Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can someone check my POC-


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5650 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Signed:

 

Date:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of additions may help:

 

 

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.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Painty . .. :)

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leehind

 

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. ..

 

Uk

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:)

Edited by Paintball
Link to post
Share on other sites

final POC...Thanks paint ball and UK

 

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 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.

 

Signed:

 

Date:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

final POC...Thanks paint ball and UK

 

 

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 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello painty is there not a conflict here?.......

 

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??

 

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello leehind and painty,

 

good spot. this has not been submitted yet as waiting for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) so cheers

 

aa, well spotted, 'editor in chief'

 

Pleasure good luck;)

 

aa

Edited by alanalana
text added

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leehind

 

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 ...:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...