ppi scandal, it's not over yet!

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.

So, why do you think this applies to mortgages where adding the PPI to the debt doesn't happen?

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.

Which doesnt happen with mortgages.

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.

MCOB does not cover insurance. The FSA started covering insurance in January 2005. The case does not mention MCOB. It mentions ICOB and a breach under ICOB.

Like any contract, a mortgage or charge is at risk of being rescinded if there has been misrepresentation.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.

The lender would not have a clue what insurances were put in place by an intermediary. So, whether the insurances were right or wrong, there is no way a lender would know.

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.

You can still buy MPPI today. Nothing unfair about it. And most people will look to cover their mortgage with life assurance and/or income protection. And it is quite sensible that they do.

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.

Rubbish. EVery consumer..... what planet are you on.

Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd relied on a failure in the sales process that had a phone recording that clearly showed the breach of ICOBS 2.2.3(1). ICOBS covers insurance business that is not life assurance business (so that eliminates life assurance and income protection). It also means it was a post-regulation sale (confirmed as 17th October 2005). There is no reference to MCOB in the court case records. The case won because the costs were not correctly given at the point of sale. They were misled. This created a breach of ICOB.

You seem to have jumped to a lot of assumptions by including products that are not referred to in the court case and dont fall under the same rulebook that was used in the court case.

I am not wrong.

yes you are.

Seems to be a lot of people on here posting in favour of and in support of the Banks and financial service providers.

Nowhere on this thread does that appear to be the case. The responses are pointing out flaws in your assumptions. That does not equate to supporting the banks.

As regards vicarious liability and accessory liable, even in a case where the lender did not know that his agent sold ppi to the consumer, the princples confirm the lender's liability for that sale of ppi.

No they dont as it means the insurance was never built into the debt. So, the debt was not increased and no interest was charged.

Please explain how a court case that found one seller in breach of ICOBS equates to including products that do not fall under ICOBS?
And how all consumers will get refunded because one seller did not correctly follow ICOBS?