Member Info for Stoopid

Knot, I agree with you that this is the law and the courts but I point you, in comparison, to the current speaker from the NFDA, clear, ledgible and good clear explainations, easy to follow and understand........

Taken a few more myself following you :-) and agree its not a conversation after 5 pints in a pub....

God, this is painful, the bloke presenting this is rubbish. His explainations are long, windy and convoluted. Also he obviously doesnt even know what Glass Guide is in relation to second hand cars and should be explaining to the court that traders use Glasses as a trade guide and then usually charge customers more i.e. the profit....

Currently trying to trash the bribery/secret argument that the court of appeal accepted against the banks. Currently using Hurstanger to refute it essentially saying that there is no element of dishonesty and that the court of appeal was wrong in its judgement.

The court of appeal was wrong overruling Hurstanger as good law and rule against this.

Stupmy - Yes and Yes

The appelants are currently making their cases. (All about Fiducary, bribery act and remedy atm) so unless they make a balls up should be nothing negative. The Judges may well sum up positively or negatively.

@Stupmy yes, its the arguements, but any fool (ahem) can see what is being argued. Also, I thought that the parties at the supreme court are appealing the court of appeals judgement against them regarding points of law and iof the judgement was correct within the remits of common and criminal law?

It is then up to the judges to decide regarding the points made or put forward by the appelants whether or not the court of appeal has made a mistake or not?

There are no "less encouraging" arguments? Its down to the appelants to argue their case in regards to the law and why they think the decision was wrong within law?

@wokinpark and that is exactly the point being made. The bribery act came into play when the court of appeal made the lenders/brokers "Fiducary" on the client/buyers behalf suggesting that the lender/broker had to act in the best interest of the client even though they have their own interests, i.e. profit and to each other. Basically the court of appeal judgement suggested that in the eyes of the law, the lender essentially bribed the broker to offer the customer its services as a commission was paid (the bribe) and a fiducary duty was in place to protect the customer. This is clearly a nonsense and why I think the court of appeal judgement will be overturned.

Sugesting that under the bribery act/common law, as there is no fiducary duty on the brokers behalf and no real loss to the customer who they have no fiducary duty to, no compensation should be forthcomming if I am understanding this correctly.

And I will change this point to Brokers/Lenders i.e. the lender. The arguement is, because they cannot be a fiducary and as there was no loss suffered by the customer (under the terms of the bribery act), then, under common law, because no loss was suffered, there can be no compensation.

Anyway its all legal arguements at this point, and although I can follow it, the arguements are very technical and referencing historical law and im probably getting some points slightly muddled.

Very complicated, but the jist that is being put to the supreme court is that there is no fiducary duty under the law and that the Court of Appeal have over stretched when saying there was.

So, to be honest, I have no idea LOL.

No, thats not whats being said at all, and your just making up your own crap version to suit your own narrative....

I suggest you either watch it or shut up and stop talking crap.

Wow, sugesting that under the bribery act/common law, as there is no fiducary duty on the brokers behalf or real loss, no compensation should be forthcomming if I am understanding this correctly.

And BOOM, the Car Dealer acts on behalf of the Lender not the customer when conducting Broking..........

i.e. no Fiducary duty....

Long way to go

Hahahaha, just brough out a document that was signed by one of the "victims" - Johnson, that states "we may receive a commission" LOL

Also, since 2014 the law imposes a duty on all brokers to disclose in general documentation that they may/will recieve a commission! - No demonstration of loyalty? All of which seems to have been missed at the court of appeal?

Its so long drawn out and dancing around complicated points of law.

And there it is, great points brought up, especially in the case of Hopecraft that the Car Dealer is NOT a Fiducary in relation to the law....

Great Link.

They are currently arguing about Law and Fiducary duty/obligations and how they arise.

A lot of waffle and legal points being raised.

This is one of the things that has confused me. Are the Car dealers that were offering loan packages actually Independant Brokers in the fiducary sense? They didnt offer a range of loans, they didnt offer a range of finance packages or provide independant advice, they just said this is what we are offering, this is the APR and this is what you will be paying. If you dont want this then you can go somewhere else?

If so, how can there be a fiducary duty owed to the client buying the car? If this is so then this blows most of the case out of the water regarding the banks surely???

For those that are interested, it all starts tomorrow. Judgement expected shortly after.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0157

The points Knot makes about Fiducary are interesting and as such points 2 and 3 rely on the courts determining the car dealership/brokers as a "fiducary". Below are the primary/main points.

1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation?

(2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers?

(3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies?

(4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty?

(5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

Gratz, well done. But im still holding, mid year results soon which will hopefully provide a catalyst for further share price rises hopefully back to over 600.

With the Divi still paying 6.6% and well covered by cash flows, a possible bid in the wings (but i wont hold my breath) and the company growing revenue in all divisions i would like to see PAY get back to 800+

All banks are struggling SP wise in the current climate. Investors are worried the intrest rate rises havent fed through the system fully yet and that borrowing defaults will increase as next year goes on. CBG have already reported a small increase in defaults/provision in their recent results. So, as long as there are no more nasties/provisions for Novitas then I wont worry.

The only issue was that even with the £100m ish provisions for Novitas stripped out, profit for the year still fell about 13%

Its not well covered atm but if they drop it again, the SP will collapse upsetting major investors. So, my guess is that they will keep it as is until revenues from the price hikes, job cuts and synergies from sales and mergers start to come through (Three is the big one next year). So, its probably safe, for a while at least.

I think a lot of people dont understand what may occur here. POG are essentially insolvent, they are about to default on another debt as of yesterday. Under UK company law, it is a criminal offence to trade whilst insolvant.

There are plenty of examples of companies trading right up until last knockings before closing the doors and screwing shareholders - Woolworths, Debenhams, Carillion etc.

POG may well be forced to sell the company assets to cover debts, i.e. the mining operations etc. These assets will then be transferred out of POG and into the ownership of the purchasing company. The price could be a fire sale price well under market value. POG will then become a cash shell with no assets, holding all the debt including the bonds. As the bond holders are first in the food chain, they will get paid out first then the banks, leaving whats left for shareholders.

This essentially means that shareholders will be left with nothing as there will be zero cash left after all the debt has been paid and directors saleries continue to get paid whilst the company is wound down as a cash shell.

Im not saying that this will happen, but its a likely outcome if they cant refinance debt. The shares may even be suspended soon due to them being technically insolvent?

I have no skin in the game here, was tempted but thought it too risky. I genuinely hope it turns out well for shareholders and POG manage to sort something out. But, the RNS is warning shareholders of the risk of insolvency and a fire sale of the company assets. If POG survives the share price will likely recover somewhat so good luck if you decide to hold in such a nightmare time for shareholders.

79 - 79.25 live with 1.216 million shares sold to 40k bought.............. something smells but price holding as yet, wonder if a big buy order is being filled or is there some other news us Pis aint yet aware of out there? "Sigh" if there is we, as Pis, are always the last to know, but the way the price is moving, the shares on Loan and the numbers sold recently i.e. today make me wonder, this isnt moving like a share that has seen far better than expected results and with a better financial position than thought. Big contract loss maybe? Or further bad news that wasnt put out previously due to various reasons? Personally, with the results released by xch I would have expected bargin hunters to pick these up (as we did) and the SP pushed back up to the £1 mark in short order (as that is where it fell from). The fact that the SP has not pushed on upwards and not significantly recovered along with the large apparently "short" position and volumes sold make me pause for thought.....