1990s PPI Claim Problems

dazza12

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I don't have time just now to search for the figures, but Dunstonh is online and may be able to provide more authoritative information.

I'll save you the time - the data although available is not detailed enough to provide reliable figures, bearing in mind the various routes that can be taken depending on the argument used for the complaint. It also won't indicate where a case didn't reach the hearing due to a settlement being reached prior to the hearing date.

-taff

In your case no, but in this case, the slim option that magpiecottage outlined also concerned 14 and the implication from your post was that you were in the same position as the OP with regards to the company not being regualted and the underwiters dissolved but that your complaints were being looked at.

[Deleted User]

dazza12 wrote: »

It also won't indicate where a case didn't reach the hearing due to a settlement being reached prior to the hearing date.

But, as you say, because there are no records of such out-of-court settlements, information about them is only anecdotal.

I'd still say the court route is a gamble not worth the risk of possibly having to pay the other side's costs

dazza12

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

But, as you say, because there are no records of such out-of-court settlements, information about them is only anecdotal.

I'd still say the court route is a gamble not worth the risk of possibly having to pay the other side's costs

The issue I took is that you said that the 'vast majority' would fail. Some people will see you as an authority on the subject and will believe you to be correct about these odds. The reality is that the 'vast majority' don't fail, but neither do the vast majority win. It's somewhere in between.

By all means warn about the pitfalls, but don't skew things to make it look worse than it actually is.

sava05

Good one Dazza

[Deleted User]

dazza12 wrote: »

Some people will see you as an authority on the subject and will believe you to be correct about these odds. The reality is that the 'vast majority' don't fail, but neither do the vast majority win. It's somewhere in between.

Conversely, others may see you as such an authority but this is just a discussion forum in which anyone can post.
My comments were based entirely on what I have read, but I haven't researched the subject and nor do I intend to. My own PPI complaint was successfully concluded without recourse to court or even FOS.

Anyway, I've really run out of time now...

dunstonh

I have seen some successes in court cases reported in the media. However, the majority do appear to fail. Even Black Horse who had a 99% uphold rate at the FOS won in court. Some firms deal with the "complaint" under the FSA complaints process at the same time and settle on that basis therefore preventing them going to court.

The FSA complaints process is far more consumer friendly and puts more onus on the firm. Courts put more onus on the individual making the claim to provide evidence.

Barnes vs Black Horse Limited saw the claim that Mr Barnes had been induced to enter into the agreement by way of a negligent mis-statement;
breach of the ICOB Rules and a consequential claim under s.150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and unfair relationship under s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Mr Barnes therefore claimed for the return of the monies paid for the PPI plus interest. His evidence was that he had “just glanced” at the agreement prior to signature.

The judge found that in his view, it was “inconceivable” that Mr Barnes would have taken out a loan that was for £1,000 more than the price of the
car he was purchasing, and not queried what this additional money was for. Accordingly, the judge did not accept Mr Barnes’ evidence and found that the finance agreement that he signed reflected precisely the arrangement that had been agreed with Motor Nation.

In dealing with the question of a breach of ICOB, HHJ Gregory had to first determine whether Motor Nation could be regarded as Black Horse’s agent. Following the settled law in this area, he determined that this was not the case, and that Motor Nation had simply been acting as an intermediary. On that basis, the ICOB Rules would have no application as they apply only to the insurance intermediary in contact with the customer. As Black Horse had not been in contact with Mr Barnes, they could not be liable for any alleged breach of ICOB.

Finally, HHJ Gregory had to deal with the question of unfair relationship. Given his previous finding that there was no negligent mis-statement and no breach of ICOB, the claim for an unfair relationship was also dismissed. HHJ Gregory made clear that following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrison v Black Horse, he was not required to look at the commission arrangements or the price of the policy; and therefore there was no basis for a finding of unfairness.

There is a link on that one here: http://www.mablaw.com/2011/06/10250/

The courts also put a stay on PPI claims to await the supreme court decision on Barnes vs Black Horse and Mcilquham vs black horse. Harrison v Black Horse had already failed and come to an end.

The legal position post-Harrison
Given that the appeal to the Supreme Court has been withdrawn, the Court of Appeal’s decision now remains the leading authority for unfair relationship cases. In the PPI arena, this means in practice as follows:
A failure to disclose the existence of or level of commission will not automatically create an unfair relationship.
Any claim that the PPI was expensive or available more cheaply elsewhere will not by itself create an unfair relationship. Further, if the seller of the PPI was subject to ICOB or ICOBS (Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook) then it was only obliged to advise on the product sold. It was not obliged to provide advice on whether cheaper policies were available elsewhere in the market place.
If the lender or insurance intermediary has complied with ICOB or ICOBS then the court will not look to impose an unfair relationship. In such circumstances it will be very difficult for a borrower to succeed.
The unfair relationship test within section 140 of the Act requires the court to look at the lending relationship between the parties as a whole, and not just the terms of the agreement.
For a claim based on the mis-sale of PPI to succeed, the borrower must be able to show that he has suffered loss as a result of the actions of the lender or intermediary. For example, in Langley v Paragon Personal Finance Limited & Central Capital Limited, although the court found that the intermediary had made a misrepresentation to the borrowers, they had not relied on this and it did not alter the course of action that they would have taken and therefore no loss could be attributed to it.

brown1950

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

But, as you say, because there are no records of such out-of-court settlements, information about them is only anecdotal.

I'd still say the court route is a gamble not worth the risk of possibly having to pay the other side's costs

Paying the other side's costs in the small claims court (£10,000 or less)
does not apply. If you lose in the small claims track you lose your own
court costs and possibly pay the other sides reasonable travel costs.

[Deleted User]

brown1950 wrote: »

If you lose in the small claims track you lose your own court costs and possibly pay the other sides reasonable travel costs.

Even if it that's true, it's still a gamble I wouldn't take...