Welcome Finance PPI and Mr Z ** SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME **

[MrZ]

So my claim has been stayed for 6 weeks to enable the parties to attempt a settlement.

Edited August 19, 2011 by MrZ

[pdb1980]

So my claim has been stayed for 6 weeks to enable to parties to attempt a settlement.

 

This says to me that maybe they don't want it to go to court as they know they will loose?

[MrZ]

This says to me that maybe they don't want it to go to court as they know they will loose?

 

I think its just a stalling tactic. Them using every bit of time they are allowed to use.

 

Sadly my draft directions were not ordered. In fact no other directions other than to stay the claim and telling me that I must notify the court by x date whther settlement has been reach or request a stay or the stay be lifted.

[MrZ]

I have been doing some further research and brainstorming. I would like to get some opinions on the following.

 

1. Kleinwort has been frequently suggested as the cas elaw which supports that my PPI claim can be brought beyond the 6 years since the loan was taken out. The basic argument is that I paid PPI as a result of a mistake. Hvaing read the Kleinwort case, my understanding is that the mistake is one of a mistake of law and not a mistake of fact. In other words if a court made a ruling on the grounds of a law, but later that ruling was clarified and held to be a mistake (by application, or intepretation, etc) then that is a mistake of law...basically the court got it wrong and therefore a claim can be brough after the 6 year limit because of that mistake. It does not relate to a mistake of fact. The argument that PPI was paid by mistake because it was believed to be a requirement to pay, is an example were the mistake is one of fact. In my understanding, the mistake at issue in Kleinwort was on of a mitsake of law. Can any comment here?

 

2. Under section 32 of the Limitations Act, there is an exception for concealment. Now it the recent past it has come to light that Welcome, among others were found to have widespread cases of mis-selling of PPI. In 2008, due to this and other internal failures, WFS was ruled to be in default. WFS had to provide or set aside money to cover the claims that were likely to be made as result of this. WFS had to undertake an internal review of their loans and estimate how much money to set aside for these claims. This means WFS knew they had mis-sold the PPI and would ultimately be held liable in the claims. WFS did not notify me of this or advise that I could bring a claim. Had I been notified of this in 2008 or 2009 I would have been able to make my claim within the 6 year limit. Can this be argued as a concelament under section 32?

 

3. Can anyone clarify whether exception under section 20 of the Limitations Act allows a debtor to bring a claim against the lender with the same application of the 12 year limit or is does this section apply strictly to the lender?

 

4. Lastly, section 14A applies to damages as a result of negligence. What is the burden here for the negligence? Can anyone give an example of how the mis-sale was a rsult of negligence in a way that would satisfy therequirement of this section?

 

I may submit an application to strike out their defence. I am happy I have everything covered with the exception of their defence that the entire claim is time barred. Before I submit an application to strike out, I need to be able to reasonably and successfully argue the claim is not time barred.

 

As always I appreciate any comments/feedback.

[citizenB]

Have flagged the questions for you

 

Point 2 could be worth pursuing IMHO

[MrZ]

Have flagged the questions for you

 

Point 2 could be worth pursuing IMHO

 

I really hope I can use it, as at the moment it seems to be the only legally valid way I have around the time limit issues....still researching.

[MrZ]

Prior to my claim being stayed allowing the parties oppertunity to attempt settlement, I sent a Part 18 request for information. I gave 14 days for the response. The time is up today(yesterday was a bank holiday). Does anyone know if the stay of the claim also stays the clock on my Part 18 request, or can I go ahead and apply to the court for an order for my Part 18 request?

[MrZ]

The stay should not effect your part 18 request.Have you read Holyoak –v- Lloyds TSB Bank Plc? It was in Sunderland CC and might be relevant, although only a CC decision and not really any authority. I foulnd it on Lovells LLP website.

 

The matter went before District Judge Loomba. He agreed with Lloyds and held that both claims in relation to the 2004 PPI policy were time-barred, because:1. The documentation provided to Mr Holyoak made it clear that the PPI was optional; and2. Mr Holyoak had the right to cancel the PPI and this was set out in the policy documentation. The Judge found that if Mr Holyoak had read the policy documentation, he would have uncovered the alleged wrongdoing and could have cancelled the PPI and/or pursued his cause of action then.As a result of the above, neither of sections 14A or 32(1)© saved his claims in relation to the 2004 policy and such claims were time-barred. Worth a look.

 

Yes, Holyoak is one of the case I mentioned earlier in the thread. Its one of the cases that has me concerned. Its a county court case so its not binding, but it is an indication of how some judges are looking at certain types of claims. Each case is different, and I can only hope the facts of my case are such that the limitation doesnt apply.

[MrZ]

Have flagged the questions for you

 

Point 2 could be worth pursuing IMHO

 

Wanted to share some more info that might be helpful.

 

The argument for concealment is a non starter. In order to plead concealment, the defendant (Welcome) will have to be proven to have deliberately concealed or hidden facts. As it would be virtually impossible to prove that they deliberately hid or concealed the mis-sale, this argument is doomed to fail.

 

Hopefully this will be of use to anyone following or reading the thread.

[millymollymoo]

Wow what along thread. I have started a court claim for PPI,Time barring with mine and the POC is the same old scenarion. .

 

Have you an further news? Wish you good luck

Edited December 12, 2011 by millymollymoo

[MrZ]

Hi all,

 

A brief update. I still have Welcome in court. The tried really really hard with the "lets wear him down" strategy... you know letter ping pong, frivolous court applications, pointless hearings, threats of mounting costs against me because I don't have a case, blah blah blah.

 

I knew from the jump that my case was sound, but I didn't know how to play the legal game...and yes it really is a game. I hired a team of solicitors and a top consumer credit barrister who all agreed my case was sound. Long story short, every time they try it on, I come right back at them with statute, case law, indisputable facts...all guns blazing.

 

I am like a dog with a bone now. They will not win, they can not win. They are now making more offers of settlement (still WAY undervalued), the interest keeps adding up. I am happy to string this out until the global economy collapses. They don't have a leg to stand on, they know it and they are stalling.

 

They are avoiding court at every cost, my opinion is, and my barrister strongly agrees, they are not afraid of the pay out, but the legal precedent that will follow and open flood gates.

 

Can anyone say damage control?

 

More updates when I have something I can disclose.

[citizenB]

Hello Mr Z, thank you for the update

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Your update has thoroughly made my day Good for you, I'm so glad you decided not to give in!!

What stage of the process are you at now? Did you amend your POC? Have you got a trial date yet?

Sorry for all the questions, it just makes me so happy to hear they are in this situation

 

It's so interesting that your barrister thinks they are fearful of the repercussions, if they are that worried perhaps they shouldn't have done it in the first place eh??

 

I'll be at the final trial with them in little over 2 weeks time and we get to talk all about secret commission and who paid what to whom

How exciting!

Unfortunately for them, the options to avoid court on this issue have been thoroughly and entirely exhausted. There's no way out for them now.....

 

I think the only difference between us is that I went with the Unfair Relationships provisions, it is a fantastic umbrella which covers a multitude of sins - the debtor alleges the relationship is unfair, the creditor then has to PROVE otherwise. My UR claim encompassed all manner of things they did, just because they might get one point doesn't mean all the others don't still count

 

Best of luck to you and I look forward to your updates!

Congratulations on learning how to play the game

[MrZ]

Hello Mr Z, thank you for the update

You're welcome. I am away, but still around.

[MrZ]

Your update has thoroughly made my day Good for you, I'm so glad you decided not to give in!!

What stage of the process are you at now? Did you amend your POC? Have you got a trial date yet?

Sorry for all the questions, it just makes me so happy to hear they are in this situation

 

It's so interesting that your barrister thinks they are fearful of the repercussions, if they are that worried perhaps they shouldn't have done it in the first place eh??

 

I'll be at the final trial with them in little over 2 weeks time and we get to talk all about secret commission and who paid what to whom

How exciting!

Unfortunately for them, the options to avoid court on this issue have been thoroughly and entirely exhausted. There's no way out for them now.....

 

I think the only difference between us is that I went with the Unfair Relationships provisions, it is a fantastic umbrella which covers a multitude of sins - the debtor alleges the relationship is unfair, the creditor then has to PROVE otherwise. My UR claim encompassed all manner of things they did, just because they might get one point doesn't mean all the others don't still count

 

Best of luck to you and I look forward to your updates!

Congratulations on learning how to play the game

 

Believe it or not we are still back and forth at the AQ stage. I am happy for it to be sent to fast track and get on with it. They are trying any and all tactics to try to get me to drop or settle before a trial. Not going to happen

 

Yes the POC's were re-written by my barrister...at a VERY hefty price I might add. It was necessary to remove some issues that may have been the difference between success or failure. The least of which was the claim being time barred. The idea that one can claim (PPI) even after the 6 years is not true. Its 6 years from the time of SIGNING or entering the contract NOT when you become aware. The info that was (is?) going around that you can is simply untrue.

 

I too am attacking on the grounds of UR in addition to others, misrepresentation is key here too, and of course the hidden/secret commissions, and violations of the DPA.

 

I will update as much as I can but because its an ongoing case I was advised to keep a lot of the specifics under my hat for the moment.

[citizenB]

Believe it or not we are still back and forth at the AQ stage. I am happy for it to be sent to fast track and get on with it. They are trying any and all tactics to try to get me to drop or settle before a trial. Not going to happen

 

Yes the POC's were re-written by my barrister...at a VERY hefty price I might add. It was necessary to remove some issues that may have been the difference between success or failure. The least of which was the claim being time barred. The idea that one can claim (PPI) even after the 6 years is not true. Its 6 years from the time of SIGNING or entering the contract NOT when you become aware. The info that was (is?) going around that you can is simply untrue.

I too am attacking on the grounds of UR in addition to others, misrepresentation is key here too, and of course the hidden/secret commissions, and violations of the DPA.

 

I will update as much as I can but because its an ongoing case I was advised to keep a lot of the specifics under my hat for the moment.

 

Mr Z, I dont think this can be right at all. The claim below is from 1998 and MBNA shelled out £64,000. If what you say is true, MBNA would never have paid out !!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354001-Mbna-awaiting-offer-letter-£64-000-WIN!!

[ims21]

Correct CB

 

Indeed mine paid out from 1989/90 time.

 

There are plenty of cases documented on CAG where awards are well beyond six years ago.

[cerberusalert]

Wasn't there a judgment where the six years starts from when you become first aware that the PPI had been mis-sold?

[postggj]

Wanted to share some more info that might be helpful.

 

The argument for concealment is a non starter. In order to plead concealment, the defendant (Welcome) will have to be proven to have deliberately concealed or hidden facts. As it would be virtually impossible to prove that they deliberately hid or concealed the mis-sale, this argument is doomed to fail.

 

Hopefully this will be of use to anyone following or reading the thread.

 

 

CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THIS READING THE POST

 

surly the six year limitation period starts from when the credit agreement contaning any insurance such as ppi ended, not from conception of the agreement at point of sale

 

i cant see how welcome can get out of concealment either ref the misselling of these insurance product, welcome cannot sell you the insurance products with the agreement and then benefit by the sale by giving itself commission payments on the sale of those insurance products

 

 

did welcome inform you it was paying itself commission on the over priced insurance products it sold you

 

that is breach of fiduciary duty

[Prudence]

Hi Mr Z, and well done for sticking this out and with style!!!!! Me too really happy to read your update. BTW mbna paid out (partially) to me last year re PPI from around 1998/2000. Now in court for the remainder. Keep strong.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I couldn't agree more about keeping things under your hat. I can see you've already had one of the welcome spies on your thread

There's much I'd like to share and also ask opinions on but regrettably I can't due to unwelcome eyes

 

The only thing I will say is to take extra care with the breach of fiduciary duty argument, it's not quite as straightforward as it may seem....

[MrZ]

Providing another update.

 

This case is still in the Court. A trial has been scheduled for later this spring. Meanwhile, Welcome were required to give disclosure (which they failed to do), and witness statements were to be exchanged at a specified date given by the court (they failed to do this as well).

 

I have complied with the Court's directions. Welcome have not. As a result I have made application to have their defence stricken out. A hearing on this has been scheduled and is to be heard in a few days.

 

Will update more when appropriate.

Edited March 16, 2013 by MrZ

[citizenB]

Thanks for the update, MrZ

[MrZ]

Providing another update.

 

This case is still in the Court. A trial has been scheduled for later this spring. Meanwhile, Welcome were required to give disclosure (which they failed to do), and witness statements were to be exchanged at a specified date given by the court (they failed to do this as well).

 

I have complied with the Court's directions. Welcome have not. As a result I have made application to have their defence stricken out. A hearing on this has been scheduled and is to be heard in a few days.

 

Will update more when appropriate.

 

Cant go into a lot of detail but, good result for me at the hearing. They have managed to buy a bit of time, but it wont save them.

 

More updates to come when/as appropriate.

[paulwlton]

Seems like you've got em on the ropes. Good look with this!

 

PW