MCOL Claim against Bank for failure to offer PPI redress

[TheBereaved1]

Hi

Due to a catalogue of extenuating circumstances over the years, I have been unable to chase a bank about a PPI Complaint I had. Basically, they failed to investigate fully taking only 4 working days to tell me back on 4 Sept 2019 that they had found no accounts at all with them following my complaint on 27 August 2019.

I submitted evidence but they kept saying the case was ongoing despite a final response letter having been issued. Once the deadline for the FOS had passed, they then pulled the rug from under my feet and said that the complaint was a duplicate of the Sept 2019 one. They issued 10 different reference numbers in total and the majority of them did not even state what product it was for. The one in question now certainly didn't even make reference to a number of personal loans.

Last month an agent of theirs admitted during a conversation that they had an internal note on their system dated Sept 2020 which said, "PPI Prep complete. Task was automatically deleted when complaint was set to resolved". He then went on to say that "I'm not sure I should have read that bit".

They said case was ongoing in Feb 2020. Deadline from final response passed on 4 March 2020 and they said this complaint was a duplicate of Sept 2019.

None of it makes sense because why would they not delete (why would then even delete evidence?) until a year after the original final response. It smacks of fraud or concealment or a mistake at the VERY least which should be covered from what I understand under S32 of The Limitation Act.

I tried desperately to communicate with the bank over the last month but they just weren't interested in resolving the issue.

Here are my particulars of claim. I've never written any before. Is it professional enough as a litigant in person please? It just seems odd to me writing in the 3rd person and impersonal.

Are they brief enough?

Someone said to me the other day that judges don't like litigants in person quoting legislation. Besides, through my research which I feel has been in-depth I am unclear on what legislation a PPI redress comes under. I read one article that said it comes up FSMA 2000. I feel I need to cover all bases so it doesn't get struck out.

I issued claim online on 26/08/2025 and it was sealed there and then. Northampton Business Centre said that I only have until this Tuesday to file Full Particulars. I did file some particulars such as timeline of events and a brief overview. I am not sure I mentioned I would be sending updated PoC or whether I should have.

Thanks in advance of ANY advice however small.

Particulars of Claim

1. The Claimant entered into several regulated consumer credit agreements with the Defendant between 1988 and 1990 (“the Agreements”).
2. Copies of the written agreements and supporting evidence were provided to the Defendant in 2019 and again in 2020, and further evidence will be produced.
3. As part of the Agreements, the Defendant added Payment Protection Insurance (“PPI”) and associated charges to the loan balances.
4. The Defendant failed to assess the Claimant’s needs and/or to obtain the Claimant’s informed consent. No alternative was given and the Claimant was told that PPI was compulsory and that loans would not be approved otherwise.
5. By reason of the above, the relationship between the Claimant and Defendant was unfair within the meaning of section 140A Consumer Credit Act 1974.
6. The Claimant paid PPI premiums and associated interest totalling approximately £XXXX, as set out in the attached Schedule.
7. Since 2019 the Defendant has failed to investigate competently the existence of PPI, denying its presence despite documentary evidence being provided. The Defendant’s correspondence has been confusing, contradictory, and in some cases wrongly described complaints as duplicates. The FCA’s complaint rules required the Defendant to handle complaints fairly and properly, which it failed to do.
8. The Defendant’s conduct was contrary to DISP 1.4.1R and 1.4.2R of the FCA Handbook. As a result, the Claimant was denied the opportunity of proper redress and has suffered financial loss.
9. The Claimant was unable to pursue matters sooner due to serious extenuating circumstances over the years, including multiple bereavements, caring responsibilities, and health issues which, along with the Defendant’s failure to provide redress, cumulatively caused mental fragility, vulnerability, and heightened anxiety. In addition, the Claimant has more recently become aware of potential unlawful misconduct by the Defendant, evidence of which will be produced.
10. The Claimant believes the claim is within time and that the cause of action may not have arisen until well after the Defendant’s Final Response Letter of September 2019. Alternatively, the Claimant respectfully invites the Court, if required, to exercise its powers under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (concealment or mistake) and/or the overriding objective to extend time, so that the claim can be fairly determined on its merits should the Defendant contend that it is out of time.
11. The Claimant therefore claims:
    a. Repayment of PPI premiums and associated interest of £XXXX;
    b. Statutory interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum from 17 April 1990 (date of the final loan agreement) to judgment or earlier payment;
    c. In the alternative, such further or other relief as the Court thinks fit, including interest at 15% per annum simple until 1 April 1993 and 8% thereafter, applied to the individual loans, if the Court considers this appropriate under its powers.

AND the Claimant claims: £XXXX

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
Signed: …………………. [Your name]
Dated: ………………….

[atticus]

That someone who you spoke to the other day was incorrect. You should cite relevant legislation.

You should also give details of each agreement.

[TheBereaved1]

That someone who you spoke to the other day was incorrect. You should cite relevant legislation.

You should also give details of each agreement.

Many thanks. I need to a way to set notifications as I've just logged in on off chance of any response.

In initial claim, I detailed out each claim but lumped it all together to calculate interest from date of final loan.

In a panic at moment, as I believe I need to get Full Particulars of Claim served by tomorrow (which is in addition to Point 3. Claim on MCOL Claim Form).

I received notification last Thursday that bank had appointed solicitors. They have just this minute emailed confirming they "are both authorised and happy to accept service of documents and correspondence via this email address."

So I am currently filling out N215 for service. I don't know if I need to bother sending it to the bank too. I guess not. That form in itself has too many complex options relating to "Give the address where service effected". I'll ask their solicitors to confirm whether it is the principal place of business or some other service address.

Maybe I am overthinking things. That is usually the case.

[atticus]

See CPR 6.7: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...les/part06#6.7

[TheBereaved1]

See CPR 6.7: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...les/part06#6.7

Strange to my layman's mind how 6.7 doesn't make reference to email service.

"the claim form must be served at the business address of that solicitor."

Also, the email from the 'solicitor' at the firm of solicitors states "Senior Contract Lawyer (Admitted in South Africa, non-practising)". Just makes me wonder if one can get tripped up by such technicalities.

I'll guess I'll find out. I have an email from him saying he acts on behalf of the Defendant and that he is "both authorised and happy to accept service via email" and then asked me to confirm same which I have done.

[atticus]

But is the email from a firm of solicitors? That is what is important, not the status of the particular employee.

And read more than that one sub paragraph of the rules on service. If you are going to dabble in litigation you need to inform yourself. There are various guides and sources of information in the thread linked in my signature block below.

[TheBereaved1]

But is the email from a firm of solicitors? That is what is important, not the status of the particular employee.

And read more than that one sub paragraph of the rules on service. If you are going to dabble in litigation you need to inform yourself. There are various guides and sources of information in the thread linked in my signature block below.

Yes it is. They provided their information via MCOL. They have 450+ employees in London alone.

I did skim the paragraph. I look at some of these guides and feel overwhelmed immediately. Just downloaded the Sally McLaren one. It is 204 pages!

The biggest thing that concerns me now is the cause of action. I feel my original complaint is the cause of action but, and I'd be guessing here, it is the CCA 1984 and S140A in particular. Having read, and not necessarily fully understand, the legalese of some case law, it appears that some cases are technically way out of the Limitation period for loans, like mine, that were taken out back in the late 80's and early 90's.

To me, it appears that the scope of Section 140A seems to only be mentioned whenever Plevin is talked about on solicitors' blogs and this is where I need advice so as not to fall down. Of course, I have filed the PoC now so that cannot be changed.

Could you hazard if my case has any merit in a small claims court on the basis of CCA 1974 and the PPI mis-selling scandal? My whole claim is based on the fact that the bank deliberately ran me out of time to take the case to the FOS through their constant 'reassurance' that the case was ongoing when clearly it wasn't and they then turned around and said it was a 'duplicate'.

Should I post up my redacted PoC for comment? It's a bit late now but there may be some obvious thing I have missed?

I tried to get legal representation but no company in this city would touch it unless it was £50k value. I guess it needs to be that kind of value for it to be worthwhile. I tried seeing if the Bar could offer advice but that drew blanks. I based my approach on one barrister's blog. I think it was about CSO v Potter in the Court of Appeal.

One thing I cannot get my head around is how on earth with PPI of just £3834 does this end up in the Supreme Court and how could Mrs. Potter afford representation? It appears to have been 2 days and probably cost £50k at least.

I even tried to get some Pro-bono assistance but most of that seems to be from Law Centres at Universities and they were all closed a month ago.

I will try and work my way through some of the guidance you link to but I am not sure it will help me where the legislation is involved and whether I have undertaken the claim on the basis of S140A CCA 1974. I do hope I am right.

I have just noted whilst looking for info again on CSO v Potter that the firm of solicitors that are acting for the Defendant have their own blog on CSo v Potter...

It states, "However, section 32 of the 1980 Act provides that, where any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from them by the defendant, the limitation period shall not begin to run until the claimant has discovered the concealment, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it." So I guess my question should be this:- As I provided the bank with copies of the loan agreements and one of their agents admitted in a call that they deleted the 'task' then I feel that that action alone was intended to jeopardise my right to redress by deleting evidence provided to the bank?

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here but that is how it feels to me. Why else would they delete the 'task'? And ultimately how was the agent able to read out file notes if the 'task' had been deleted? None of it makes real sense.

[TheBereaved1]

I hope I've not already undermined by case.

According to an internet search, it says email N215 only with NO supporting documents as the court will already have the PoC. Speaking with OCMC. They tell me to send N215 and PoC together (or separately and they will attach). I guess it shows you that you cannot simply rely on the internet anymore and that this is no substitute for speaking with a human.