'Regulator Attacks Payment Protection Insurance Sales'
'Another Big Lender Gets Record Fine'
'With more banks and lenders being fined for mis-selling PPI, could this pave the way for claims for compensation? '
'Many firms 'are still mis-selling PPI' '
This is not a "loop-hole" in the law. We check for fundamental flaws in credit agreements. If your agreement does not comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 then it will be deemed unenforceable. Below are some of the court cases that have set a precedence within the industry.
WATCHTOWER INVESTMENTS v PAYNE (2001)
VALERIE JOYCE McGINN v GRANGEWOOD SECURITIES (2002)
LONDON NORTH SECURITIES v MEADOWS (2005)
HURSTANGER LTD v WILSON v BURTON COMMISSIONS (2007)
HURSTANGER LTD v WILSON v BURTON (2007)
Quote from the 'Wilson' case
"72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127 (3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall.
He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled." - Lord Nicholls