Thread: Help with PPI Witness Statement please.

Urgently need help with how to compose a Witness Statement concerning mis-sold PPI. I can find many links for creating one for Bank Charges reclaim but not credit card PPI.

Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Witness Statement - Please Help...!
• Bank charges, PPI and costs going to court, need help with witness statement
• Question re Statement Of Evidence / Witness Statement
• Statement of Evidence v Witness Statement

1. I, the Claimant, am a litigant in person in this case.

2. I make this Witness Statement in support of my claim against the Defendant for the refund of mis-sold Credit Card Repayment Protector insurance and interest thereon, levied to my credit card account by the Defendant bank.

3. I make this Witness Statement from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true.

4. I signed a credit agreement with the Defendant on 16/7/02.

5. On 23/9/04, I transferred balances of other credit cards to my Egg credit card. As admitted in the Defence, point 6, the option for CPR cover was not optional – it was pre-selected. I believe this was also the case when I entered into the agreement in July 2002

6. On 20th July 2007 Egg informed me they would be in touch with me shortly concerning my claim for CCRP. This they failed to do and I was forced to recommence my claim on 19th March 2008

7. On 19/03/08 I wrote to the Defendant, setting out the nature of my complaint and requesting that the Defendant refund the mis-sold insurance and interest.

8. Upon unsatisfactory response from the Defendant, on 07/04/08 I again wrote to the Defendant requesting a refund of said charges and advising I would file a claim should I not receive a satisfactory response.

9. Upon a further unsatisfactory response from the Defendant, on 28/04/08 I filed a claim at Derby county court for the return of the charges levied by the Defendant, as particularised and detailed in the Particulars of Claim.

10. The Defendant acknowledged service of the claim on 29/05/08 ?

11. The Defendant filed its defence on 29/05/08


12. The Defendant maintains the insurance was optional , but at no time did they inform of this.

13. There is, in fact, no requirement to take CRP with the Defendant’s card and here I had been misrepresented and there had been concealment aimed at increasing revenue through staggering CRP commissions.

14. The defendant responded on 1/04/08 that their decision was final

15. The fact that on 1/04/08 and 19/06/08 the Defendant made offers of CCRP repayment makes me believe Egg plc have already admitted mis-selling this insurance.

16. The Claimant claims
i) Compound interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of
22.9 %. This is the rate applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold, not advising the Claimant that alternative products were available elsewhere.

ii) In the alternative to e i), if the Court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to the contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the Claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the Claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 22.9 % per annum.

iii) In the alternative to e i) and ii), if the Court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

17. In answer to point 8 of the defence, I cannot believe that Egg can be so arrogant as to assume my claim to be an insignificant loss to myself. I of course have every statement to prove my loss.

Summary
18. The claimant believes the defendant has used the CPR as a means to hide the true costs of its “cheap credit-card”. This is something that many of the defendant’s customers must be suffering. Indeed the OFT and FSA have shown that CPR carries the largest commission of all insurances. The OFT has also shown that the PPI (CPR) is very often mis-sold, as it has been in this case.
The OFT and FSA have been very concerned over the behaviour of financial institutions with respect to PPIs. As such most financial institutions are now refunding mis-sold PPIs. Where this has not been repaid, there are many cases where either the fos or County Court, have ruled in favour of the claimant.

19. The defendant has repeatedly misrepresented itself and concealed information in an attempt to keep the PPI alive.


20. The above summarised actions add up to, what the claimant believes, a planned and organised attempt to conceal the true costs of the defendants credit card account.

Conclusion
21. The Defendant, through varying manners, has taken the monies outlined from the claimant’s credit-card account, made obvious attempts to prevent access to information, tried to confuse the claimant and wasted the claimant’s time, all in an effort to maximise profits at the claimant’s expense. As such, the claimant requests all the monies requested and costs relative to the amount of time wasted. It is the understanding of the claimant that some county court judges have seen so much of this behaviour by the financial institutions that costs are often awarded in these cases.

22. Statement of Truth

I, the Claimant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true.

Signed:


Should I add any more? and is point 17 perhaps a little strong?