New Post Advanced Search

ppi scandal, it's not over yet!

20 replies 2.9K views
The_MouldThe_Mould Forumite
24 posts
The circumstances of the case of Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504, might apply to you. This is a ppi claim where the Claimant knew there was ppi on the loan, the details of the ppi were set out in documents provided by Central Capital to the Claimant which contained a complete breakdown of the loan and the ppi.

However, the Court of Appeal Held that the ppi was wrongly sold and ordered Central Capital to refund the whole of the ppi to the Claimant.

If you lodged your ppi complaint to your creditor before the 29 August 2019, then the limitation period for your claim began to run as of 29 August 2019, meaning that if the creditor messes you about (to put it mildly) you can issue a court claim against him within 6 years from that date.

If the Figurasin case does not apply to your ppi claim, then don’t despair, because:

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, make all people aware that if ppi was sold to you in relation to your loans, whether the loan was for a loan, credit card, car finance or a mortgage, if the documents to your loan agreement do not make any reference to the ppi, then it is more likely than not that the cost of the ppi has been concealed in the loan/mortgage advanced to you.

If, upon perusing your loan/mortgage documents, you find that the details of the ppi are not set out therein, then you have a right to bring a claim for restitution against the creditor for reason of concealment, and your claim is not statute barred, because s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides:

Limitation Act 1980 Section 32
32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.
(1)Subject to subsection (3) subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—
(a)the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b)any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c)the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
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.

If the ppi has been concealed by the creditor in the loan advanced, this amounts to a breach of duty and concealment of that breach, s.32(2) of the 1980 Act provides:

"For the purpose of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty".

Also, s.32(1) of the 1980 Act provides:

"References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant's agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent".

So if the creditor’s agent sold the ppi, the creditor is liable.

The creditor/mortgage provider will have paid the full amount of the cost of the ppi either to his agent or directly to the insurance company, and then concealed that payment in the loan/mortgage etc.

You should have a Certificate of insurance for the ppi, this document sets out the details of the cover, i.e. Accident, Sickness, Unemployment and/or Life and Income Protection Insurance, it also sets out the maximum benefit period and the sum amount of cover etc.

The Certificate will detail who effected the policy (ppi), who the underwriters are etc.

Pull out all of your documents relating to the loan agreement and methodically and meticulously check all your documents to see if the ppi was concealed in the loan advance.

If the above circumstances apply to you, then you are entitled to have the loan/mortgage etc. unwound so that you are put back in the position you would have been in before the concealment and breach of duty, in other words, you are entitled to repayment of all sums paid by you under the agreement, not just repayment of the ppi.

On the other hand, even if you did know there was ppi on the loan, you can rely upon the Figurasin case (above) for your claim, and you can also rely upon the Plevin case.

In my opinion, I don’t agree with the label “mis-sold ppi”, I am of the opinion in my mind that the creditors and their agents deliberately and dishonestly sold these insurance policies in the knowledge that they were wholly insufficient and worthless to their customers in relation to the amount being borrowed and the length of the loan agreement.

The creditors and their agents unjustly enriched themselves by their wrongful selling of these insurance policies.

Kind regards

The Mould
«1

Replies

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    0 posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    MoneySaving Newbie
    Thanks for your contribution to the forum.
  • SonOfSonOf Forumite
    2.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, make all people aware that if ppi was sold to you in relation to your loans, whether the loan was for a loan, credit card, car finance or a mortgage, if the documents to your loan agreement do not make any reference to the ppi, then it is more likely than not that the cost of the ppi has been concealed in the loan/mortgage advanced to you.

    I would disagree with that assement.

    PPI is not built into mortgages. It is standalone. It would not appear on the offer letters. Plus, most mortgages prior to 2008 were not regulated under the CCA but under MCOB. So, you cant use the CCA argument.

    Also, this is a niche case as mainstream banks did show PPI on the agreements and had a different version of the CCA agreement for those with PPI vs those that did not.
    You should have a Certificate of insurance for the ppi, this document sets out the details of the cover, i.e. Accident, Sickness, Unemployment and/or Life and Income Protection Insurance, it also sets out the maximum benefit period and the sum amount of cover etc.

    Life assurance and income protection policies are standalone and exempt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    0 posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    MoneySaving Newbie
    SonOf wrote: »
    I would disagree with that assessment.
    Reading through the OP's posting history will quickly give you a flavour of what to expect.

    Do not engage.
  • Consumers paid for the ppi by way of their payments made to their creditors under the loan agreements.

    Mortgages are not covered by the CCA 1974 and I'm not talking about the Act.

    ppi caused the consumer the burden of additional non-optional borrowing for the purpose of putting the insurance company in advance of the money that the ppi policy cost.

    The creditor paid the full amount of the ppi to the insurance company, the consumer did not, because the cost of the ppi was added onto the amount being borrowed, often without the consumers knowledge.

    Bully boy comments and slating remarks will not be replied to.

    The Mould
  • ppi has been concealed in mortgages, ppi was a condition that the consumer was told he had to have otherwise no mortgage will be provided.

    The Mould
  • antrobusantrobus Forumite
    17.4K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The_Mould wrote: »
    ....
    The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, make all people aware that if ppi was sold to you in relation to your loans, whether the loan was for a loan, credit card, car finance or a mortgage, if the documents to your loan agreement do not make any reference to the ppi, then it is more likely than not that the cost of the ppi has been concealed in the loan/mortgage advanced to you....

    If that's the purpose of this thread, why begin with the case of Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504. which turned on a misleading phone call, and involved no concealment at all?

    I think you are very confused.
    Reading through the OP's posting history will quickly give you a flavour of what to expect.

    Do not engage.

    Spoilsport.:)
  • antrobusantrobus Forumite
    17.4K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The_Mould wrote: »
    ...
    The creditor paid the full amount of the ppi to the insurance company, the consumer did not, because the cost of the ppi was added onto the amount being borrowed, often without the consumers knowledge.....

    Credit card PPI was charged as a separate line on the monthly statement; Mortgage PPI was almost exclusively a separate policy with its own DD.

    You are simply wrong.
  • SonOfSonOf Forumite
    2.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    ppi has been concealed in mortgages, ppi was a condition that the consumer was told he had to have otherwise no mortgage will be provided.

    No they were not. The vast majority of MPPI was standalone monthly premium with its own direct debit.
    Mortgages are not covered by the CCA 1974 and I'm not talking about the Act.

    Yet that is the act the courts rely on when considering the debts you are referring to.
    ppi caused the consumer the burden of additional non-optional borrowing for the purpose of putting the insurance company in advance of the money that the ppi policy cost.

    Not on mortgages it didnt.
    The people who are not in the know, will have to wait the outcome of case on-going in the court.
    Seeing as you are mistaken on mortgages, life assurance and income protection we cant really say that you are in the know either.
  • AnotherJoeAnotherJoe Forumite
    18.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The_Mould wrote: »
    ppi has been concealed in mortgages, ppi was a condition that the consumer was told he had to have otherwise no mortgage will be provided.

    The Mould


    You contradicted yourself within a sentence of just 25 words, a remarkable feat.
    - it was concealed whilst the consumer was told they needed it ????
  • Let me clarify the reason I cited the Figurasin case, it is because many people might not know of this authority on ppi.

    I qualified my citing of the authority with my words I put before the case name and my words I put after the case name. I repeat below what I said:

    “The circumstances of the case of Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504, might apply to you”.

    I also said “If the Figurasin case does not apply to your ppi claim, then don’t despair, because:”

    I then referred to circumstances where the ppi has been concealed in the loan/mortgage advance, and I quoted s.32 Limitation Act 1980.

    The consumer was told he had to have ppi cover, but he did not know it generated the burden of additional non-optional borrowing, the consumer did not know that the creditor paid the full amount of the ppi over to the insurance company and then added that payment onto the loan.

    The consumers were not told and not informed that they would be borrowing extra money from the creditor to pay the cost of the ppi, who then handed over, advanced the full payment to the insurance company, and that the consumer would be paying for that advance payment for the duration of the agreement plus interest.

    The creditor deducted the full ppi cost from the loan amount and paid it to the insurance company before he released the funds to the consumer, the consumer was not aware of this.

    There is no contradiction on my part on this point.

    If the creditor’s agent, the intermediary, sold the ppi, the creditor is liable in accordance with the principles vicarious liability and accessory liability.

    It is a fact and a settled reality of law that millions of consumers were wrongly sold ppi policies.

    The way in which the creditors and their agents sold the ppi policies to the consumers amounts to a tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and conspiracy to defraud under common law, and such wrongful conduct has caused damage and economic loss to the consumers.

    Private persons (including the borrower) who have had ppi sold to them by the mortgage provider or his agent may bring an action for damages for losses arising as a result of a breach by an authorised person of the FSA's Mortgage Conduct of Business rules.

    Like any contract, a mortgage or charge is at risk of being rescinded if there has been misrepresentation. In particular, it may be set aside if it can be shown that a misrepresentation was made or that the lender had actual, constructive or implied knowledge of the misrepresentation.

    Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 can also be relied upon by the consumer because the ppi and the way in which it was sold is manifestly unfair.

    As a consequence of the creditors and their agents wrongdoings on ppi, every consumer is entitled to restitution and have their agreement unwound, this is in addition to their entitlement to full refund of the ppi, plus interest.

    Damage to economic expectations in any form is sufficient to found a claim.

    Kind regards

    The Mould
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support