claimant is aware of only 1 of these transferred cases that has proceeded to the Case Management Conference. If the Court were to decide that my cases should be similarly transferred to a Mercantile Court (the closest being located in Bristol), I respectfully request that a Small Claims Costs Order is made and the Defendants be ordered to make standard disclosure.

Many thanks

Yours faithfully

mcuth

 

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[chrisuk1978]

Michael,

 

Nicely put good sir. I am awaiting the processing of the two AQs submitted to my local County Court. I suspect this stay may also happen, would you be prepared to provide the wording of that letter and the case references in the event of the same happenning to me. Your letter is learned and very elopquently put.

 

Many thanks.

Chris.

[mcuth]

Hi Chris

 

Thanks

 

Yeah, no problem - feel free to use the letter (changing your bits, of course ). I stick all of my letters on here, whilst they're not templates, everyone's free to use them as a basis if they want

 

I'm going to see about getting the case list put somewhere for easy reference, but if I haven't by the time yours is done, just PM me your email address & I'll send you the sheet.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Reply from the court received today (quoted verbatim, so forgive the poor grammar & punctuation ):

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

Re: {mcuth} v Lloyds TSB Bank PLC Case No 6SN02738

 

The District Judge has considered your letter dated 23rd October 2006 to the court in relation to the stay that the court has ordered in this case and 6SN02736.

 

In both cases the court has stayed the actions pending the outcome of test cases that will be dealt with shortly. All cases of this type, of which there have been a considerable number in recent times for reasons well known, are being stayed pending the outcome of the test cases. However you are entitled to apply to have the stay lifted and the District Judge has said that if you wish to make such an application clearly you may do so but you must make a formal application, preferably on form N244 and pay the fee.

 

The fee may be £35.00, application without a hearing, or £65.00 for an application to be dealt with at a hearing.

 

A fee of £35.00 is where the applicant suggests that at least to start with the application can be dealt with as paperwork by the District Judge, that is without attendance by any party. The District Judge may make the order required by the applicant or such other order as he or she sees fit to make. If the judge decides the matter needs to be dealt with at a hearing then he instructs the court office to fix a date and a fee of £65.00 becomes payable, and the court would ask the applicant for the additional fee.

 

In the event that £65.00 was paid when the application was first issued, if a hearing was set then no additional fee would be payable, however if the judge made the order without a hearing, the court would not refund the overpayment.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Going to see what the response is to this post before I decide where I'm going to go with this...

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[vickyeastwood]

Hi

 

I'm just wondering what the present position with your claim is, is it still ongoing or did you withdraw/settle?

 

Thanks

[mcuth]

Hi Vicky

 

I'm just wondering what the present position with your claim is, is it still ongoing or did you withdraw/settle?

 

It's still ongoing - as you can see above, the court have stayed the claim til March next year.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Figured I'd give Mr St Clare Nelson an opportunity to settle up before I make an application to lift the stay:

 

Dear Mr St Clare Nelson

In the Swindon County Court

{mcuth} v Egg Banking PLC

Claim Number: 6SN02736

Please be advised that on 7th December 2006, I intend to apply for the lifting of the stay on the above claim.

Given the sum involved, I write to offer you the opportunity of settling this action before I take this action. If you wish to take advantage of this offer, please arrange for a cheque to be drawn in my name in the sum of £86.13 (being the sum claimed of £85.22 + £0.91 in interest accrued) and forward it to me directly.

If you intend to continue to defend this claim, for your reference I have included a copy of my Allocation Questionnaire as submitted to the court. I would be obliged if you would forward a copy of your submitted Allocation Questionnaire at your earliest convenience.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

 

{mcuth}

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Yasmin]

Really fingers crossed for you Michael......certainly worth a try in the present climate!!!

[Neil Birch]

I am following your actions carefully mcuth

I spoke to SCC today about another matter and was discussing the stays , the office seem to be aware of the stays till the 7th but are unaware of a test case.

It is also possible that different judges are doing different things at the court as my case with barclays has not been stayed [i checked today]

I received my copy of of the AQ today with the defence from lloyds and was touched to see I HAD the wrong one , they had sent me the defence for another lady bringing a case at swindon against lloyds , so were are not alone!

[mcuth]

Hi Neil

the office seem to be aware of the stays till the 7th but are unaware of a test case.

 

Yeah, exactly my problem - they seem to want to keep us all waiting on something that's pretty much never going to happen - that is, of course, unless you pay up the £35/£65 to get the stay lifted... (crafty business idea I guess - but what sense does it make if it's not recoverable & the claim value is low?). I forgot to x-ref this thread and the one I have in the Mercantile section regarding SCC's response to my 2nd letter - that's here. It does indeed seem like there's little consistency between judges in one court, and indeed between courts across the system.

 

Anyhoo, no reply from Mr St Clare Nelson, so I'm going to apply for the stay to be lifted & a fee exemption. I didn't get a chance to get down to court today though - will be either tomorrow or Monday now...

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Hmm, "tomorrow or Monday" went well didn't it?

 

Taking N244 to the court this afternoon, details:

 

intend to apply for an order ( a draft of which is attached) that(2)

the stay ordered on 29th September 2006 be lifted

 

because(3)

the stay interferes with my Human Rights, favours the Defendant and relies on an unspecified test case which is unlikely to take place (see evidence in Part C).

 

Part C

I (We) wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:

I respectfully request that the stay ordered on 29th September 2006 be lifted.

 

Human rights

The stay interferes with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”. It is submitted that in a case for sum of £85.22, a stay of 5 months which depends on unspecified litigation unconnected to the instant case between two other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case, is not reasonable. Indeed, it is unlikely that there will actually be a test case proceeding to hearing as specified (see “Test Case” & “Other Cases” below).

 

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

Other cases

It is true that there are currently many other cases which are litigating against banks on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the court may be unaware that as of today’s date, the vast majority have been settled before any hearing. Attached to this letter is a sample list of 298 cases, complete with County Court reference numbers (Appendix 1), of which the Claimant is aware and which have been issued since January 2006. All of these cases have been settled before a full hearing. Many of these cases even received default judgments against the defendant banks in question, which has then been set aside on application by that bank and which has further been settled by that bank rather than go to court.

In two cases the Court has even ordered standard disclosure against Defendant banks but those banks have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties. It is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to go to a hearing - that it will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court. It is further submitted that the Defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled thus far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right. A stay is supportive of the banks’ litigation strategy - which is to take the Claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the case. It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

The Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the Status Quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the Claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the bank’s activities which the Claimant submits are unlawful.

 

Test Case

It is agreed that a case in which the issues were fully argued would be of enormous benefit. However, as has been explained above, the banks have so far settled every one of the 298 example cases in Appendix 1, and it is clear that it is their abusive litigation strategy which is responsible for the problem of the large number of cases being started against them. Every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the Defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided in court.

My case presents another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as, should the Defendant lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the court hierarchy. It is respectfully submitted that the Court’s order to stay the case creates more uncertainty and more difficulty.

It is respectfully submitted that, if the predicted test case referred to by District Judge Carron in the order, was actually in the course of a trial at the present moment so that it was more certain that the matter would be tried and that a decision would be likely to be reached, then there would be good grounds for staying all similar actions including my own.

However, it is respectfully submitted that none of this is at all clear and on the evidence of all of the cases conducted so far it is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to be heard at all.

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCR”) gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

The OFT conducted a 2 year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks. The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

However, it is submitted that the issue of a test case and the definitive settling of the banks’ penalty charging system is a matter to be borne by the OFT or some other public body who are tasked and resourced to deal with this matter. It is not a burden to be suffered by the private citizen and in particular by myself in the instant case.

 

Additional orders

If the Court does accede to my request for a removal of stay then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the Small Claims track but that the Defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure. It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bringing these and other similar cases to a speedy and just conclusion.

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the bank’s default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges

In the alternative, a number of cases have recently been transferred to various Mercantile Courts for hearings, and in the majority these have been settled before even the Case Management Conference was held. The Claimant is aware of only 1 of these transferred cases that has actually proceeded to the Case Management Conference. If the Court were to decide that my case should be similarly transferred to a Mercantile Court (the closest being located in Bristol), I respectfully request that a Small Claims Costs Order is made and the Defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure

Cheers

 

Michael

[angry cat]

Eggellent Michael - sorry couldn't resist!

 

What I do not understand is this:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/51172-jjddcc-egg.html#post427822

 

My apologies for not attending the CAG/BAG Rally:)

out of my control..Poor Health aggravated by financial probs.

 

Love AC

ps I viewed the roberttx video...Good Stuff.

[mcuth]

Eggellent Michael - sorry couldn't resist!

 

Groooooan

 

What I do not understand is this:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/51172-jjddcc-egg.html#post427822

 

Wow [THUD]

Egg must be having a change of direction - though I'm still to have the courtesy of a reply to my letter above to Mr St Clare Nelson...

 

My apologies for not attending the CAG/BAG Rally:)

out of my control..Poor Health aggravated by financial probs.

 

Love AC

ps I viewed the roberttx video...Good Stuff.

 

I think we'll let you off this time

Attendance pass is only good for one use though

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Neil Birch]

louisk has today had her stay lifted at swindon county court and was told there all being lifted , its all on her thread

regards neil

[mcuth]

louisk has today had her stay lifted at swindon county court and was told there all being lifted , its all on her thread

regards neil

 

Thanks Neil - interesting info - seems like that application should be ok then Maybe there'll be some movement on this before Christmas....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Neil Birch]

There listing into jan now unless its a 15 min job and I dont see the defendant agreeing to that , unless you get a listing just for the stay to be lifted -keep us posted. NB

[mcuth]

Received a letter today (dated 13th December ) from Egg legal - they seem to have lost the comma key from their keyboard:

 

This letter is about resolving your dispute

 

Dear Sir

 

{mcuth} v Egg Banking plc

Claim No. 6SN02736

 

I refer to the above claims (sic) in the Swindon County Court.

1. Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2006, addressed to my colleague David St Clare Nelson. Unfortunatley Mr St Clare Nelson has recently been out of the office and your letter has only recently been passed to me.

2. We view our terms and conditions as fair and in particular the charges levied pursuant to Section 7.1 of your credit agreement ("the Agreement") with Egg Banking plc ("Egg") to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty.

3. Notwithstanding our view, in the particular circumstances of your case we put forward the following settlement proposal, which is similar to the proposal you set out save that I have calculated the amount of interest up to the end of the period this offer is open for:

a) Without any admission of liability and on a purely commercia and ex gratia basis we will within 14 days of your acceptance of this proposal by return of the signed Consent Order (see paragraph (b) below) pay you £87.39 in full and final settlement of the proceedings in Swindon County Court under claim number 6SN02736 and of all claims, rights, actions and causes of action (including claims for interest and costs) you may have against Egg arising out of or in connection with any issue pleaded in this case. As you will appreciate this is the full amount of your claim against us broken down as follows:

i) £55.22 for charges and interest as detailed in the Claim Form;

ii) £2.17 for interest from the issue date until 28 December (179 days); and

iii) £30 for your legal costs.

b) As your acceptance of the proposal you will sign and return to us the Consent Order enclosed with this letter providing for the dismissal of the proceedings on the bases of each party bearing their own costs. Once we have received the signed Consent Order we will lodge it at Court to bring the proceedings to an end.

c) The terms of the settlement shall remain confidential between the parties and, where necessary, their professional legal advisers save that the same may be disclosed:

i) To the extent necessary for the purposes of enforcement of the settlement; and

ii) To any Court, government or other authority to the extent necessary for compliance with a lawful obligation by the party disclosing it and to the extent necessary to any professional adviser to that party in connection with the giving or receiving of advice in relation to such disclosure.

4. The above proposal will remain open for acceptance for 14 days from the date of this letter after which it will be automatically withdrawn.

5. Please can you confirm your acceptance of the above proposal by signing and returning the enclosed Consent Order.

 

If you have any questions on the contents of this letter, please contact me by writing to the address listed above

 

Yours faithfully

 

John Murphy

Egg Banking plc

 

The Consent Order that's harped on about basically says:

UPON READING the Minute of the Order signed by the parties

 

BY CONSENT

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant's claim is dismissed.

2. There be no Order as to costs of this application or in the case.

 

I {mcuth} of {address}, Claimant, consent to an Order in the above terms.

 

...................

 

We, Egg Banking plc of Governor's House, Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0HH, Defendant consent to an Order in the above terms:

 

...................

 

I think this is just a bit too bloody cheeky, so my reply is going to tell them no to confidentiality (you might've guessed that), and that I won't sign the "Consent Order" unless & until I have a cheque in my hot sweaty hands

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Here we go then, this is what Egg are getting sent back via Special Delivery:

 

Dear Mr Murphy

In the Swindon County Court

{mcuth} v Egg Banking PLC

Claim Number: 6SN02736

Thank you for your letter of 13th December, received today.

Naturally, I am sure you will appreciate that I disagree with paragraph 2 in your letter - but, in the interests of resolving this matter quickly, I am prepared to accept the sum of £87.39 in full & final settlement of the above case. I must note that I do not accept all of your unilaterally imposed conditions and that settlement out of court in a case that I am bringing against Egg Banking PLC must be on my terms and satisfactory to me.

Therefore, my acceptance of your offer is made on the following conditions:

1) Paragraph 3(a) of your letter is accepted in full, that is:

3. Notwithstanding our view, in the particular circumstances of your case we put forward the following settlement proposal, which is similar to the proposal you set out save that I have calculated the amount of interest up to the end of the period this offer is open for:

a) Without any admission of liability and on a purely commercia and ex gratia basis we will within 14 days of your acceptance of this proposal by return of the signed Consent Order (see paragraph (b) below) pay you £87.39 in full and final settlement of the proceedings in Swindon County Court under claim number 6SN02736 and of all claims, rights, actions and causes of action (including claims for interest and costs) you may have against Egg arising out of or in connection with any issue pleaded in this case. As you will appreciate this is the full amount of your claim against us broken down as follows:

i) £55.22 for charges and interest as detailed in the Claim Form;

ii) £2.17 for interest from the issue date until 28 December (179 days); and

iii) £30 for your legal costs.

2) In additon to paragrah 3(a), the settlement payment of £87.39 must be made by cheque, made payable to myself.

3) Paragraph 3(b) of your letter is rejected in full – I will not sign such a Consent Order in this matter, especially not before receiving payment. However, I do undertake to perform the following on receipt of said settlement cheque:

a. I will write to Swindon County Court, advising them that the claim is settled and that I will take no further action under this claim;

b. I will write to yourself advising receipt, confirming that the claim is settled, and enclosing a copy of said letter to Swindon County Court.

4) Paragraph 3© of your letter is rejected in full. I see neither a legal necessity for a confidentiality clause, nor any reason to request one. Confidentiality is a service which I may be prepared to offer, but this would be subject to a separate and negotiable fee. Until said fee is agreed upon and paid, I absolutely and completely reject any confidentiality agreement.

I am happy for this letter to be treated as my agreed acceptance under the above conditions. If you accept these conditions, then I see no need for revised offer documents to be sent, and look forward to receiving your cheque by return.

Yours sincerely,

{mcuth}

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[angry cat]

Michael,

don't forget the £35 for the N244 Application Notice-

 

Yes, I know that you have previously stated that it is not refundable. However, if Egg had paid your Claim prior to it being stayed, then you would not have had that extra expense!

 

I stated that fact to Morgan Stanley with regards to my long protracted Claim, which I battled out with them for 6 months, basically because I would not accept their attempts at imposing Unfair terms.

In short, MS paid my £65 cost of issuing an N244 Application Notice.

 

Good on you, in that you saying between the lines-

If you want me to keep the settlement secret, then pay me an appropriate amount of money for that service.

 

Love AC

[mcuth]

don't forget the £35 for the N244 Application Notice-

 

There wasn't any fee - I got 100% remission cos I'm currently unemployed

 

Good on you, in that you saying between the lines-

If you want me to keep the settlement secret, then pay me an appropriate amount of money for that service.

 

Absolutely - nicked that one from Mindzai's letter to SCM in his LTSB case. It'd be amazing if they actually paid for confidentiality - but I'd have to delete most of this thread

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[livelylad]

Have you cracked the Egg Michael?