consumer forums consumerforums Total Bank Charges Returned : £16595128 to 9717 people. The Consumer Forums  
Bank Charges Refunds Survey | 'Buddy' System | Get an email address | Site Map | Registration Problems | FAQ
CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right

These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and keeps this site free of third party adverts!

Small Claims Kit Small Claims Court Guide
**New Edition**
CallBurner - Skype
CallRecorder Review
Last Will & Testament Kit Fight a Motoring Ticket
 
Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here


UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki

N.B. Please note - due to postage costs these products are only available in the U.K.



Consumer Action Group envelope labels
You are part of a community of over 195,000 people.
Let your bank know that you won't give in.
Display one of our labels on your envelopes.
Full description here
Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels
£3.50 inc p&p





Reclaim the Right!
The Lawpack Small Claims Kit contains everything you need to get your bank charges refund. Sample forms, Instruction manual, template forms and an entire set of court forms in .PDF format on CDRom.

Just type in the details of your claim and print them out.


Reclaim the Right!


Sue your bank as often as you like with one Lawpack!!

With a Lawpack and Patricia Pearl’s book on Small Claims, you have everything you need to get your unfair bank charges refunded or assert other consumer rights.
(England & Wales only)

CAG Forum Users Price £11.99
(click image to buy)
Plus £1 P&P



Reclaim the Right!


New Edition
Small Claims Procedure by Judge Patricia Pearl
An excellent guide for the layperson
Not for use in Scotland
Read BF's Review Here




Stand up to Telephone Harassment

If you use Skype -
Record your phone calls with CallBurner
It's Hot!

Click below to download your
14 day trial copy
CallBurner
Skype CallRecorder download


Read the
Explanation and review here
£31.96 - includes 20% CAG discount
(normally £39.95)

We've managed to negotiate a discount for CAG Users on DIY 'Willpacks'


Click on the image to purchase a Wills kit - £12.99 + £1.00 pp

Remember...you can't take your reclaimed bank charges with you ;-)



Do your Internet search here



Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
Do your Internet search here:-
Come and chat with us here (NB: External site NOT affiliated with CAG)

  CAG Announcements
 
Welcome Guest
Please register
Registration is free
There are no charges for using any of the facilities of this website.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You will have to register before you can post. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You will also have to register to access our template letters and claims forms
registration is free
Are you being threatened over debts more than 6 years old?
This may be unfair
See our new Unfair Trading Guide
Bought an extended warranty?
Not satisfied?
The warranty may be an example of unfair trading
See our new Unfair Trading Guide
Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file?
Check it out
Are you a victim of unfair trading?
Check it out
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008
Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file?
Check it out
 
Bank Action Group Debt Action Group
 

Go Back   The Consumer Forums > The Consumer Forums
The Consumer Action Group
> Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) The misselling of Payment Protection Insurance is widespread, and believed to run into billions of pounds. This forum will help you to see if you have a valid claim for a refund, and guide you through the process.


Welcome to The Consumer Action Group

and
The Bank Action Group


Before beginning to claim your bank charges be sure to read the FAQ by clicking the link above. Read it carefully and also read as much of the forum material as you can manage before you start claiming your bank charges refund. You will have to register before you can post or view the materials which may assist you in reclaiming your penalty charges: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Understand what you are doing and you will be able to Reclaim the Right more effectively.

Why don't you come and introduce yourself in the Welcome section at the top of the forum. Then have a look around the rest of it.
Do not post or start claiming until you have read the entire FAQ section and step by step guides and you have a good basic idea of what to do and of the layout of the forum.
Good luck claiming your bank charges.
We strongly suggest that you register under a UserID and not your own name

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 22nd November 2007, 15:17   #1 (permalink)
alanfromderby
Site Team
 
alanfromderby's Avatar
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,284
alanfromderby has disabled reputation
Default Supporting Legislation

I have looked at some of the legal arguments over this issue, and my view is that section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, would cover the issue of PPI mis-selling.

In order to try and pull together a POC template, I would ask anyone with other thoughts to post them below.

I understand the reason for bringing in section 20 of the CCA in relation to additional credit charges and interest, however some users have used section 75 of the CCA - I am a little unclear as to the need for this in the light of the Sale of Goods and Services and the Misrepresenation Act, but I am open to persuasion.

Thanks.
__________________
Alan, Derby, UK.


Help keep this site open by buying one of these great resources:


Postage £1 - Delivery in the UK only.
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.

_________________________ _______

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
alanfromderby is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2007, 21:15   #2 (permalink)
ReasonableRon
Classic Account Customer
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 218
ReasonableRon Novitiate
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

I see on the Conkers website they have announced some sort of action in respect of a dozen test cases to try and set a precedent.

The problem with all of this is that there doesn't appear to be an obvious point of law upon which all cases can be categorised under, unlike the bank charges situation which relied on the simple rule that it was illegal to charge a 'penalty' other than reasonable costs. Each PPI case could depend on a unique set of individual circumstances (and available evidence) and I therefore believe will be a tougher nut to crack.

Witness also that banks appear to be much more eager to defend these cases than was witnessed with bank charges......
ReasonableRon is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2007, 21:41   #3 (permalink)
ChloeJane
Platinum Account Customer
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

I agree with what you have written though unsure if it would be misrepresentation or actual fraud.

The reason that I say this is that the Fraud Act of 2006 link here changed many facets of various policies and I would have thought it Fraud for the following reasons;

1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).

So my thoughts are while it is misrepresentation there is intent. This would be plausible in arguement as there is financial gain.

It is still a civil offence and encompasses the many reasons that PPI is sold. Often it is implied that it is part of the loan, and misrepresented for what it actually offers a person and is for their gain and causes loss to another by virtue of the false representation.

For example - if you are told it is part of the condition of the loan.

Your thoughts? I just thought it encompasses it all, rather than using the Misrepresentation act and having to add the CCA and is clear cut for pleadings and doing templates.

Thoughts????
ChloeJane is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2007, 21:48   #4 (permalink)
hellhasnofury
Platinum Account Customer
 
hellhasnofury's Avatar
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChloeJane View Post
I agree with what you have written though unsure if it would be misrepresentation or actual fraud.

The reason that I say this is that the Fraud Act of 2006 link here changed many facets of various policies and I would have thought it Fraud for the following reasons;

1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).

So my thoughts are while it is misrepresentation there is intent. This would be plausible in arguement as there is financial gain.

It is still a civil offence and encompasses the many reasons that PPI is sold. Often it is implied that it is part of the loan, and misrepresented for what it actually offers a person and is for their gain and causes loss to another by virtue of the false representation.

For example - if you are told it is part of the condition of the loan.

Your thoughts? I just thought it encompasses it all, rather than using the Misrepresentation act and having to add the CCA and is clear cut for pleadings and doing templates.

Thoughts????
Hello Chloe,

Zootscoot put this information up in a sticky, your comments are appreciated

PPI Claims

Is there now a new thought on this????
hellhasnofury is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2007, 22:36   #5 (permalink)
ChloeJane
Platinum Account Customer
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

The Theft Act supports civil claims and is not just for criminal liability and criminal law.

Many of the acts, such as dishonesty and misrepresentation have come under the Fraud Act as the Law Society did in fact change various parts with the Fraud Act to encompass a much more vast set of offences that are both civil and criminal.

In doing so, the Fraud Act is now widely used for Civil offences and is a far greater scope to cover such situations as PPI. While this is only my opinion I have tabled it for discussion for PPI.

The Fraud Act would encompass all areas without the need as I stated, for any other legislation. The act of mis selling PPI is fraudulent as it is for gain and false representation of facts and law in essence. There is gain and there is loss and it is made with intent.

Just thought it a valuable arguement as it is now a much more fundamental arguement for false representation and is a much more updated law for definition with clear parameters.

Hence, re tabled as I have personally a case on the matter and saw PPI as a clear cut case of Civil Fraud. So will wait for Zoot to feedback and to add to my thoughts?

JUST A NOTE TO ADD

That the Civil Courts require only that on the balance of probability it was fraudulent and with a civil case in this area, does not require the level of evidence that is required for a criminal court.
ChloeJane is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2007, 22:54   #6 (permalink)
hellhasnofury
Platinum Account Customer
 
hellhasnofury's Avatar
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChloeJane View Post
The Theft Act supports civil claims and is not just for criminal liability and criminal law.

Many of the acts, such as dishonesty and misrepresentation have come under the Fraud Act as the Law Society did in fact change various parts with the Fraud Act to encompass a much more vast set of offences that are both civil and criminal.

In doing so, the Fraud Act is now widely used for Civil offences and is a far greater scope to cover such situations as PPI. While this is only my opinion I have tabled it for discussion for PPI.

The Fraud Act would encompass all areas without the need as I stated, for any other legislation. The act of mis selling PPI is fraudulent as it is for gain and false representation of facts and law in essence. There is gain and there is loss and it is made with intent.

Just thought it a valuable arguement as it is now a much more fundamental arguement for false representation and is a much more updated law for definition with clear parameters.

Hence, re tabled as I have personally a case on the matter and saw PPI as a clear cut case of Civil Fraud. So will wait for Zoot to feedback and to add to my thoughts?

JUST A NOTE TO ADD

That the Civil Courts require only that on the balance of probability it was fraudulent and with a civil case in this area, does not require the level of evidence that is required for a criminal court.
I do know of a couple of posters that quoted the fraud act in their poc and did amend it after advise, I do not know where the advise came from though. This was a few months ago, so maybe it could be considered valuable.
Many thanks for that Chloe, that does sound promising Will watch with interest.
hellhasnofury is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2007, 20:13   #7 (permalink)
alanfromderby
Site Team
 
alanfromderby's Avatar
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,284
alanfromderby has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

I can see how the Fraud Act would help in cases where the "fraud" occurred after 15th January 2007 (the date I believe the Act became law), however I don't see anything that would make it retrospective - or am I missing something?
__________________
Alan, Derby, UK.


Help keep this site open by buying one of these great resources:


Postage £1 - Delivery in the UK only.
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.

_________________________ _______

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
alanfromderby is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2007, 22:08   #8 (permalink)
ChloeJane
Platinum Account Customer
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

As you are taking your claim in the here and now, I see no reason why the legislation is not effective. The ACT I would have thought is relevant as despite the offence happening years ago, the act is relevant now and comes under what is current legislation.

I understand that it repealed various acts including that of misrepresentation so therefore would be the current legislation to use.

Yes No ? Input?
ChloeJane is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2007, 14:35   #9 (permalink)
shirleyc
Basic Account Customer
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Hello,
So am I understanding this right?(sorry im thick!)The Fraud Act should cover PPI mis-sold?If thats so couldn't you use same Act in S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non-compliance +CCA non-compliance

Last edited by shirleyc; 24th November 2007 at 19:06.
shirleyc is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2007, 15:36   #10 (permalink)
alanfromderby
Site Team
 
alanfromderby's Avatar
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,284
alanfromderby has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

We are moving off topic - I would suggest asking that question in the relevant forum (Data Protection Forum). However, please also bear in mind that we have conflicting views on whether the Fraud Act 2006 is relevant to PPI.
__________________
Alan, Derby, UK.


Help keep this site open by buying one of these great resources:


Postage £1 - Delivery in the UK only.
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.

_________________________ _______

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
alanfromderby is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2007, 15:42   #11 (permalink)
alanfromderby
Site Team
 
alanfromderby's Avatar
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,284
alanfromderby has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

There is a possibility that fraud could be cited - but without using the 2006 Act which I feel is not likely to be retrospective, and may not be relevant in the light of zootscoot's comments. In doing so, I would draw on the following caselaw:

Having now drawn attention, I believe, to all the cases having a material bearing upon the question under consideration, I proceed to state briefly the conclusions to which I have been led. I think the authorities establish the following propositions: First, in order to sustain an action of deceit, there must be proof of fraud, and nothing short of that will suffice. Secondly, fraud is proved when it is shewn that a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I have treated the second and third as distinct cases, I think the third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement being fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its truth. And this probably covers the whole ground, for one who knowingly alleges that which is false, has obviously no such honest belief. Thirdly, if fraud be proved, the motive of the person guilty of it is immaterial. It matters not that there was no intention to cheat or injure the person to whom the statement was made. (Lord Herschell - Derry v Peak (1889) 14 App Cas 337)
__________________
Alan, Derby, UK.


Help keep this site open by buying one of these great resources:


Postage £1 - Delivery in the UK only.
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.

_________________________ _______

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
alanfromderby is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2007, 16:02   #12 (permalink)
shirleyc
Basic Account Customer
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Sorry , but I thought was on-topic when talking about fraud-just wondered if it was about PPI +other issues.
sorry to butt in shirl
shirleyc is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2007, 08:34   #13 (permalink)
hellhasnofury
Platinum Account Customer
 
hellhasnofury's Avatar
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Come on guys we need to get our thinking hats on, this will help when issueing a N1 for the particulars of claim.

1.Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made:

“If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor”.
__________________
If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW
hellhasnofury is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2007, 10:17   #14 (permalink)
alanfromderby
Site Team
 
alanfromderby's Avatar
 
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about!

Challenge your credit file?

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,284
alanfromderby has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supporting Legislation

Does anyone know if sections 140A and 140B of the CCA (as inserted by the 2006 Act) are retrospective. I have read that they are - but then I have also read that they are only become retrospective to current agreements in April 2008.
__________________
Alan, Derby, UK.


Help keep this site open by buying one of these great resources:


Postage £1 - Delivery in the UK only.
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.

_________________________ _______

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
alanfromderby is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote