Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

[firstplus ripoff]

Hi advice required on Misrepresentation Act 1967 and an ongoing ppi claim. My understanding of this law is that it is not valid in Scotland. I have read that it would be covered under common law in Scotland. Any advice welcome. For clarity the loan agreement was Non Regulated Scotland. And if i have to go to court does it have to be in England or Scotland Thanks in advance.

[di30]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Hi there

Wonder if Bill will know more about this issue? Because I am really not certain on this one..........sorry.

[Bill-K]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Hi FP Ripoff. As Di knows, I'm an English jerk living in Scotland. Usually, in the loan agreement small print, it will say that English (or maybe Scottish) Law applies to any implementation of the agreement. I'm no legal expert on this, but because I am more conversant with English small claims, I have always used the English system where possible.

My understanding is that - if the Defendant (or Defender) has offices in England as well as Scotland, then the Claimant (or Pursuer) can choose where to lodge their claim - and thus which law applies. However, if you are the Defendant, then I'm not 100% sure that you get that choice, as I've never had to do that. My belief, though, is that you can choose to adopt the law that exists in the country of your residence, or the law that exists in the country of the other party's residence.

These cross-border skirmishes are no easier now, than they were in Bill Wallace's day, it seems !!! Unless a more learnéd LB sassenach can advise here, then a good source of info is the Govan Law Centre.

Hope I've helped.

[firstplus ripoff]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Hi Bill. The ppi insurance is Firstplus branded ( same as loan ). loan and ppi sold through broker ( purple loans ). PPI policy states that parties are free to choose law applicable but insurers propose that agreement shall be governed by English law. Don't know if this means the sale of the policy or just the policy it's self. The reason i ask is chasing ppi claim against broker ( GE Money ). Expecting to have to go to court, which i am prepared to do, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation under 1967 act. Although i believe i could still claim fraudulent misrepresentation under Scottish common law. Is this right ?

[charitynjw]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, section 10
5.38 Section 10(1) reads as follows:
A party to a contract who has been induced to enter into it by
negligent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of another party to
the contract shall not be disentitled, by reason only that the
misrepresentation is not fraudulent, from recovering damages from
the other party in respect of any loss or damage he has suffered as a
result of the misrepresentation; and any rule of law that such
damages cannot be recovered unless fraud is proved shall cease to
have effect.
5.39 Unlike the 1967 Act, section 10 of the 1985 Act does not create a new statutory
liability. It simply abolished the previous common law rule in Manners v
Whitehead, which had denied the victim of a misrepresentation a remedy in delict
against the perpetrator unless the representation was fraudulent.54 Under section
10, the pursuer must still establish a case in negligence, which fundamentally
involves establishing that the defender has breached a pre-existing duty of care
owed to the pursuer.55 But where the pursuer and defender are parties to a
contract following upon the misrepresentation, this should not be problematic. If
the defender’s misrepresentation was made negligently and economic loss was
sustained because of it, a claim in delict will succeed.

Much more info & case law on
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...er_redress.pdf

[Bill-K]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Thanks Chas. I couldn't have answered that question, so I'm glad you did.

Before going to litigation, FP Ripoff, have you considered the FOS route or other alternatives ? I always recommend this as the first route to take with PPI claims, as it is cost-free and you are not bound by the findings, and still free to go through the courts if you wish.

[firstplus ripoff]

Re: Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ppi

Thanks for the reply folks. As GE only sold the ppi insurance to me in order to receive a commission i could go down this route. No attempt was made to check if the policy was suitable for me i was told it was compulsory for the loan. I also receive full wages when i am of sick. The FOS route is not an option as loan was taken out 2002, Purple loans ( now GE ) was not regulated. I have spoken to FOS and they say as much. Only other route is FLA. Truth is that they are only a trade body with no teeth. Any ruling is not binding on their members. I will probably complain to them but only to show i have exhausted my options before going to court. I did receive a final response from GE 3 days after i complained. They just gave me the brush off without investigating my complaint. Have written back and asked for a second opinion, as per their complaints procedure. Have told them that i intend to take them to court for fraudulent misrepresentation. I await their reply. Thanks again for your advice.