Some time back 'over the road' a post was made on a thread I'd started about a credit card by a member that...
''PPI premiums are not legally allowed to be added to the credit balance.
In doing so, the agreement is voided because interest is thus charged on the PPI premiums. They can only charge interest on sums borrowed.''
''The PPI premiums will have been added to the credit balance and thus the interest rate is far higher than stated and so the prescribed terms are wrong- and so the agreement is totally unenforceable anyway.''
The poster had made successful claims against BC and also emailed me a BBC Radio 4 "You and Yours" interview with a solictor which explains the above.
This was over 12 months ago and I don't think I've read a post 'here' or 'there' where this argument has been used.
Has any one on here considered or actually used this argument when defending a court case or challenging a CCA?
''PPI premiums are not legally allowed to be added to the credit balance.
In doing so, the agreement is voided because interest is thus charged on the PPI premiums. They can only charge interest on sums borrowed.''
''The PPI premiums will have been added to the credit balance and thus the interest rate is far higher than stated and so the prescribed terms are wrong- and so the agreement is totally unenforceable anyway.''
The poster had made successful claims against BC and also emailed me a BBC Radio 4 "You and Yours" interview with a solictor which explains the above.
This was over 12 months ago and I don't think I've read a post 'here' or 'there' where this argument has been used.
Has any one on here considered or actually used this argument when defending a court case or challenging a CCA?
Comment