View source for PPI: Particulars of Claim

From Consumer Wiki

← PPI: Particulars of Claim

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

== Draft POC's for Payment Protection Insurance == '''Please be warned that you will need to adapt them to suit your own situation.''' Claims of this nature cannot be done through Moneyclaim, and I would therefore suggest that you attach your POC's to the claim rather than try to fit them into the box on page two of the N1. Remember to sign both the form, and the attached POC's. The document is laid out in court format, which I do believe helps to put over the fact that you know what you are doing. All the legal arguments are available via the stickies - but, as always, if you are in any doubt whatsoever about your claim, you should you should seek proper legal advice before embarking on legal action: <center>Claim No:</center> <center>IN THE ?????? COUNTY COURT</center> <center>BETWEEN: - NAME -and- COMPANY</center> <center>_________________________________</center> <center>PARTICULARS OF CLAIM</center> <center>________________________________</center> '''1.''' The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with <span style="color:red"> [Bank/Finance Company] </SPAN> on <span style="color:red">{Date]. </SPAN> The account/reference number is <span style="color:red">[number], </SPAN> which was a <span style="color:red">[fixed sum/rolling credit/whatever] </SPAN> agreement with a total <span style="color:red"> </SPAN>[value/limit] of <span style="color:red">£xxxxxxxx </SPAN> . 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 <span style="color:red">[Customer Account Manager/Sales Manager/Staff Member] </SPAN> (“the Manager”) employed by <span style="color:red">[the company]. </SPAN> '''4.''' The Office of Fair Trading states that “PPI protects borrowers' ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be unable to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or unemployment.” The Claimant contends that the PPI sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements, and that both policies were missold. '''5.''' The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because…….. <span style="color:red">GIVE REASON </SPAN> 6. 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 <span style="color:red">[the company] </SPAN> failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. '''7.''' 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. <span style="color:blue"> </SPAN>IF SOLD THROUGH A DEALER/SHOP/AGENT THIS PARAGRAPH WILL NEED AMMENDING '''8.''' On the basis of this, and further contentions outlined below, the Claimant believes that the advice given by the Manager 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). '''9.''' The Claimant contends that the Manager was made fully aware of the <span style="color:red">[employment position/pre-existing condition/other] </SPAN> of the Claimant, and should have had the necessary training and experience to know that the policy was not suitable. '''10.''' 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 <span style="color:red">[the company],</SPAN> to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">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. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE</SPAN> '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE</SPAN> '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the PPI would add to the loan, and that the Manager quoted the amounts as monthly figures without including interest as a deliberate act intended to cover the true cost. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE </SPAN> '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">The Claimant contends that it was never explained that the PPI would attract interest. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE </SPAN> '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">The Claimant contends that, when the forms were eventually provided for signature, they were marked with crosses where signatures were required, and that this action is purposely designed to encourage an expedient conclusion. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE </SPAN> '''??.''' The claimant contends that the pressure applied by the Manager, and the inexperience of the signatories in financial matters at the time, contributed to the forms being signed without them being fully checked. '''??.''' Notwithstanding that the forms were signed, and in any respect, the Claimant contends that there was an entitlement to expect that the advice and information given was true and honest, and that a reasonable level of care and skill would be given to ensure that the best interests of the customer were being met. '''??.''' 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. '''??.''' The Claimant believes that these conflicts of interest put the Manager in a position where future career path and financial gain were a prime motivator, and because of this the Manager did not maintain the duty of honesty and care that is a requirement in law, and under the Banking Code, OFT Guidelines and the FSA Handbook. '''??.''' In paragraph 10, the Claimant contended 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. '''??.''' In the light of the contentions made above, the Claimant asks that the court consider that an “unfair relationship” exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Should the court decide that section 140A does not apply, the Claimant contends that the actions of the Defendant grossly contravene ordinary principles of fair dealing as outlined in section 138 of the Act, and therefore Agreement A and Agreement B should each be ruled as an “extortionate credit bargain”. '''??.''' 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 <span style="color:red">[the company], </SPAN> 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 contends that the Defendant has been given ample opportunity to seek a resolution to the matters raised in this claim, and their outright refusal to even enter into discussions is a clear breach of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000. '''??.''' The Claimant will also cite the voluntary codes to which <span style="color:red">[the company], </SPAN> has agreed to be bound, and which support the view that a fiduciary responsibility can be assumed in a Bank Manager/Client relationship, and that any breach of that assumed level of trust should be regarded as an extremely serious matter. '''??.''' In any case, the Claimant will contend that the promotional material produced by <span style="color:red">[the company], </SPAN> and the Defendant, give great prominence and emphasis to their integrity and commitment to customer service. Again, the Claimant would contend that where this expensively portrayed image of professional integrity proves to be otherwise, the perpetrator should be held to account. '''??.''' <span style="color:blue">Under section 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a creditor is jointly and severally liable for misrepresentations and breaches in contract of the supplier, and therefore the Claimant contends that the Defendant is liable for the actions of the Manager, even though the Manager was employed by [the supplier]. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE</SPAN> '''??.''' 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: <span style="color:red">List all amounts claimed and don’t forget section 69 interest. </SPAN> '''??.''' Should the contention of the Claimant that an “unfair relationship” exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Claimant also asks that the court consider using its powers under section 140B(1)(c) of the Act to ……. <span style="color:red">whatever you want to achieve </SPAN> '''??.''' Should the contention of the Claimant that an “extortionate credit bargain” exists under the terms of section 138 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Claimant also asks that the court consider using its powers under section 139 of the Act to ……. <span style="color:red">whatever you want to achieve</SPAN> The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. Signed: Date: == Related Pages: == [[PPI]] [[PPI: Documents for Bundle]]

Return to PPI: Particulars of Claim.