PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Tiggrae, Di needs to find out if they applied for this leave to court and if not then has she got them with this. Also if she has is it best to write a letter to them and state the legalities and that she will be taking this matter to the courts or does she have to give this information to the authorities for them to do it. She wants her money back and needs her next bullet. :mad:

What is the next thing would you say for her to do. How does she find out about this thing about "leave to court".

Are we even on the right track here

If this is a criminal offence then surely just another letter would do the trick???

di3004

Interesting read up that hun, the facts of this was interesting too.;)

The facts
At the time a company went into liquidation (the old
company), its directors were also directors of another
company (the phoenix company). The old company
(acting by its liquidator) sold its goodwill to the phoenix
company. The respondents were a factoring company
that had taken an assignment of debts owed to creditors
by the phoenix company. They commenced proceedings
claiming that the directors should be jointly and severally
liable for the debts of the phoenix company by virtue of
sections 216 and 217 of the Act. The respondents won at
first instance and the directors appealed.
Page 2
2
Phoenix provisions and rule 4.228
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, May 2007
Decision
The directors accepted that the phoenix company’s name
was a prohibited name within the meaning of the Act,
but, by virtue of notice given by the phoenix company
under rule 4.228 of the Rules, the relevant provisions
of sections 216 and 217 had been disapplied. The
respondents argued that notice under rule 4.228 could
only be given prospectively, ie in respect of a person who
was not yet a director of the new company. The directors
argued the opposite, ie that notice under rule 4.228 could
be given in respect of a person who was already a director
of the phoenix company.

marshallka

Di, will read that tomorrow as my eyes are shutting again. I hope you get them Di. I really do. Tiggrae may come back tomorrow with something lets hope or Tron_ess may help. :j

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, will read that tomorrow as my eyes are shutting again. I hope you get them Di. I really do. Tiggrae may come back tomorrow with something lets hope or Tron_ess may help. :j

lol just shortened that above.......:o lol.

Okay hun thank you so much yet again to you and Tiggrae.;) :beer: .

Have a good night hun catch ya tomorrow.

Di.
x

zeblet

Brief details of claim

I am claiming a refund of PPI payments made to Lloyds TSB from January 2005 to September 2007 for loan account ********. The poolicy was mis-sold to me as I was on long term sick leave when the loan was instigated and I was not told that any pre-existing medical conditions would make me ineligible to claim.
I now also need to say I was not told that depression did not apply either.

I was given a booklet with terms and conditions but as many others have admitted did not read and signed the PPI form there and then. the agent also knew I was on sick leave but I was not told of pre exixting conditions. I copied a POC from Reclaim Unfair charges website.


PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

The Defendant is a well-known xxxxx company in the United Kingdom. The Defendant also has offices and places of business throughout the world.

The Claimant has a xxx account number xxxxx (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Account”) with the Defendant which was opened during or around xx-xx-xx.

During the period between xx-xx-xx to xx-xx-xx, or thereabouts, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account, in respect of (“Charges”). The Defendant has also charged interest upon these charges once applied. (Amounts debited and mentioned in this paragraph are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Charges” and are detailed within Schedule A attached hereto).

The Claimant views the Charges as being unlawfully applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Charges were debited in accordance with the Terms & Conditions, which it appears to claim form part of an agreement between itself and the Claimant.

The Claimant was able to obtain complete details of the Charges by virtue of a Subject Access Request, served upon the Defendant, pursuant to s7 Data Protection let 1998.

On or about xx-xx-xx the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant asking for a refund of inter alia the Charges. In said letter the Claimant made various assertions and arguments to substantiate her/his request, quoting relevant sources of law and evidence. Claimant concluded therein that the Charges were levied to the Account by the Defendant.

Optional if applicable - The Claimant subsequently received a letter from the Defendant. Therein the Defendant informed the Claimant that the Charges would not be refunded.

A letter before action was sent on xx-xx-xx or thereabouts to the Defendant. The Claimant received a letter from the Defendant giving its “final response” to the claim, denying a refund of inter alia the Charges, to the Claimant.

Brief Outline of Claim

1. Claimant as part of her/his basis of claim advances that:

a. the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the Account;

b. (no signed copy of the original contract purported to exist between the parties hereto has been received by the Claimant despite requests for this. (this and the following clause may not be valid for your claim, remove if this is the case)

c. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, should find that such a contract existed between the parties hereto then the Charges are illegal relating to a breach of is a breach under Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 19.

e. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, finds that the Charges are a claim under the Misrepresentation Act being a false statement of fact, which induced the Claimant to enter into a contract thereby causing her loss (hereafter referred to as 'tortuous misrepresentation').

f. By virtue of s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, the Claimant suffered not only loss but the Defendant mis-sold the repayment protection.

2. In support of part of her/his basis of claim the Claimant contends and intends to prove that:

a. the Charges are:

i. Invalid;
ii. Unlawful;

b. all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties hereto, which purport to permit the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account, are unenforceable by virtue of:

i. the UTCCR;
ii. Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 19
iii. s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act
iv. the Unfair Contract Terms Act /977 (hereinafter referred to as the “UCTA’)
v. the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and
vi. the common law and;

UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACT REGULATIONS (S 2083/1999)

Any contract between the parties hereto falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the UTCCR as the Claimant could only be a consumer, within the meaning of the UTCCR, in relation to any contract between the parties hereto.

Regulation 5(l) of the UTCCR provides as follows: ‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall he regarded as unfair if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a sign unbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

Paragraph 1 to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” as being part of a indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which maybe regarded as unfair” (Regulation 5(5) UTCCR).

Paragraph 1(k) to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided” as being part of the “indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may he regarded as unfair”. The Terms & Conditions allow the Defendant to unilaterally alter the charges applied for “Unarranged Overdrafts”, “Unpaid Item(s)” and “Referral Charges”.

Regulation 8(l) of the UTCCR provides that: “. 1n unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.”

Accordingly, the Charges being disproportionate and punitive, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable by virtue of Regulations 5(l), 5(5) and 8(I), and paragraphs 1(e) and 1(k) of Schedule 2, all of the UTCCR.

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977

Any term of contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account is unenforceable by virtue of s4 UCTA. In this eventuality the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 64 of these particulars.

Specifically, any such term would represent an indemnity clause in a contract where one of the parties deals as a consumer. Consequently such a term would be unenforceable as it would be unreasonable.

Under s 1 of the UCTA the requirement of reasonableness is that “the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.”

COMMON LAW

The authorities and the facts mentioned hereinbefore make it abundantly clear that, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges against the Account, is a penalty clause and hence unenforceable at common law.

Established jurisprudence includes:
London North Securities Ltd v Mr & Mrs Meadows & Another
(Court of Appeal [2005] EWCA Civ 956) http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Cases/meadows.htm
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

Therefore the Claimants contends that:

3. The Claimant had a credit agreement XXXXXX ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx-xx-xx to (and closed on or around) xx-xx-xx.

4. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

5. The Claimant contends that:

a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made;
i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, they were not accepted. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to desperate times of the Claimant; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain.

ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was self employed at the time the agreement was allegedly made, the PPI would not have been valid and would not have covered the defendant in the event of unemployment.

b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of false information then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to fact.

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement) credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments

ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement) credit charges cannot be treated as credit

iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit

iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement).

DETAILS OF JUDGEMENT SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

6. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £xxxxx by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. The return of the amounts debited in respect of the Charges, as detailed in Schedule xx. The total sum whereof being £xxxx

b) ) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.
c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as proscribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £xxxxx

d) Any applicable court costs;
e) Interest of 8% pursuant to S69 County Courts Act per day thereafter, or part thereof at £xx.xx per day
f) Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

g) All default notices to be removed.

Statement of Truth

The Claimant believes that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.


SIGNED

tiggrae

zeblet wrote: »

Brief details of claim

I am claiming a refund of PPI payments made to Lloyds TSB from January 2005 to September 2007 for loan account ********. The poolicy was mis-sold to me as I was on long term sick leave when the loan was instigated and I was not told that any pre-existing medical conditions would make me ineligible to claim.
I now also need to say I was not told that depression did not apply either.

I was given a booklet with terms and conditions but as many others have admitted did not read and signed the PPI form there and then. the agent also knew I was on sick leave but I was not told of pre exixting conditions. I copied a POC from Reclaim Unfair charges website.


PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

The Defendant is a well-known xxxxx company in the United Kingdom. The Defendant also has offices and places of business throughout the world.

The Claimant has a xxx account number xxxxx (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Account”) with the Defendant which was opened during or around xx-xx-xx.

During the period between xx-xx-xx to xx-xx-xx, or thereabouts, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account, in respect of (“Charges”). The Defendant has also charged interest upon these charges once applied. (Amounts debited and mentioned in this paragraph are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Charges” and are detailed within Schedule A attached hereto).

The Claimant views the Charges as being unlawfully applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Charges were debited in accordance with the Terms & Conditions, which it appears to claim form part of an agreement between itself and the Claimant.

The Claimant was able to obtain complete details of the Charges by virtue of a Subject Access Request, served upon the Defendant, pursuant to s7 Data Protection let 1998.

On or about xx-xx-xx the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant asking for a refund of inter alia the Charges. In said letter the Claimant made various assertions and arguments to substantiate her/his request, quoting relevant sources of law and evidence. Claimant concluded therein that the Charges were levied to the Account by the Defendant.

Optional if applicable - The Claimant subsequently received a letter from the Defendant. Therein the Defendant informed the Claimant that the Charges would not be refunded.

A letter before action was sent on xx-xx-xx or thereabouts to the Defendant. The Claimant received a letter from the Defendant giving its “final response” to the claim, denying a refund of inter alia the Charges, to the Claimant.

Brief Outline of Claim

1. Claimant as part of her/his basis of claim advances that:

a. the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the Account;

b. (no signed copy of the original contract purported to exist between the parties hereto has been received by the Claimant despite requests for this. (this and the following clause may not be valid for your claim, remove if this is the case)

c. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, should find that such a contract existed between the parties hereto then the Charges are illegal relating to a breach of is a breach under Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 19.

e. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, finds that the Charges are a claim under the Misrepresentation Act being a false statement of fact, which induced the Claimant to enter into a contract thereby causing her loss (hereafter referred to as 'tortuous misrepresentation').

f. By virtue of s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, the Claimant suffered not only loss but the Defendant mis-sold the repayment protection.

2. In support of part of her/his basis of claim the Claimant contends and intends to prove that:

a. the Charges are:

i. Invalid;
ii. Unlawful;

b. all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties hereto, which purport to permit the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account, are unenforceable by virtue of:

i. the UTCCR;
ii. Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 19
iii. s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act
iv. the Unfair Contract Terms Act /977 (hereinafter referred to as the “UCTA’)
v. the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and
vi. the common law and;

UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACT REGULATIONS (S 2083/1999)

Any contract between the parties hereto falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the UTCCR as the Claimant could only be a consumer, within the meaning of the UTCCR, in relation to any contract between the parties hereto.

Regulation 5(l) of the UTCCR provides as follows: ‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall he regarded as unfair if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a sign unbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

Paragraph 1 to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” as being part of a indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which maybe regarded as unfair” (Regulation 5(5) UTCCR).

Paragraph 1(k) to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided” as being part of the “indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may he regarded as unfair”. The Terms & Conditions allow the Defendant to unilaterally alter the charges applied for “Unarranged Overdrafts”, “Unpaid Item(s)” and “Referral Charges”.

Regulation 8(l) of the UTCCR provides that: “. 1n unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.”

Accordingly, the Charges being disproportionate and punitive, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable by virtue of Regulations 5(l), 5(5) and 8(I), and paragraphs 1(e) and 1(k) of Schedule 2, all of the UTCCR.

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977

Any term of contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account is unenforceable by virtue of s4 UCTA. In this eventuality the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 64 of these particulars.

Specifically, any such term would represent an indemnity clause in a contract where one of the parties deals as a consumer. Consequently such a term would be unenforceable as it would be unreasonable.

Under s 1 of the UCTA the requirement of reasonableness is that “the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.”

COMMON LAW

The authorities and the facts mentioned hereinbefore make it abundantly clear that, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges against the Account, is a penalty clause and hence unenforceable at common law.

Established jurisprudence includes:
London North Securities Ltd v Mr & Mrs Meadows & Another
(Court of Appeal [2005] EWCA Civ 956) http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Cases/meadows.htm
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

Therefore the Claimants contends that:

3. The Claimant had a credit agreement XXXXXX ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx-xx-xx to (and closed on or around) xx-xx-xx.

4. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

5. The Claimant contends that:

a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made;
i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, they were not accepted. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to desperate times of the Claimant; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain.

ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was self employed at the time the agreement was allegedly made, the PPI would not have been valid and would not have covered the defendant in the event of unemployment.

b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of false information then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to fact.

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement) credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments

ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement) credit charges cannot be treated as credit

iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit

iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) (Consumer Credit Agreement).

DETAILS OF JUDGEMENT SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

6. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £xxxxx by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. The return of the amounts debited in respect of the Charges, as detailed in Schedule xx. The total sum whereof being £xxxx

b) ) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.
c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as proscribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £xxxxx

d) Any applicable court costs;
e) Interest of 8% pursuant to S69 County Courts Act per day thereafter, or part thereof at £xx.xx per day
f) Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

g) All default notices to be removed.

Statement of Truth

The Claimant believes that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.


SIGNED

errrm that's a claim for the refund of charges not PPI, no wonder the Judge was confused

even the bit about PPI doesn't look right - I don't think Section 75 of the CCA 74 applies here, I would suggest you use the link Marshallka gave earlier, apply it to your circumstances then re-post it on here for me to look at

zeblet

tiggrae wrote: »

can you put on here what you put on the POC

I have amended POC to the following :


Claim No: ***********


IN THE LOWESTOFT COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN: -

******************
and

LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC



_________________________________
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
________________________________



1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Lloyds TSB Bank PLC on ***** The account number is *******, which was a credit agreement with a total of £***** . I will refer to this as the “Agreement”.


2. The Agreement included Payment Protection Insurance (“PPI”) which was taken out at the same time.


3. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement, was only purchased as a result of pressure and misleading andr incorrect advice given by the “the Manager” employed by Lloyds TSB Bank PLC.

4. The Office of Fair Trading states that “PPI protects borrowers' ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be unable to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or unemployment.” The Claimant contends that the PPI sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements, and that both policies were missold.


5. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because the claimant was on long term sick leave at the time of signing the document and informed the member of staff at that time but was not informed that any pre-existing illness would not be covered by the policy. Also the claimant had previously suffered depression due to the loss of several very close relatives of which the staff member was aware and was not informed the policy did not cover such a condition.


6. The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to the Claimant by the Manager during the sales process, and that therefore [the company] failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.


7. The Claimant believes it is inconceivable that a person, occupying a management position within a multi-national company specialising in personal finance, would not have been given full training in the eligibility requirements for a product that provides a considerable boost to its profitability through commission and interest.


8. On the basis of this, and further contentions outlined below, the Claimant believes that the advice given by the Manager was in fact fraudulent, and therefore a breach of common law, in that the representation of the product’s suitability was either made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. I refer the court to the judgement given by Lord Herschell (Derry v Peak (1889) 14 App Cas 337).


9. The Claimant contends that the Manager was made fully aware of the employment positionandpre-existing conditionof the Claimant, and should have had the necessary training and experience to know that the policy was not suitable.


10. The Claimant also contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place to ensure that such errors, omissions and misrepresentations were noticed, and corrective action taken, and if there was no such system in place, then that should also be considered as a failure of Lloyds TSB bank PLC, to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.


11. The Claimant contends that it was never explained that the PPI would attract interest.

12. Notwithstanding that the forms were signed, and in any respect, the Claimant contends that there was an entitlement to expect that the advice and information given was true and honest, and that a reasonable level of care and skill would be given to ensure that the best interests of the customer were being met.



13. In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.


Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.


Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.


Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.


Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.


Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.


Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.


Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgmen




14. The Claimant seeks damages and other sums, as listed below, against the Defendant under Common Law, and/or section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Refund of PPI premiums paid £***** plus contractual interest.




The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.


Signed:


Date:


Please would you advise if this now ok. Thanks so much. I have to take it to court by 4 pm today. Thursday

pinknico

Morning Di and Marshallka, Good luck with your continued investigations today, I have been following the saga with much anticipation.
Its even made me forget my own claim for a while!:D

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Morning Di and Marshallka, Good luck with your continued investigations today, I have been following the saga with much anticipation.
Its even made me forget my own claim for a while!:D

Di's has made me forget mine too:eek: .
Mind you there is nothing i can do now as waiting to hear from FOS:D

marshallka

What are you going to do now Di.??

Is there any way you can find out about this "leave to court". Perhaps the liquidators might know.. I don't know or companies house etc. I would ring around and see what you can find out here. Tiggrae may be on later so hopefully she will have some suggestions.:D

I have checked the register at companies house for disqualified directors and they are not on it.

Info here
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/cddadd/cddadd.htm

Have you ever tried to make a claim from the liquidators?? I would ask them again if they have info of your account perhaps... Tell them they should have as its less than 6 years ago.