restitutionary damages
hasn't been tried yeton these issues -- although I am aware of one case definitely and maybe a second way restitutionary damages has been claimed and the claimants are waiting allocation and reaction from the defendants.
Strictly speaking way any money has been paid under a mistake even if the mistake is entirely innocent on both sides, restitutionary damages should still be available. I can imagine that a
county court level a judge might balk at this -- but you never know. However, if you are able to show real culpability in the mis-selling, such as invention of documents or have positive evidence that incorrect advice was given all that the defendant knew exactly that you are unemployed, self-employed, already ill or in some other way that
PPI it was completely in applicable to you, then I think that it would be quite easy to persuade a County Court judge to consider restitutionary damages quite sympathetically. I think if there were a few wins on the question of restitutionary damages then the doors would open and there would be no difficulty persuading County Court judges on any kind of PPI mis-selling.
I also think that at the beginning, companies who are being sued for restitutionary damages would probably put up a big fight because they wouldn't want it to become an established principle. However, if they were if you victories against them, I think that they would start putting their hands up and looking to make substantial payouts rather than risk much larger losses in a court action.
Restitutionary damages is available as a remedy for any action for the recovery of money paid under a mistake. You have to decide whether you want an easy life and to settle for your 8% simple
interest or whether you prefer to get involved in a very serious fight but with a much larger payout if you manage to pull it off.
Certainly it is clearly unfair that where you have been deprived of your PPI insurance premiums because of some misconduct or you have been deprived of your bank charges because the banks have acted unfairly, that you should then only be awarded 8% interest when in fact you are being put to substantially greater expense having to borrow money at the banks inflated commercial rates when maybe it was they themselves who were responsible for your financial difficulties. I think that if you are able to provide actual evidence to court will you had been placed into difficulty by the unfair action of a bank or an insurer is and that this had cost you money then I would have thought that it would be to show the court that these losses that you have suffered were direct and foreseeable and should be remedied by the person who has benefited from a mistake.
This seems to me to be very established and noncontroversial law.
I get very surprised that so many people are a bit worried about it and do find it very controversial. I can tell you that I was invited onto a mMoney Box programme they few weeks ago to talk about the banks liability if they were facing restitutionary damages. The figures for liability were so wild that at the last moment money box decided to drop it because it had all gone into the rounds of fantasy. We were talking about a liability of between £150 billion and £200 billion -- and maybe more.
I have talked about it with various newspapers and they are so incredulous about the figures for banks or even for PPI insurers that they are reluctant to refer to it in their pages in case they become a laughing stock.
I have to say that the size of the sums we are talking about quite scares me as well, but as far like and tell the legal principles are sound and everything I read about restitutionary damages on the Internet makes me think that this is absolutely the correct an acceptable way to go.
Is certainly satisfies my sense of justice as it does with anybody else and I have discussed this with including the newspapers and Moneybox.
In 2006 when the Consumer Action Group started encouraging people to sue their banks for the return of bank charges, hardly anybody could scarcely believe that it was possible. However they few determine people decided to give it a go and the result was very quickly a tsunami of claims against the banks for the return of their charges which eventually led to repayment of something in the region of three quarters of £1 billion by the banks and then the OFT test case.
At the moment I'm trying to mention restitutionary damages on this site and to let people know about it. If some people will start to pick it up and put in claims for restitutionary damages, then we will soon know where it will take us. When we start to get reports back on this forum as to the success or failure of claims for restitutionary damages then we will know how much of a runner it really is.
HSBC PPI claim
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by BankFodder
