PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

[pompeyfaith]

Just been allerted to this report via google.

Anyone think of going the court route to seek compensation on a PPI missale will need to be very clear on there recollection of events leading to that sell.

Two cases here have been lost and I would imagine it will only be time before a case reaches the high court.

http://blog.rpc.co.uk/regulatory-law...-a-fos-hearing

Is there anywhere we can get hold of these judgments mentioned in this report?

Regards

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Copied from Legal Beagles:

Recent Decisions
There have been two recent judgments handed down after the judicial review. Firstly, District Judge Derbyshire handed down judgment on 6 May 2011 in Amanda Bishop v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (2011), Unreported, Reading County Court. Whilst the trial took place before judgment was handed down in the judicial review, District Judge Derbyshire reserved judgment and handed it down after the judicial review. Secondly, His Honour Judge Gosnell handed down judgment on 19 May 2011 in Cudahy & Liburd v Black Horse Limited (2011), Unreported, Leeds County Court. The trial took place after judgment in the judicial review and His Honour Judge Gosnell asked about the impact (if any) of the judicial review and Lloyds Banking Group’s provisioning announcement. In both cases, the consumers’ claims were dismissed and they were ordered to pay the lenders’ costs (including making an interim payment, in Cudahy, of £7,500).

In Bishop, District Judge Derbyshire decided that:
Despite being an “experienced borrower” with a “very good salary at the time of £60,000 odd”, Ms Bishop alleged that her agreement was unenforceable, the PPI was compulsory and there was an unfair relationship.
It was “not the case that she was dealing with a Bank employee who was a brash young salesman but rather a kindly old-style Bank Manager and Mr Burridge was thoroughly professional and experienced”.
Ms Bishop’s “recollection of events was at odds with the documentation”.

The financial implications were “clear from the documentation and that if she had read them it would have been clear to her and in particular the right to cancel”.
The fact that 65% of the PPI was kept by the Bank as commission “may have been a bad bargain” but there were “policy benefits”.

The facts were close to His Honour Judge Waksman QC’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB) and there was therefore no unfair relationship.

In Cudahhy, His Honour Judge Gosnell decided that:
Whilst Ms Liburd (who dealt with the lender’s salesperson) and Ms Ingham (the lender’s sales person) were honest witnesses, Ms Liburd’s recollection of the events were “sketchy”. Whilst this was not her fault, given the passage of time, the learned judge expressed surprise that Ms Liburd could not remember her past loans or explain the significant difference between her income stated in her sworn witness statement and the documents. By contrast, Ms Ingham was a “very straightforward and clear woman and a businesslike employee”. She was also praised for her “mastery” of the documents and explanation of the logs.
Ms Ingham followed the standard sales script which made it clear that the PPI was optional.

Ms Liburd’s decision to decline more expensive cover in favour of life cover (which was cheaper) was an instruction that she wanted PPI.

Because the loan was secured, the lender had to comply with Section 58(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This meant it had to post an advance copy of the documents and could not, for seven days after sending them, contact the borrowers. After this period finished, the lender sent signature copies of the documentation and could not, once again, contact the borrowers for another seven days after sending them. The mortgage deed was also witnessed by a third party, not the lender’s employee. The borrowers therefore had a long time to consider all of the documentation before entering into the agreement.

The lender was not required to assess the PPI’s cost because the borrowers did not tell the lender that it was relevant to their demands and needs. Even if the borrowers did, the learned judge followed His Honour Judge Waksman QC’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB). Because the lender only sold one policy, the effect of it doing so meant it only needed to consider the PPI’s costs against other policies that it sold (of which there were none) by virtue of ICOB 4.3.7(1)G. This would have been meaningless so there was no breach of ICOB.

The borrowers had “taken their eye off the ball” and may not “with the benefit of hindsight” have taken the PPI but they did so. They were not told the PPI was compulsory and all of the documentation explained its cost, its cover and the fact it was optional. It was not, in the learned judge’s view, Parliament’s intention to “protect people that did not exercise common sense”. It therefore followed that there was no unfair relationship.

Read more at: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in...... - Page 153 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Paul.]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

WEll each case turns on its own facts of course,

I took on the Link Financial limited in Devon a while back and won on the points that these people lost.

In most cases it really does come down to the preparation , a poorly prepared case will struggle from the outset.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

I took on the Link Financial limited in Devon a while back and won on the points that these people lost.

Moral of this story, get Paul to fight your corner

[Silverback]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Waksman!

Might have guessed.

Here's the Judgment:

Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB) (01 December 2010)

Silverback

[Paul.]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Waksman was banks Counsel, so that is why i think he favours the banks

[Silverback]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Waksman was banks Counsel, so that is why i think he favours the banks

That being the polite version!

Silverback

[Angry Cat]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Another with a feather in their cap!
And Re: MBNA:
Compound Interest | Cartoon Bankers

[Angry Cat]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Further to the above, some members will require legal advice about:
How to take their PPI cases to Court.

No doubt, I will be shot down in flames over this post!

[Paul.]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Another with a feather in their cap!
And Re: MBNA:
Compound Interest | Cartoon Bankers

I speak to Alex, he is a good bloke and a top lawyer in his field of expertise.

A good win he had there with that MBNA case, not as good as my one though lol

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Well to be honest I did enjoy watching his video blogs on LB as I thought he did give a legal view on matters which surely has to be welcomed, however he got slatted by a certain member over there and no longer posts on that site which is a shame I think.

[Angry Cat]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

I speak to Alex, he is a good bloke and a top lawyer in his field of expertise.

A good win he had there with that MBNA case, not as good as my one though lol

The case, brought a smile to my face also

[Paul.]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Well to be honest I did enjoy watching his video blogs on LB as I thought he did give a legal view on matters which surely has to be welcomed, however he got slatted by a certain member over there and no longer posts on that site which is a shame I think.

maybe when i speak to him next, i will mention this site to him and maybe he will start posting here instead.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

maybe when i speak to him next, i will mention this site to him and maybe he will start posting here instead

Paul,

What a fantastic idea and something I for one would welcome.

Regards

[landy_alert]

Re: PPI CASES THROUGH COURT

Me too - good idea Paul