01516680386

"I fully understand that the Trustees, Administrators or managers of the Scheme are solely responsible for all decisions relating to the purchase, retention and sale of investments forming part of my membership. Furthermore, I agree to hold the Trustees, Administrators or Managers fully indemnified against any claim in respect of such decisions."

That is from the application form. They claim that they are responsible for the investments. How do you read the second sentence?  I appreciate that they got outwitted by the usual suspects but that is little consolation in the end.

But does the unfair terms of consumer contract still exist? Section b?

Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:
(a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier, and
(b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him.

I raised this as someone referred to court action. I don't know the answer but your posting would surely add weight to support action .

Not advice.simples

The discussion was about whether the responsibility taken was compromised by the disclaimer. Not simples.

Hard to find out if it's actually Paul T posting these days.

the people responsible are the directors and shadow directors of imperial who in turn were the administrators of the scheme .there is no protection for them because they committed fraud,theft and deception  but no one is taking action against them,why not ,i do not know!

Is related to the point I made, the capita oak investors need to band together and take the culprits to court. The individual investors need to take store first to court.

like you i have been saying this for many months but the members do not appear to want to take action.

Time I started my own thing: a few store first people will be hearing from me.

do not misunderstand me but do you know who to lodge your complaint to.

It's a waste of time picking holes in the disclaimer ...it covered what they wanted to...that's is simples

i do not think that store first people are the people that you should take action against but the directors and shadow directors of imperial , then by natural progression storefirst  will be implicated.

I would say the same thing if I wrote that disclaimer.

Well I'm saying it and didn't write it

Will suggest anything

Who are they?

Not sure what you mean...

You know exactly what I mean!

One point about contracts, in general:

A contract is only enforceable if the person on the weaker side of the contract has the financial strength to take legal action to enforce it.

This is why non business people get taken in by long wordy contracts. They think they provide some sort of protection. They don't.