PPI Claim against Cardiff pinnacle

[shabz25]

I have issued a claim against cardif pinnacle over mis-sold PPI .

they are defending the claim stating the claim is outside the 6 year time limits

and that i would have benefitted from the protection.

 

the 6 years expired in 2012 but i complained to the FOS before this date,

it took them till may 2014 to get back to me with their decision.

The FOS state that i would have known before that the PPI was of no use to me

and therefore they have rejected my claim,

thats the reason to issue the court claim.

 

the policy was started jan 2003 and then cancelled by me in 2007 after i went abroad for a year.

I sold my home and the mortgage was cleared as well.

 

 

at the time of taking the policy i had work benefits that covered sickness and accidents for a period of 6 months full pay

and a further 6 months half pay and then it would cease.

i have checked the policy terms and there is no mention of existing benefits.

 

 

the policy was sold to me over the phone at the time of taking out a loan.

the loan was with intelligent finance who referred all their insurance policies to cardif pinnacle.

 

 

can i use the fraud act as a defence.

 

 

the FOS said i would have known about my existing benefits at the time of taking out the protection.

I expected cardif pinnacle to make all this clear to me at the time the policy was sold.

cardif pinnacle have now stated in their defence i applied for the cover online,

i only had a laptop and internet service starting in 2008 a year after my son was born.

they then stated that i filled in a application form which i know i did not.

 

Are there any areas which you know of that will help me with my claim

[SADIE DE RUE]

I have issued a claim against cardif pinnacle over mis-sold PPI . they are defending the claim stating the claim is outside the 6 year time limits and that i would have benefitted from the protection.

the 6 years expired in 2012 but i complained to the FOS before this date, it took them till may 2014 to get back to me with their decision. The FOS state that i would have know before that the PPI was of no use to me and therefore they have rejected my claim, thats the reason to issue the court claim.

the policy was started jan 2003 and then cancelled by me in 2007 after i went abroad for a year. I sold my home and the mortgage was cleared as well. at the time of taking the policy i had work benefits that covered sickness and accidents for a period of 6 months full pay and a further 6 months half pay and then it would cease. i have checked the policy terms and there is no mention of existing benefits. the policy was sold to me over the phone at the time of taking out a loan. the loan was with intelligent finance who referred all their insurance policies to cardif pinnacle. can i use the fraud act as a defence. the FOS said i would have known about my existing benefits at the time of taking out the protection. I expected cardif pinnacle to make all this clear to me at the time the policy was sold. cardif pinnacle have now stated in their defence i applied for the cover online, i only had a laptop and internet service starting in 2008 a year after my son was born. they then stated that i filled in a application form which i know i did not.

Are there any areas which you know of that will help me with my claim

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/504.html

 

This recent Court of Appeal authority - Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504, offers very good news for consumers and can be relied on as regards mis-selling of ppi by the creditors. Although consumers need to be aware that each case turns on its merits

 

You will need to review your own paperwork in respect of the finance advanced by the creditor in order to determine if the illustration for the loan makes any reference to ppi on it and whether the ppi is stated as optional.

 

It is now common knowledge that all consumers were mis-sold ppi on their loans, mortgages etc. etc. and that at the time of taking out the finance, consumers were not made aware that the ppi was optional and it was not made clear to the consumer that the premium paid for the policy, the ppi, was in fact being purchased by them under the Mortgage or Loan being advanced as further non-optional borrowing thereunder to realise and advance the payment thereof to the insurance company. Consumers were not aware that the policy generated the burden of additional borrowing upon them, as often the case is that the ppi has been concealed by being added onto the finance advanced and not set out in any illustration provided showing details of the advance.

 

Consumers were told that the ppi would provide protection and cover repayment of the loan in the event of ill-health etc., however, such statements made by the creditor or his representative were so made by them in the knowledge that they were not true, such act constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

In Derry v Peek UKHL [1889] 1, Lord Herschell defined fraudulent misrepresentation as a statement which is made either:

 

i) knowing it to be false,

ii) without belief in its truth, or

iii) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false

 

Nearly all creditors pass the ppi claim onto their ‘in-house’ legal department and they respond by stating that the ppi is time barred under the Limitations Act and that this provides them with a complete Defence against the ppi claim and that they consider the matter closed, however, this is simply not true as mis-selling ppi does in fact constitute a fraud on the consumer

 

In nearly all ppi mis-selling cases, the creditor or his representatives’ business conduct constitutes a contravention of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (“ICOB”) in particular r.2.2.3(1) in relation to the mis-selling of the policy and as a consequence also gives rise to a cause of action by operation of s.150 (1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

 

Further, the relevant part of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides:-

 

Limitation Act 1980

1980 c. 58 Part II Fraud, concealment and mistake Section 32

 

“32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.

 

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—

(a)the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b)any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or

©the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent”.

 

Sadie

Edited December 1, 2014 by SADIE DE RUE
Spacing

[shabz25]

Thank you so much for them information which will help with my particulars of claim. I have a further question about the work related benefits I already had. The FOS states that I would have known about these at least several years before making the case with the FOS. Will this hinder my chances. I know that pinnacle have stated the policy would have paid out regardless

[shabz25]

I have just received a letter from the court the defendant cardif pinnacle have applied for an order to grant them summary judgement under CPR part 24 stating there is not prospect of succeeding with my claim The judge has listed for hearing on notice for Friday 23rd. Any help will be appreciated. I have in my particulars of claim stated that the time limits do not apply under section 32 of the limitations act. Can I apply to have this order struck out and under what basis.

I would appreciate an urgent reply.

[shabz25]

Can anyone help me with this. I have the hearing on Wednesday.

[steampowered]

Hi

 

As you have stated, the six year time limit can be extended in case of fraud under s32 of the Limitation Act. For this to apply you would need to explain to the judge how there has been fraud.

 

I think you would need to identify the untrue statement which was made to you in order to get you to buy the insurance. This could be something along the lines of being told that the insurance was compulsory.

 

There is no point applying for a strike-out of anything now. You need to go to the hearing and argue your case.