Times today

[suvin50]

Interesting PPI article on page 84 of the Times today.

[rebel11]

Is this the story:-

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article4275976.ece

[dx100uk]

can someone with full access grab it to PDF for us

 

 

else its a subs fee each to read it

 

 

dx

[suvin50]

No.link is here

 

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=plevin+&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on

 

 

suvin

[dx100uk]

you can only read the first bit

the rest is greyed out

unless you pay to subscribe to the times-online.

 

 

dx

[suvin50]

You should be able to work out for yourselves how to find the full judgement. It is here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0037_Judgment.pdf

 

 

Not rocket science

 

 

suvin

[dx100uk]

that's got not a lot to do with claims firms.

 

 

but is SUCH an important case

 

 

thank you.

 

 

just gotta understand it now

 

 

did she win or not........

 

 

dx

[hillards]

This is a long time from Susan Plevin's original case, which she 'lost' due to the legal company she used being greedy, to cut a long story short.

 

This time it seems that the Judge says that Paragon acted unfairly in hiding the massive amount of commissions paid to the broker and even more to themselves. I have a similar story of taking a loan via a broker with Paragon and being bamboozled by the terms and all that. The biggest upset was when we realised the PPI was no good on a 10 year loan as it's only covered the first 5 years, something the broker was supposed to have 'sorted out' at the time we took the loan out, they claimed it was Paragon's mistake and we were covered for 10 years. We have since reclaimed the PPI via the FSCS as the broker had gone broke.

 

Para's 31-34 seem to cover the way the case has been assessed and notes the issues the court has with the CCA S.140A but comes to the conclusion that it gives the debtor protection. That in itself is enough to re-open the case but he instructs that the appeal be dismissed and the matter referred back to Manchester to decide "what if any" relief should be ordered.

 

I had a case in court last year where I had claimed unfair terms and dodgy agreements but ended up having to withdraw as I could not afford to be represented legally. Paragon's legal team were putting up a solicitor and a barrister. I paid for some legal advice and a barrister said I had a 51% chance of success. Because the Plevin ruling was quoted as a major part of their case against my claims I was advised to step down and withdraw my case. It left a massive lump in the throat to do that, but if I lost it would have meant the loss of my home, and that of my family.

 

This Judgment by the Supreme Court does not help my case, as only CCA 140B can be considered. There is also a danger that Mrs Plevin's case may be further dismissed as the CCA itself did not cover loans above £25,000 at the time, as I was reminded several times.

 

She's not won - yet, we need to see what Manchester County Court does next.