Landmark PPI mis-selling ruling

[Belaflat]

Judge quashes woman's £8,000 credit card debt in 'landmark ruling' on mis-selling of payment protection insurance | Mail Online

 

Interesting read and a step in the right direction

[noomill060]

MBNA certainly dont sound like happy bunnies.

[noomill060]

And yes- this changes EVERYTHING.

 

I used the same arguments against Sharkleycard earlier this year, they wisely waved the white flag long before it got anywhere near a courtroom.

[pompeyfaith]

Fantastic Result clearly the judge new the law regarding the CCA 1974.

[postggj]

but can you see companies agreeing to this

 

it will be same old deciet and sod off letters

 

its all right for us who know the regs but the masses dont

[postggj]

link does not seem to be working

[noomill060]

Judge quashes woman's £8,000 credit card debt in 'landmark ruling' on mis-selling of payment protection insurance

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 5:55 PM on 30th September 2009

• Comments (27)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

A woman has won a landmark legal victory after a judge wrote off her £8,000 credit card debt because she had wrongly been sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

 

A county court judge ruled that Lynne Thorius, 49, from South Shields, was charged thousands of pounds by MBNA for an insurance policy she had never asked for.

 

The ruling could open the floodgates for millions of pounds worth of similar claims against banks and building societies.

It is estimated that around 40 million PPI policies have been sold in Britain in the last six years alone, making this the second biggest selling insurance product on the market.

 

Landmark ruling: Lynne Thorius's £8,000 credit card debt was quashed after MBNA charged thousands for an insurance policy she never asked for

 

Carl Wright, of claims management company Cartel Client Review, who successfully defended Lynne, said today that the ruling is a legal first.

'This is the first time that a judge has ruled on this point and will have a massive impact,' he said.

 

'Consumers now have the authority of the court to bring a claim in such a way that banks and credit card companies will be unable to defend it.

'MBNA acted in a disgusting manner. They harassed this woman at all hours of the day and night to force her to pay for something she never even asked for.

 

'Now Lynne has won, the floodgates could open for millions of other people. This is a massive victory.

 

'It will change the way banks lend money and issue credit cards. We went to court because we knew we had a strong case.

'But MBNA thought their case was watertight. When we got to court our legal argument absolutely white-washed them, and their case against Lynne was thrown out.'

 

'This is a landmark decision for all Cartel clients and a demonstration of the strengths of legal argument used by Cartel.'

 

The mother-of-three applied for the card - which was branded Sunderland ASC but financed by MBNA - in July 2002.

 

She ticked the box which said 'no thank you' to payment protection insurance on the application form, but despite this, the policy was initiated with a £20-a-month charge.

 

The card had a limit of £1,500 and Mrs Thorius, a cleaning supervisor, used it 'here and there' to pay bills and buy gifts.

 

But the credit limit was gradually extended and before she knew it, Lynne was nearly £7,000 in debt.

 

She said: 'I didn't particularly want a credit card and I certainly didn't want PPI. That alone was costing me a fair few pounds a month.

 

'When I noticed it on the statement, I rang them and told them I didn't want it. They said I wouldn't have got the card if I didn't tick the 'yes' box.

 

'When I tried to explain that I hadn't, they just wouldn't listen.'

 

Mrs Thorius, whose PPI charge was gradually increased to £30, even tried to make a claim on the policy when her work hours were cut, but MBNA turned her down.

With her debt soaring and with seemingly no way out, Mrs Thorius contacted the claims management company in December 2008, while MBNA launched a separate action against her, suing for arrears totalling £8,686.90.

 

The bank even threatened a charging order to repossess her house, even though her debt was unsecured.

In a nine-hour hearing at Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court, Deputy District Judge Jacqueline Smart ruled that the PPI policy had been unfairly imposed.

 

She also threw out MBNA's case against Mrs Thorius because they earned commission on the PPI they 'sold' her.

 

It is the first time a judge has ruled such an arrangement to be in breech of the Unfair Relationships and Unfair Consumer Credit Act Section 78, according to Cartel.

 

Mr Wright said: 'They obviously didn't realise how strong our legal argument was, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to court.

'She clearly ticked the 'no thank-you' box, but MBNA applied PPI on her account anyway.

 

'It was an incredible victory for us, and one we are immensely proud of.'

 

Mrs Thorius added: 'It was a horrible time for my family and I'm so glad it's all over.

'MBNA treated me appallingly from start to finish. I ticked no on the PPI option but they applied it to my account anyway.

 

'When I had my hours cut at work from full-time to part-time and started to struggle to pay the bill, MBNA started calling me three or four times a day, even as late as 9.30pm or 10pm.

 

'MBNA were rude on the phone and one person told me to get another job, while someone else said they would repossess my house.'

 

After news of the ruling broke, the FSA announced a package of tough measures to protect consumers in the PPI market.

 

Jon Pain, FSA managing director of retail markets said: 'Consumers should not be pressured or deceived into buying PPI and they are entitled to have a policy properly explained to them.

 

'It is unacceptable that despite previous warnings about pool sales practices, backed by 22 enforcement cases and significant fines, the PPI sector still needs the FSA to intervene on this.'

 

A spokesman for MBNA said: 'Cases in the County Court are not precedent-setting. Any such cases are decided on their individual merits and no two cases are the same

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217173/Judge-quashes-womans-8-000-credit-card-debt-landmark-ruling-mis-selling-payment-protection-insurance.html#ixzz0ScuKuCPh

[postggj]

meny thanks

[Jan4a]

brilliant result - link worked.

[postggj]

dont want to go off topic but how does this affect things like welcome finance and there misselling

 

this bit is dynamite

 

She also threw out MBNA's case against Mrs Thorius because they earned commission on the PPI they 'sold' her.

 

can this judgement be quoted even though its not a high court claim and no precedent set

[postggj]

thought you would be watching this andie

 

blood hound that you are

[pompeyfaith]

Even if it cant my view is that judges must be getting up to speed with PPI Mis-selling purely because of the amount of media attention it is getting.

 

PF

[Bookworm]

Whilst County court judgments do not set precedent, there is nothing to stop anyone pointing to a judge what his colleague have decided elsewhere. whether he takes it into consideration or not is up to him, I mean ok you can't claim it as precedent, but as background information, well... ;-)

[the_shadow]

Whilst County court judgments do not set precedent, there is nothing to stop anyone pointing to a judge what his colleague have decided elsewhere. whether he takes it into consideration or not is up to him, I mean ok you can't claim it as precedent, but as background information, well... ;-)

 

.......Or quoting in any LBA letters sent in regards PPI reclaiming

 

S.

[Crapstone]

A good result.

 

To quote the case, the circumstances must be almost identicle or as near as can be.

[dx100uk]

what pleases me about all this is the date it all started......2002

so this blows another myth those that charge PPI claim right out of the water.the 6yrs rule.

i'm after HFC for PPI claims that go right back to 1983 to the present day on various accounts.

 

stand by HFC, incoming..........

 

dx

[lickthewallfatboy]

A spokesman for MBNA said: 'Cases in the County Court are not precedent-setting. Any such cases are decided on their individual merits and no two cases are the same

 

 

 

how ironic

 

you can bet that if MBNA had won this case,they would be blowing smoke up your arse quoting the case on their "feck off letters"

[little_evo]

So would this be the same with all companies who sell PPI, as i currently have a grievance with TFC at the moment with regards to a PPI claim their insurance company (Direct Group) are not paying.

[angry cat]

Many, many members had the PPI claims rejected by MBNA;

methinks MBNA will have to change their tune!

 

Please read the following link; IMPORTANT.

 

FSA unveils tough measures to protect PPI consumers

 

AC

[RHOOD]

NOOMILL thats funny

 

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

CCA s.78(1) request fee: £1

Court issue fee: £70

 

Discovering your credit agreement is unenforceable:

 

Priceless.

 

 

There are some things that money cant buy.

 

For everything else, theres Barclaycard.

[phil_nottingham]

BBC NEWS | Business | Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

 

 

A decision by a county court judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts. Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartel Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartel Client Review, said the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was strongly recommended by MBNA to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

The main ground on which Judge Smart said Ms Thorius's credit card debt was unrecoverable was because MBNA could not provide a copy of the original signed loan agreement, which is also a requirement by the Consumer Credit Act.

The Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Appeal?

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Or it may be able to appeal if it can find the original loan documentation.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear

[ukaviator]

Threads merged

[nuke em]

Quote " After news of the ruling broke, the FSA announced a package of tough measures to protect consumers in the PPI market. Funny how the FSA just woke up to this , they have been asleep ( in the banksters pockets ) for a while now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Welcome to the the How-it's-going-to-be-in-the-future New World Order!

 

Jon Pain, FSA managing director of retail markets said: 'Consumers should not be pressured or deceived into buying PPI and they are entitled to have a policy properly explained to them. apt name Jon, if you had of acted earlier then many more people would have been spared the PAIN

 

'It is unacceptable that despite previous warnings about pool sales practices, backed by 22 enforcement cases and significant fines, the PPI sector still needs the FSA to intervene on this.' so then why did they not act earlier !!!!!! claiming all the glory now

 

A spokesman for MBNA said: 'Cases in the County Court are not precedent-setting. Any such cases are decided on their individual merits and no two cases are the same - Yea right, MBNA this is a precedent & you had better get used to it ! Guess how many more are now going to follow it !

 

'nuff said

[pompeyfaith]

the FSA update was released on Tuesday ?

[noomill060]

MBNA stands for Merchant *ankers of North America