|
|
 |
|
Wed 8th September, 2010
News
Lawcomm Case Update - More Financial Claims Success for Lawcomm Team |
1st February 2010 |
 |
Lawcomm Case Update - More Financial Claims Success for Lawcomm Team
The Financial Claims Review Team have achieved further success in respect of Unenforceability Claims and mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance.
Case Summary – Ms W-P
Background
Ms W-P obtained a store credit card in 1995. Recently she had been struggling financially and had fallen into arrears. When she fell behind on her repayments court proceedings were issued against her for the outstanding balance. Ms W-P instructed the Financial Claims Review Team to defend her. Upon investigation of the matter we discovered the following:
Legal Analysis
A s78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request for a true copy of the credit agreement revealed that although the agreement had been signed by both the lender and the borrower, the copy agreement supplied was fundamentally flawed as:
1. It contained terms which were illegible and was therefore improperly executed
2. The copy agreement provided by the lender was illegible and therefore not a true copy
3. As the agreement contained terms which were illegible it could not embody all the terms of the agreement
4. The agreement did not include the following prescribed terms:
a. Charges payable under the agreement
b. Term of agreement.
c. Total Charge for Credit
5. The particulars of claim referred to clause 7 of the agreement advising that the claimant was entitled to claim contractual interest of 26.478%. No such clause was included in the copy agreement supplied.
6. The claimant had not supplied evidence of assignment of the agreement from the original lender to the debt purchaser.
7. PPI had been sold with the agreement. The PPI had been mis-sold as the Lender:
a. failed to advise Ms W-P that the PPI was optional;
b. failed to advise Ms W-P that the PPI did not have to be taken out at the same time as the Agreement or at all;
c. failed to advise Ms W-P that the PPI could be purchased elsewhere; and
d. failed to advise Ms W-P that the PPI was not suitable considering her circumstances as she was self-employed rendering the PPI worthless to her.
Lawcomm argued that the lender’s actions, by failing to comply with the requirements of the 1974 Act and mis-selling the PPI, constituted an unfair relationship pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 2006.
A number of court orders were issued throughout the proceedings. The lender failed to comply with several of these orders. The Financial Claims Review Team seized the opportunity and an application was made to the Court to have the claim struck out.
Result
The Court Ordered that:
1. The Claim be struck out – and therefore the lender was unable to pursue Ms W-P
2. The lender would have to pay Mrs W-P in respect of the mis-sold PPI.
3. Lender to pay Mrs W-P’s legal costs.
Ms W-P was obviously very pleased with this result.
For further information regarding payment protection or financial unenforceability claims, please do not hesitate to contact the financial claims review team at Lawcomm Solicitors by e-mail on fcrt@lawcomm.co.uk or by telephone on (0870) 2400 738.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
