lloyds tsb court case ppi - should we throw the towel in

[bach]

Hi, can anyone help my friend and myself.

On behalf of a friend we have sent a claim to the Court for the reimbursement of £16 234. for PPI miss selling by Lloyds TSB.

We have received a Notice of Proposed allocation to the fast track and N181 and directions questionnaire.

Firstly, the questioner stated “it appears that this is suitable for allocation to the fast track"

Secondly, he has already paid a Court Fee of £395 to cover the court costs.

Now the Court is asking for a further fee of £220, “unless proceeding on a counter claim only"

What does this mean?

My friend cannot afford to pay any more fees.

If IT GOES FAST TRACK AND LOOSES HIS CASE he won’t be able to pay costs.

He really does not want to go “fast track” as never been to court before,

but says he could handle the small claim track route with help

Thirdly, if he decided NOT to continue with his claim would he get his £395 returned?

Also could he then go to the FOS

He has also suggested we reduce the claim to under £10 000 so that it will go SMALL CLAIMS ROUTE

Are we allowed to do this - I have NO idea how to do this.

Will we have to cancel the original claim and will he get his fee returned?

Should he then put in a new claim in for an amount under £10 000?

He is 72 and has little confidence as it is.

Has been self-employed since 1978 and a sole trader.

He understood PPI was a condition of the Credit Card.

It was not until the media attention that he looked at the terms and conditions when he realised that he should not have paid PPI due to being self-employed,

the policy was not fit for his purpose.

He is a Cement truck driver and deliverers churning cement all over the country.

By Law he had to be covered for public liability, accident, unemployment, as well as having to insurance cover

for his family in case he could not work, he has a special needs son now 18.

His accountant arranges all the insurances on his behalf.

Lloyds TSB are defending the claim,

“stating that it is statute barred due to the Limitations Act as over 6yrs ago”.

And have stated the following

“The Defendants right to apply for the proceedings to be struck out as no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim,

and / or abuse of the courts process pursuant of CPR Part 3 Rule and /or b CPR Part 24

Lloyds TSB states “that the PPI would have only been applied upon the Claimants request”.

Lloyds TSB denies that the PPI was not fit for purpose

and put the “Claimant to strict proof of his allegations that he had other insurances in place at the time”

THIS WE CAN PROVE BEYOND DOUBT.

The Defendant denies that PPI was miss sold in this manner “

Lloyds TSB stated in a letter that my friend

“walked in to a Lloyds TSB bank and ask for the PPI to be applied two weeks after he received his Credit Card”.

He states there is NO way he would have done this, everything was done through his accountant.

Lloyds TSB have no proof that this was the case they have no CC Agreement. (1978)

They have only supplied him with data from 2001.

No statements or data going back to when the card was opened in 1987,

although, he has some statements from 1993 onwards.

The Defendant will say,

"that the P O Claim are generic, vague and disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant.

The Claimant has not fully particularised how the sum of £16. 271 has been arrived at.

" We both worked out the PPI from statements going as far back as 1993 as this was all we had to work from.

When we filled to the Court the Particulars of the Claim we,

kept it at a minimum as we understood that the FULL PARTICULARS would be required by the Court at a further date.

(Was this the right thing to do at that stage)

WHAT SHOULD HE DO Continue with his claim?

Or pull out now as he can’t afford to pay more costs.

Will he be allowed to take it to the FSA after pulling out from the courts

Lloyds TSB continually upgraded his credit card until it was up to around £11 000 .

When I went through his statements with him I noticed that the PPI amount was quite horrendous at times

sometime paying over £70 per month for the PPI facility. IS THIS RIGHT?

He has paid his credit card account in full many many times over and has an immaculate credit rating.

Lloyds TSB have stated in a letter he received

” YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER APPROPIATE MEANS BY WHICH YOU COULD PROTECT THE PAYMENTS OF YOUR CREDIT CARD”

THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT TO MAKE,

HE CERTAINLY DID HAVE, AND STILL HAS MANY OTHER MEANS OF PROTECTION AS HE IS STILL WORKING OVER 40HRS A WEEK.

HELP !!!

PLEASE CAN ANY ONE ADVISE WHICH WAY FORWARD WE SHOULD GO NOW

Ie CANCEL CLAIM

- GO TO FOS ?

THROW THE TOWEL !!!!!!

CONTINUE WITH CLAIM

– BUT WE ARE REALLY GOING TO NEED HELP FROM CAG? I

CANT DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR HELP

[BankFodder]

The small claims limit is £10,000 as you know so the claim which has been submitted for £16k is very clearly going to result in a fast track allocation. I'm all in favour of bringing a court claim fro PPI in the right circumstances - but going into the fast track can be risky.

If your friend has always been nervous or unsure about bringing a claim for himself then a fast track solution may not have been a good idea. The fact that he needed your help and your encouragement makes me think that it may not have been a suitable proposition for him - because when you go ahead with the claim, you tend to be on your own - and if you lose and you have to face costs - then you are definitely on your own.

 

If he discontinues the claim then the other side may well apply for their costs incurred so far. This could be quite a few grand - but less than going ahead and losing. On the other hand - maybe they would be prepared to waive their costs on the condition that he agreed not to pursue the matter any more. He certainly won't get his court fee back unless he carries on and wins the case.

 

As to the strengths of your case: Even if he asked for the PPI two weeks later, if the bank knew of his employment circumstances at the time then they would have had a duty to refuse to sell you the PPI. Of course, it will help if you can show that the bank is wrong and that he applied for the insurance at the same time as the credit card. Have you got copies of the application?

 

I think that the main questions you need to answer are

 

Did they know if his work circumstances?

Would the PPI have covered a period of loss of employment in those circumstances?

When was the PPI applied for

If they say that he went in 2 weeks afterwards - what proof have they shown you of this.

 

Let me say that if you do not have these answers already - then it may be that you have not been sufficiently prepared to bring this claim.

 

If you don't have these answers then you need to get them as quickly as possible.

 

If he discontinues the case then he should be able to go to the FOS - in the absence of any undertakings to the contrary.

[BankFodder]

I think that it would be helpful to see your POC.

[The Mould]

“Has been self-employed since 1978 and a sole trader.

 

He understood PPI was a condition of the Credit Card.

It was not until the media attention that he looked at the terms and conditions when he realised that he should not have paid PPI due to being self-employed,

the policy was not fit for his purpose”.

The above statement, which you claim to be of fact, is central and clearly the crux of your friend’s claim..

PPI is mis-sold if the lender/creditor or his authorised agent knew, at the time of the loan being taken out, that the debtor was self-employed, as such insurances are of no effect in these circumstances and indeed most certainly not fit for the purposes to which they were taken out, in good faith by the debtor, on the advice of the creditor or his agent. The creditor/lender and his authorised agent would know this, therefore, the ppi in this case is clearly mis-sold.

The above has been posted by me based upon the material of this case posted here by you.

I sincerely hope that the foregoing is of help to you somewhat.

Kind regards

The Mould.

[The Mould]

Don't throw the towel in. You (your friend) has a solid and wholly well reasoned legal argument against this claim.

 

 

Can you please provide any further details/facts of this matter, that your dear friend can rely upon?

 

 

Keeping an ever watchful eye on this matter.

 

 

Your eternal friend and,

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

The Mould

[bach]

Hi and thanks so much for your comments and helpful information.

Can I get bach to you a bit later as in the middle of cooking supper

Thanks Lynn

[mjt2013]

This makes me really angry for your friend. Why on earth did you agree to help him with this when you don't know what the court process is? A free consultation with any solicitor would have allowed your friend to know before issuing the claim what the likely costs would be, he's been completely shafted.

[bach]

Hi

I have just spoken to friend, and he says he cannot cope with the Court, in fact his wife is just out of hospital and he himself is not well.

He asked if I could represent him, but of coarse I can,t do that "McKenzie Friend."

He has decide to discontinue the Claim

Can you please advise me how we go about discontinuing with the Claim.

 

 

Many thanks Lynn.

[mjt2013]

You could be his Mckenzie friend, I'm not quite sure why you say you can't, and that may be enough support for him. You will need to file a notice of discontinuance if you want to do that, be aware your friend could end up liable for the other side's costs so far.

[bach]

mjt2013 This makes me really angry for your friend. Why on earth did you agree to help him with this when you don't know what the court process is? A free consultation with any solicitor would have allowed your friend to know before issuing the claim what the likely costs would be, he's been completely shafted.

 

 

I think that unfair, how do you know what I do or do not know, I have represented myself in Court on 5 occasions (aged 67 ) and won each one of these cases which were all very different, I do admit I did fail to realise that his claim could possibly go fast track, which is where the problem lies, my fault.

But them when you have a son who tries to take his own life at Xmas and your daughter in law who ends up in a wheelchair due to a stupid drunken drink driver , then I think I could be forgiven for not making that realisation at the time I helped him with his P O Claim.

As for SHAFTED, I have helped him with this claim for well over 12months now, NO NOT SHAFTED more like a good friend trying to do the right thing for someone who had a special needs son and sometime can not cope with pressure. CAGER SINCE MAY 2006.

You do not know me and I'm really glad I don't know you - what right do you have to say my friend has been SHAFTED

I asked for help from CAG all were positive answers to my problem. I am trying to do the honourable thing for my friend and help him with his claim. Your comments are negative and I suspect that you are one of those individuals who bully others, with NO experience of Life

I am even prepared to reimburse him with the £395 he has already paid to the Courts. He has the full facts now and has made the decision to discontinue his claim.

END OFF Sleep well tonight

 

 

For the other Cagger's who responded positively to my cry for help, thank you for all you help and advice.

Lynn

[mjt2013]

Good, you absolutely should reimburse him. If you were a solicitor you'd have been used for negligence.

 

I hope my other post was of some use to your friend.

[bach]

Well I'm not a solicitor, considering you have been a Cagger for only 2 months then don't bother me again.

Reading some of your posts you defiantly give an assortment of advice, which contains many contradictions.

[Mike_hawk]

Perhaps test the water with the other side to see if it will consent to discontinue on a 'drop hands' basis, it will probably mean that your friend will need to agree not to pursue the matter any further.

[bach]

Thank you for the constructive advise 'drop hands' basis I have thought I will give them a call in the morning to see how the land lies

Thanks again much appreciated advice confirming my own thoughts.

Lynn

[Mike_hawk]

The other side may not be in a position to speak directly with you, if it does, ensure it understands the conversation should be treated as off the record/wp

[fletch70]

Mjt. I think that at best your comments were ill considered. I assume you know more about this than is on the thread otherwise your comments show appalling lack of thought and manners.

I would add though that length of membership and or past count should not be taken as any guide to knowledge

[letsgetitsorted]

Hi Bach, although i have no experience in this matter, if you friend is considering discontinuing, why not, and this is just me, ask the other side if they would settle on half without going to court.....just my thought...hope it all works out though.

[mjt2013]

Mjt. I think that at best your comments were ill considered. I assume you know more about this than is on the thread otherwise your comments show appalling lack of thought and manners.

I would add though that length of membership and or past count should not be taken as any guide to knowledge

 

As the OP has told me not to post again then I won't so it's not a problem.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Bach

 

 

The extra £220 fee is the allocation fee (once you submit the DQ N181) this would allocate it to the Fast Track as advised above. You can try Mikes suggestion or you may consider not submitting the DQ...the claim would remain stayed and trackless.

 

 

This would allow time for you to re group and gather your thoughts on how to proceed... there are risks ,the other party could make application to lift the stay or your claim could be struck out so bear in mind.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Andy

[bach]

andyorch

Thanks,

You can try Mikes suggestion

or you may consider not submitting the DQ...the claim would remain stayed and trackless IM THINKING ABOUT THIS OPTION

This would allow time for you to re group and gather your thoughts on how to proceed... there are risks the other party could make application to lift the stay or your claim could be struck out so bear in mind.

What would be the consequences of the other party making a application to lift the stay or the claim being struck out

This is really helpful for me, thank you

lynn

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

t

[AndyOrch]

If they made application to lift the stay they would require grounds and intent...ie wishing to proceed which I don't think is likely.

If you failed to submit the DQ then the defendant or the court might strike the claim out, that could be the end of it or the defendant may ask for costs but wasted costs are only applicable to FT claims and as the claim is still trackless (technically) they could struggle.

 

 

That's why I stated consider Mikes suggestion and you try to resolve this amicably...it can be done verbally/ by consent with parties to bear their own costs so far.

 

 

Tread lightly test the water.

 

 

Andy

[bach]

Andy this is really useful help to me. I will sleep on your thoughts and refresh in the morning

Thank you so very much for giving me some really constructive advise and help it is really appreciated.

Thanks Lynn

[BankFodder]

They won't want to lift the stay.

However they could apply to have the claim struck out "for want of prosecution". An appication to strike out would probably be accompanied by an application for wasted costs.

[AndyOrch]

They won't want to lift the stay.

However they could apply to have the claim struck out "for want of prosecution". An appication to strike out would probably be accompanied by an application for wasted costs.

 

 

But if the court strikes out for none compliance of Directions (CPR 3) of its own initiative then the defendant would have to chase Wasted Costs which are not always granted on Strike outs.

 

 

Andy

[steampowered]

Just to throw my hat in the ring and repeat what Mike_hawk said - if your friend wants to drop the case it is always a good idea for him to write a letter to the other side stating that due to a change of circumstances he will discontinue if the bank will agree not to seek costs, but if they do not agree he still believes it is a good claim and intends to continue with it.

 

'drop hands' settlements are commonly offered by banks to claimants in the early stages of litigation. If your friend wants to withdraw it has to be worth a go, the worst they can say is no.