SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

[meellis]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

Sorry Fred but a lot of the courts argue about the wording of the CCA and there seems very few experts on it especially on the side of the consumer. Any favourable verdict in a high court will make enforcement easier and one of the reasons enforcement isn't enacted enough is down to cost. The enforcement agencies had their fingers burnt over bank charges so they are reluctant to get involved unless it is a sure fire thing. We all like to believe that the agencies are interpreting and enforcing the rules but they face the best barristers in court and lose as well.

[Fred]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

https://youtu.be/-bL5DyKyP5k

[meellis]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

The downside from this judgement I can see so far is that in some cases the judges have clearly stated that the lender has a responsibility for the brokers actions whereas this one doesn't. It is certainly easier to understand with the spoken word than the written word.

[Fred]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

The downside from this judgement I can see so far is that in some cases the judges have clearly stated that the lender has a responsibility for the brokers actions whereas this one doesn't. It is certainly easier to understand with the spoken word than the written word.

The broker..........no longer trading

The lender was the only party who knew the full extent of the commissions

[pt2537]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-...essSummary.pdf
This matter was decided last week in the SC.

It overturns what many (including me) considered to be bad law re the matter of Harrison which decided that commissions paid to the lender/arranger for the customers PPI did NOT have to be disclosed to that customer therefore it did not constitute an unfair relationship

The SC judgment reverses this view completely in that the SC has decided that this DOES constitute an unfair relationship. Counsel for the respondent argued (& the court agreed) that withholding that information caused the Respondent to accept the PPI whereas If they had known the cost and the size of commissions and far exceeded the actual premium paid to the Norwich Union Insurance co (as was then) they probably would have sort considerably cheaper cover elsewhere. Anyway they were not advised they could seek alternative quotes thereby reducing the amount of the loan plus the additional high interest at a stroke

The Solicitors representing the respondent Plevin are I understand Miller Gardner of Manchester

It was last year according to the citation not last week though ??? i seem to recall this case being old news

[Fred]

Re: SC Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited

November last year...............