Plevin not applicable to re-mortgages?

Is this the case?

Yes it is. Plevin has dates it does or does not apply.

And secondly, why would this render the PPI payments I had made prior to the re-mortgage as ineligible to be considered under the Plevin ruling as they were not sold under the MCOB?

Plevin was a ruling in court based under the consumer credit act. Mortgages have not always fallen "in scope" of the CCA.

Mortgages sold after 31st October 2004 are regulated mortgage contracts and do not fall under the consumer credit act.

Mortgages prior to that date were first charge residential mortgages there would have been considered to be exempt agreements under the CCA.

The FCA deemed that pre-regulation mortgages, whilst exempt, did fall under S.140A and within scope. Even though post-regulation mortgages were not. So, you have this before/after October 2004 position.

Duckstrel69 wrote: »

Thanks for that Dustonh. So just to check that I've understood you correctly, had I not have taken out the advance in 2006, would the PPI payments I made between 2000 and Oct 2004 fall under the scope of the Plevin ruling (under CCA)?

The guidance available doesnt appear to cover this particular scenario directly. However, my interpretation matches Lloyds providing certain things happened. The 2006 further advance reclassified the debt under MCOB (probably a new deal at the same time as borrowing more) and an adjustment made on the MPPI policy as well. So the borrowing/MPPI that was bought in 2000 was not in force in April 2008. What you had in 2008 is a result of what you did in 2006. Each mortgage deal you buy (i.e. 5 year fixed rate etc) is a new mortgage contract.

These things are open to interpretation at this stage. Not everything is black and white. The regulator is famous for leaving things a bit wishy washy and then following up with clarification later (often fining firms for interpreting it differently to what was intended). So, it may be worth going back to Lloyds and ask them why the payments from 2000 to 2006, which are in-scope of the plevin ruling are not being refunded. They should give a better explanation to you or they may decide that the interpretation is wrong and refund. There is no harm in asking.