http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=519a4338-60a7-49be-8ff1-28f070eca937#.UH0wHaFr1Ws.twitter

PPI reclaims soicitor LOST on every count.

Mrs Plevin’s claim therefore failed in its entirety.

Against this, Recorder Yip QC considered the conduct of Mrs Plevin’s legal representatives,

Miller Gardner.

Their costs, including a very significant ATE insurance premium,

amounted to some £320,000 by the time of trial as against a maximum claim value of some £5,000.

Despite the level of costs incurred,

Recorder Yip QC also found that Miller Gardner had failed to get to the bottom of the factual case,

this had caused the repeated amendments to Mrs Plevin’s claim and the eventual abandonment at trial of all but two of the heads of claim, and that there could be “no justification” for the way in which the claim had proceeded.

As against this background, Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation. Miller Gardner had rejected that offer and therefore did significantly worse at trial than could have been achieved two years previously.

Recorder Yip QC held that as a result, and given her “real concerns” over Miller Gardner’s conduct, it would be appropriate to order that Mrs Plevin pay Paragon’s costs on the indemnity basis in relation to the entirety of the action. This is the strongest order that a Court can make and is illustrative of the displeasure with which Miller Gardner’s conduct was regarded. It was clear from the amount in question as against the costs incurred that the litigation had been run only to benefit Mrs Plevin’s solicitors; and not to achieve the best result for her.

Generally, given the findings by the Court of Appeal in Harrison and Recorder Yip QC in Plevin, claimant solicitors now have little chance of successfully continuing with claims in relation to PPI mis-selling.

Further, the Courts are now very much alive to the fact that such claims cannot be regarded as being in borrowers’ best interests. The industry that has grown up around PPI should beware.

Ive had a few ppi claims that i claimed myself and done very favourably out of, im now getting the phone calls every day!

I accidently answered one and the 'information service' lady put me over to a specialist who tried telling me that it is now illegal to claim PPI yourself.....

MMMMMM smell a rat there, allegedly it was on the bbc and everything and i still have thousands owed to me, although they cant tell me who owes me....

So it seems that these companies are getting desperate, especially now people know they can do it themselves and keep all the money.

Dirty trick really isnt it!

Jamie

Hi jamie

Partially true....the claims companies are under investigation as most are using the Ministry of justice name and Logo illegally.

Submitting your own claim does NOT guarantee that you will get all your money back as the vast majority of consumers are not aware that PPI earns the banks 8% interest per annum and it is unlikely in most cases that you will get that back unless you have the right legal process in place.

Barclays spoofed a friend for £6900 in PPI.

I estimated she would get back £9000 including the 8% interest per annum from 2005 to 2012...I got her back over £18000.

..The banks will even try to send money to clients' bank account ahead of a claim to try to make them sign and accept less than they are entitled to.

The extent of banking fraud is much more far reaching than people realise!

BTW I am not part of a claims management company but am involved in Financial Education...exposing the banks BIG TIME!

we do do that here

our sheets detail everything.

dx

closed to prevent posting in a stickie information only thread dx