header-logo header-logo

26 February 2009 / Rodney Gardner
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Banking , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Toxic Invasion

In the hope of writing off loans, many people are being exploited by case management companies, says Rodney Gardner

The Competition Commission (CC) has recently announced a ban on the sale of payment protection policies, at the point of sale, such requirements to be implemented by next year. Several banks have already agreed voluntarily to impose a ban now and it is thus apposite to consider the law and practice that is presently evolving with regard to such claims.

Claims management companies (CMCs) have been seeking refunds from banks for some time now on behalf of borrowers who have been sold single premium policies when applying for both secured and unsecured loans, many of the people affected being within the lower socio-economic groupings. The CC has found that policies being sold are uncompetitive, and CMCs have in the past had some success in gaining refunds on the grounds of unsuitability and/or ineligibility of the debtor.

The only way a CMC can advance a client’s claim, which is rejected, is to refer

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll