Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

awww thanks

[NLP]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

To clarify, the legal argument that a solicitor can use to reclaim PPI rather than the JR.....

Not sure if there are any sols on here, maybe you could phone one and ask them!

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Correct, therefore if the FSA wishes, they can take action against the banks by means of an injunction (legal, i think) to force them to follow DSIP.

What would a private solicitor use if the FSA does not do this? Are they then looking for an injunction so that the bank follow it?

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

To clarify, the legal argument that a solicitor can use to reclaim PPI rather than the JR.....

Article from Eversheds

Developments in PPI and CCA Cases


The High Court has recently handed down two significant Judgements in cases in the consumer credit arena. The first gives useful guidance in relation to payment protection insurance ("PPI") and when it will be considered as a compulsory requirement for entering into a loan. The second relates to the relationship between APR and interest rates in Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA") regulated agreements and the situations in which the court will grant pre-emptive declarations.
Contents
1. PPI: Compulsory Policies; Misrepresentation; ICOB and Unfair Relationships
Black Horse Limited v David Speak (1) Caroline Speak (2) [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB)

2. APR v interest rates in CCA agreements - the consequences of discrepancy
Joseph Sternlight v Barclays Bank Plc; Andrew Sneddon v Bank Of Scotland Plc; David Burt v Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc T/A Mint; Cola Coates v Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc; Scott Wright v HSBC Bank Plc
1. PPI: Compulsory Policies; Misrepresentation; ICOB and Unfair Relationships:
Black Horse Limited v David Speak (1) Caroline Speak (2) [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB)
The High Court has handed down His Honour Judge Waksman QC's Judgment in the case of Black Horse Limited v David Speak (1) and Caroline Speak (2) [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB). This was originally a test case of three cases relating to payment protection insurance ("PPI") which had been selected from cases brought in the Northampton County Court. They were then transferred to the Manchester Mercantile Court with the intention of providing some general guidance on commonly raised PPI issues. However, the other two cases settled so only this case was dealt with at the hearing. The case was heard on 6 and 8 July 2010.
Background
The Defendants entered into a CCA Regulated agreement with the Claimant. They also took out a single premium PPI policy with one of the Claimant’s associated companies. This was financed by the Claimant and was repayable over the same period as the loan and at the same interest rate of the loan. The Defendants did not keep up their monthly payments and the Claimant brought the current proceedings. This was defended on the basis that the Defendants alleged they were told that the bank would not grant the loan unless they took out PPI and the PPI was therefore compulsory. The Court found in favour of the bank on the basis that the PPI was not compulsory. It is a very useful Judgment which sets out detailed guidance for situations in which PPI is found to be compulsory.
Key points from the Judgment were:

• Aggressive sales policies, providing incentives to employees to sell PPI and providing incentives to customers to purchase PPI do not automatically make PPI compulsory. On the facts here, the PPI was not held to be compulsory even though:
  • bank employees were incentivised to sell PPI as sales were linked to their monthly targets;
  • the bank’s internal guidance stated that employees should try to ‘overcome objections’ made by customers to purchase PPI but not to insist on it.
  
  
• If lower rates of interest are only offered on the condition that PPI is taken out, the PPI will be considered compulsory in relation to that agreement
  • on the facts here, the bank’s policy was to lower the rate of interest to incentivise customers to take out PPI. If the customer then decided against taking out PPI, the bank employee could not increase the rate of interest to reflect this - they had to offer the lower rate without the requirement for the customer to take out PPI;
  
  
• The decision as to whether PPI is considered compulsory will depend on the individual facts of each case. This will override any internal guidance of the bank regarding the issue;
• The existence of an option to cancel a PPI policy does not mean that the PPI is not compulsory. This disagreed with a previous County Court decision which stated that where a PPI policy could be cancelled without the borrower incurring any fee, it could not be said that the PPI was a charge for credit;
• If an agreement is worded such that the PPI is referred to as credit when it is in fact a charge for credit, the fact that the amount of credit is set out separately to the amount for the PPI does not invalidate the argument that the credit is misstated;
• Breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business (“ICOB”) rules will give rise to a claim for breach of statutory duty;
• The obligation under ICOB to take reasonable steps to ensure that a PPI product is suitable will be breached regardless of the bank’s policy if the employee in the individual circumstances did not take reasonable steps.

This Judgment is useful in clarifying a number of issues which are widely raised in PPI claims. Whilst each case will be decided on its own individual facts, it is helpful that it has been clarified that widespread sales practices, employee incentivisation and offering incentives to customers for taking out PPI do not automatically render the PPI compulsory. In this case, an ex-employee of the bank who sold the loan and PPI to the Claimants provided a Witness Statement and gave evidence at the hearing. The Witness’ evidence was given significant weight by the judge and her evidence significantly affected the result. As such, lenders would be advised to try to obtain witness evidence from employees or ex-employees who facilitated loans which are in dispute to give weight to their arguments.
Given the usefulness of this Judgment, we have prepared a more detailed note on the issues. Please contact Chris Busby if you would like a copy of this note.

[NLP]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

What would a private solicitor use if the FSA does not do this? Are they then looking for an injunction so that the bank follow it?

Again, unless there is a solictor on here... maybe you could phone one.

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Not sure if there are any sols on here, maybe you could phone one and ask them!

Hang on, this is YOUR argument, ie use a private solicitor/CMC(reputable) yet you have no idea of the legal argument if there is one and neither do I.

Marshallka or Di30, you guys wanna help out both NLP and myself?

[marshallka]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Are you talking PPI or Uneforcables?

Both, they couldn't even get the PPI back TBH for folks.....in fact they actually helped the ones they were slating in the end. They held claims back (telling people they were working on them!!) and then gave up and gave them back their files. Lots (allegedly this is from posts) still waiting now for their agreements back etc...

You do have to be careful as not to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

lol I said a couple times now, UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS (think NEMO)

or as Eversheds put it ref Speak v Blackhorse

Compulsory Policies; Misrepresentation; ICOB and Unfair Relationships

[NLP]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Hang on, this is YOUR argument, ie use a private solicitor/CMC(reputable) yet you have no idea of the legal argument if there is one and neither do I.

Marshallka or Di30, you guys wanna help out both NLP and myself?

No it's not my argument, if you read all my posts you would have seen me say i cannot say too much right now, but there are big moves underway to take advatnage of a situation IF the FSA don't.

I never once stated i am a solicitor or knew the exact arguments they will use... did i?

[marshallka]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Hang on, this is YOUR argument, ie use a private solicitor/CMC(reputable) yet you have no idea of the legal argument if there is one and neither do I.

Marshallka or Di30, you guys wanna help out both NLP and myself?

help out doing what?

[NLP]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

help out doing what?

lol, i think there are dark forces EVERYWHERE!

Trust nobody, there are always ulteror motives i sense!

Amethyst seems to have "helped out" twice already.

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

another article about a PPI court case (another negative one though i'm afraid but details the argumentS)

Claimants Saddled with Further Hurdles:
Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse
Limited
INTRODUCTION
District Judge Marston, sitting in the Worcester County Court, handed down judgment on Monday in
Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2010], Unreported, 19 July 2010 which determined two
issues often argued in payment protection insurance litigation: firstly, whether the lender complied
with the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules (“ICOB”); secondly, whether a single premium
payment protection insurance policy (the “Policy”) creates an unfair relationship.
THE FACTS
Mr & Mrs Harrison were a married couple. In 2003 they applied for, and obtained, a second
mortgage with Black Horse Limited (“Black Horse”). In 2006 they applied for, and obtained, further
credit from Black Horse and repaid the first agreement. This later agreement (the “Loan”) was for
£60,000 meaning the agreement was not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA
1974”). Mr & Mrs Harrison also opted to take further credit of £10,200 to pay the premium for the
Policy. The Loan was repaid in March 2009.
THE ISSUES
The Court had to determine the following issues:
1 Whether Black Horse had complied with ICOB by ensuring:
1.1 the Policy was suitable; and
1.2 it did not receive an inducement which conflicted to a material extent with its duty to Mr &
Mrs Harrison.
2 Whether the existence of ICOB prevents a borrower alleging that there is an unfair relationship
within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974.
3 Whether there was an unfair relationship between the parties.
ICOB
Lenders will be familiar with Mr & Mrs Harrison’s allegation that the Policy was unsuitable and the
amount of the commission from the insurer for selling the Policy (which was 87% of the premium)
meant Black Horse received an inducement conflicting to a material extent with its duty to Mr & Mrs
Harrison. They also argued in their Particulars of Claim, although gave contrary evidence at trial,
that they were told that the Policy was compulsory.
After hearing evidence, District Judge Marston decided that:
• Black Horse did take Mr & Mrs Harrison through its standard sale procedure and issued
standard documentation including a demands and needs questionnaire, the policy
documentation and a key facts document;
July 2010
Commercial & Dispute Resolution
“Lenders will
be pleased that
the County
Court adopted
a common
sense approach
to issues often
raised in payment
protection
insurance
litigation.”
• the Policy was straight-forward and the questions asked were “precisely on the points”;
• Mr & Mrs Harrison were able to read the documents at their leisure and were not under pressure to sign the agreement. They also received notification that the Policy was optional and it could be cancelled in 30 days;
• a monthly policy would have given the same cover as the Policy but at a cheaper price;
• the Policy did not provide good value for money compared with a monthly policy and a term of five years, compared to a loan term of twenty-three years, was too short;
• Mr & Mrs Harrison had the choice whether or not the enter into the Policy and they chose to do so;
• the role of consumer law is, as Lady Justice Hale said in The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc & Others [2009] UKSC 6, to “give the consumer an informed choice rather than to protect the consumer from making an unwise choice”;
• Black Horse’s procedures met the strict requirements of ICOB.
ICOB OR UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP?
Black Horse argued that because Mr & Mrs Harrison had made a claim under ICOB, the unfair relationship provisions could not be invoked. The advantage of pursuing a claim under the unfair relationship provisions rather than ICOB is the reversed burden of proof. District Judge Marston, after considering the submissions and the lack of any authority, rejected Black Horse’s argument and decided that the unfair relationship argument could be considered in addition to a claim under ICOB.
UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP
Readers of previous reviews will be aware that Section 140A of the CCA 1974 applies to both regulated and unregulated agreements. It essentially gives the Court a largely unlimited power to do whatever it thinks fit to do justice between the parties. In this case, Mr & Mrs Harrison argued that the relationship was unfair because the premium was 17% of the credit, Black Horse received a commission of 87% of the premium from the insurer, Black Horse did not tell them about the extent of the commission and the Policy lasted for just over a fifth of the loan term. Black Horse argued that it had complied with ICOB, had provided an optional product, the insurer sets the terms of the Policy and Mr & Mrs Harrison should have realised that a commission would be payable by the insurer.
District Judge Marston, after taking these factors into account, decided that there was not an unfair relationship between the parties. It was noted that the claims were over the principle terms agreed between the parties: Mr & Mrs Harrison had the choice (and no pressure was put on them to enter into the agreement) and whilst, in hindsight, that choice may not have been the best one, it was theirs to make.
COMMENT
It is pleasing that the Court, by dismissing Mr & Mrs Harrison’s claim, has taken a robust stance on issues which often arise in payment protection insurance litigation. In particular, the fact that Black Horse provided standard documentation to Mr & Mrs Harrison before entering into the Loan, provided evidence on its sales procedure by a team leader and gave Mr & Mrs Harrison time to consider the documents stood it in good stead. The Court also noted that a number of allegations made in the Particulars of Claim were not, in fact, correct.
The Court’s approval of Lady Justice Hale’s comment that consumer law’s role is to give the consumer an informed choice rather than to protect the consumer from making an unwise choice must surely be right. Time will no doubt tell whether other decisions adopt a similarly pragmatic and sensible conclusion.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

well, it looks like the pro-CMC -v- FOS wrestling competition is headed for a FOS win.


All I want to know is whether my own PPI claim against Egg is going to be held up. Anyone out there know if Egg are stalling on PPi claims?

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

lol three times now. Nats you can read Nemo (PPI unfair relationship) as its up in VIP case Law, and that WAS a positive one.

[NLP]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

well, it looks like the pro-CMC -v- FOS wrestling competition is headed for a FOS win.


All I want to know is whether my own PPI claim against Egg is going to be held up. Anyone out there know if Egg are stalling on PPi claims?

I think its a 3 way fight

CMC v Sols v FOS
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

well, it looks like the pro-CMC -v- FOS wrestling competition is headed for a FOS win.


All I want to know is whether my own PPI claim against Egg is going to be held up. Anyone out there know if Egg are stalling on PPi claims?

Good luck, keep an open mind at all times.

Always find the best solution to your problem.