Direct Auto Finance PPI - Application to strike out

[trayday54]

Good morning, my husband is pursuing a claim against DAF. We put them on notice and followed pre action protocol. They responded in the expected manner, giving us the run around for months. We issued a small claim in September. In response they applied for the claim to be struck out as the claim was statue barred or in the alternative pre 2005.

We have just been notified by Nottingham County Court that the claim has been transferred to Bradford county Court. We're hoping that this is a good sign, perhaps that the DJ thinks they have a case to answer too. I'm looking forward to a trip to Bradford..

Seriously, does anyone have any experience, advice or comment please

[miliitant]

Re: Direct Auto Finance PPI - Application to strike out

so the ppi claim is from before 2005, please confirm. i take it they are saying they were not regulated and all that crap

can i have a copy of your particulars of claim please, you have my full attention on this

ppi claims do not become statute barred, its when you became aware of the mis-selling that counts

You were told the loan depended on purchasing payment protection
You were told you had to purchase PPI offered by the lender (no competition)
You were not told PPI was being added to your loan
The lender did not disclose conditions/exclusions/price clearly, if at all.
The lender did not interview you to see if you were eligible

It is, in my opinion, utter nonsense to reject a claim on the spurious grounds that the company was 'not regulated' at the time the insurance was taken out. Whether or not the company was regulated at the time, it was still an offence to commit fraud or to obtain pecuniary benefit by misrepresentation.


As for the matter of the Limitation Act 1980, the company seems either deliberately or negligently to have overlooked the provisions of section 32 (link) whereby :

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.


thanks to clever cloggs

[EXC]

Re: Direct Auto Finance PPI - Application to strike out

Good morning, my husband is pursuing a claim against DAF. We put them on notice and followed pre action protocol. They responded in the expected manner, giving us the run around for months. We issued a small claim in September. In response they applied for the claim to be struck out as the claim was statue barred or in the alternative pre 2005.

We have just been notified by Nottingham County Court that the claim has been transferred to Bradford county Court. We're hoping that this is a good sign, perhaps that the DJ thinks they have a case to answer too. I'm looking forward to a trip to Bradford..

Seriously, does anyone have any experience, advice or comment please

In my view acheiving success for a PPI mis-selling claim in court is very difficult, not least one that is pre 2005.

Firstly the general law is ill equiped to deal with the mischief of PPI mis-selling. The law simply wasn't designed to deal with it. This is why one rarely hears of a PPI claim going to court, let alone one winning.

Secondly it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't statute barred. Section 32 provides that:

''the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.''

I have highlighted the words in red because they are important. It's not when you discovered the mistake but when you could or should have done. In the case of Holyoak v Lloyds TSB the judge found that by simply reading the documentation supplied at the time of the sale, the claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake. See case study attached.