Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
is this ok what i have put for my POC.????? Do i just post 3 copies to my local count court????????????
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_________________________ _______
1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horse on date.The account/reference number is *******,which was a Payment Protection Planagreement 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 and/or incorrect advice given by the Staff Member employed by Black Horse Ltd.
4. 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 Black Horsefailed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
5. 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.
6.The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.
7. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers.
8. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
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 Black Horseunder 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 judgment.
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, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:
The claimant claims that Black horse Ltd a sum equivalent estimated to the total amount unlawfully debited to my account during the above mentioned period, being £****.I further claim interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, I further claim the court fee of £***
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
The Claimant believes it is inconceivable that a Financial Institution, a multi-national company specialising in personal finance, would not have given full training in the eligibility requirements for a product that provides a considerable boost to its profitability through commission and interest. The Claimant was not told that Payment Protection Insurance could be purchased elsewhere which would suit.
On the basis of this, the Claimant believes that due to advice not given after the filling in and posting of the Application Form, 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).
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 the Defendant to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the PPI would add to the Loan account in the form of interest.
The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for Managers and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
The Claimant contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place. The Claimant contends that the very fact that such a system was not in place, or that the system failed to identify the errors, omissions and misrepresentations highlighted elsewhere in these Particulars, should be considered as evidence of a policy of “turning a blind eye” by senior company management whose careers and remuneration are also reliant on bonuses, incentive schemes and sales targets.
will update the post in the morning with the additions and hopefully will help someone else. got feedback from moneyclaim and they advised i didnt go via them and stick to the N1 route. they didnt explain why!
DO NOT go through Moneyclaim, use the N1 form and file it that way.
The POC you have just typed out will not fit in the space provided. The Moneyclaim service probably will also hold your claim, thinking it to be for bank charges.
A drink would be nice, but instead of giving me Beer, take your family out for a meal. ..
is this ok what i have put for my POC.????? Do i just post 3 copies to my local count court????????????
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_________________________ _______
1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horse on date.The account/reference number is *******,which was a Payment Protection Planagreement 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 and/or incorrect advice given by the Staff Member employed by Black Horse Ltd.
4. 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 Black Horse failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
5. 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.
6.The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.
7. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers.
8. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
9. The Claimant contends that the Policy was not defined or explained and not considered or treated as 'optional', thereby denying the Claimant the right to make an informed decision about the inclusion or purchase of the product.
10. There was an over-reliance on generic information on the product provided in leaflet format by the Defendant to the Claimant which did not meet the Claimant's personal demands and needs. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is therefore negligent in line with 1967 Misrepresentation Act.
11. At the time of undertaking the secured loan, the Claimant was misled into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit. This is in breach of CCCA 1974, where a company must be fit to be involved in activities the licence covers.
12. Under CPR 18 the Claimant requests full documentary evidence of absolute compliance with best practise in sale of PPI and detailed record of training undertaken by staff.
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 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 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.
** (UK's points here) **
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 Black Horseunder 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 judgment.
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, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:
The claimant claims that Black horse Ltd a sum equivalent estimated to the total amount unlawfully debited to my account during the above mentioned period, being £****.I further claim interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, I further claim the court fee of £***
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
Signed:
Date:
Hi Leehind
Here are my additions as promised. I looked at the link provided by Alanalana in your other thread to the findings of the Competition Commission which he relates to your point 7. You could make mention of their findings running in line with your own claim for mis-selling, but this is up to you.
If you add UKaviator's points to this where I've indicated, it should be a good POC.
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horse on date. The account/reference number is *******,which was a Payment Protection Plan 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 and/or incorrect advice given by the Staff Member employed by Black Horse Ltd.
4. 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 Black Horse failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
5. 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. The Claimant was not told that Payment Protection Insurance could be purchased elsewhere which would suit.
6.The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.
7. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers.
8. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
9. The Claimant contends that the Policy was not defined or explained and not considered or treated as 'optional', thereby denying the Claimant the right to make an informed decision about the inclusion or purchase of the product.
10. There was an over-reliance on generic information on the product provided in leaflet format by the Defendant to the Claimant which did not meet the Claimant's personal demands and needs. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is therefore negligent in line with 1967 Misrepresentation Act.
11. At the time of undertaking the secured loan, the Claimant was misled into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit. This is in breach of CCCA 1974, where a company must be fit to be involved in activities the licence covers.
12. Under CPR 18 the Claimant requests full documentary evidence of absolute compliance with best practise in sale of PPI and detailed record of training undertaken by staff.
13.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 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 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.
14.On the basis of this, the Claimant believes that due to advice not given after the filling in and posting of the Application Form, 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).
15.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 the Defendant to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
16.The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the PPI would add to the Loan account in the form of interest.
17.The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for Managers and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
18.The Claimant contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place. The Claimant contends that the very fact that such a system was not in place, or that the system failed to identify the errors, omissions and misrepresentations highlighted elsewhere in these Particulars, should be considered as evidence of a policy of “turning a blind eye” by senior company management whose careers and remuneration are also reliant on bonuses, incentive schemes
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 Black Horse 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 judgment.
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, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:
The claimant claims that Black horse Ltd a sum equivalent estimated to the total amount unlawfully debited to my account during the above mentioned period, being £****.I further claim interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, I further claim the court fee of £***
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horse on date. The account/reference number is *******,which was a Payment Protection Plan 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 and/or incorrect advice given by the Staff Member employed by Black Horse Ltd.
4. 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 Black Horse failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
5. 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. The Claimant was not told that Payment Protection Insurance could be purchased elsewhere which would suit.
6.The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.
7. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers.
8. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
9. The Claimant contends that the Policy was not defined or explained and not considered or treated as 'optional', thereby denying the Claimant the right to make an informed decision about the inclusion or purchase of the product.
10. There was an over-reliance on generic information on the product provided in leaflet format by the Defendant to the Claimant which did not meet the Claimant's personal demands and needs. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is therefore negligent in line with 1967 Misrepresentation Act.
11. At the time of undertaking the secured loan, the Claimant was misled into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit. This is in breach of CCA 1974, where a company must be fit to be involved in activities the licence covers.
12. Under CPR 18 the Claimant requests full documentary evidence of absolute compliance with best practise in sale of PPI and detailed record of training undertaken by staff.
13.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 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 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.
14.On the basis of this, the Claimant believes that due to advice not given after the filling in and posting of the Application Form, 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).
15.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 the Defendant to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
16.The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the PPI would add to the Loan account in the form of interest.
17.The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for Managers and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.
18.The Claimant contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place. The Claimant contends that the very fact that such a system was not in place, or that the system failed to identify the errors, omissions and misrepresentations highlighted elsewhere in these Particulars, should be considered as evidence of a policy of “turning a blind eye” by senior company management whose careers and remuneration are also reliant on bonuses, incentive schemes
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 Black Horse 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 judgment.
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, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:
The claimant claims that Black horse Ltd a sum equivalent estimated to the total amount unlawfully debited to my account during the above mentioned period, being £****.I further claim interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, I further claim the court fee of £***
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
Signed:
Date:
Just made a tiny change in point 11 where there was an extra C in CCA 1974.
Good POC in my view.
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horse on date. The account/reference number is *******,which was a Payment Protection Plan 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
There seems to be an anomaly in that the account is being classed as a Payment Protection Plan agreement and that it included a PPI ??
The agreement surely should have been a Credit Card or Loan etc?
Just wanted to bring your attention to this If I am incorrect my apologies but it seem you are saying a Payment Protection Plan Agreement included PPI is that correct??
I'm answering your Q here, and also on your main claim thread. If you have made the amendments as suggested by aa (clarifying statement 1, etc), then I se no reason why you should not submit your N1 and this POC.
Please let us know if you have any other Qs ...
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
Can someone check my POC-
.????? Do i just post 3 copies to my local count court????????????
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by leehind
LF53
