Finance litigation briefing — May 2014: onus on lender to give details of cost of PPI
By Greg Standing
Failing to mention the cost of payment protection insurance (PPI) is a breach of the obligation to communicate with borrowers in a fair, clear and non-misleading way.
This was the finding of the Court of Appeal in Figurasin and another v Central Capital Ltd and another. This finding was reached despite the borrowers’ failure to read the loan documentation sent to them, which did adequately set out the cost of the PPI. The borrowers entered into a loan of £25,000 with the defendant. The offer of loan was made by one of the defendant’s employees over the phone.
The borrowers were told the cost of the loan was £393.68 per month, which included the cost of PPI. The only time the cost of PPI was mentioned separately was when the borrowers were told the premiums would be refunded at the end of the term when they would receive £8,750. No mention was made of the fact the PPI would actually cost them £12,248.40…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
In James & Anr v Chircop, the court entered judgment against the defendants (James and another) due to failure to attend the trial.
The Chancery division allowed liquidators’ application for disclosure of documents under s.236 Insolvency Act 1986 in order to investigate possible claims against the respondents.