my dear old dad vs Lloyds TSB

I never thought i would see the day when i had to give advice to my dad about the law relating to financial institutions let alone actually have to represent him but that day came recently.

I was talking to my dad about his loans that he had with Lloyds TSB and he happend to mention a letter that he had recieved from Lloyds which he came accross by accident while looking through his files.

What had happened was that dad was made redundant around February this year, fortunately his loan ended around the beginning of February. This much i was aware of.

However, what i was unaware of, was that Dad had gone into the branch of Lloyds TSB when he took out his loan, and the advisor told him that she strongly recommended that he took out the loan, there were witnesses fortunatley to this. My dad replied that he would only take out the PPI upon condition that it provided him with redundancy cover past his 65th birthday, with it being recorded that if it did not then he did not want it end of story. My dad explained that he was planning on working on until he was 68 or 69 so that his mortgage could be paid, and therefore any PPI needs to provide redundancy cover until he finished work.

He was assured that it did.

Anyway, dad found a letter from lloyds telling him that since he was 65 his ppi was no longer covering him.

To say i was very sad and had a sense of humour failure would be an understatement. So, off we went to Lloyds TSB customer services, dad gave me full authority to deal with the account too, so it was open season on Lloyds.

Not only had they missold dad PPI on this case, but on all his other loans going back years.
So, i got hold of Lloyds, set out clearly that this was an advised sale, despite them trying to say it was, the fact they said ” we strongly recommend you take this”  is clearly an advised sale. They also argued limitation, but sadly they lost that one too, as i argued that the misrepresentation made the relationship unfair and therefore, Patel v Patel [2009] EWHC 3264 (QB) (10 December 2009) clearly says that if the relationship is unfair within s140(a) CCA 1974, then the limitation period is 6 years from the end of the relationship. Sorry Lloyd’s TSB you lost again.
So, after an investigation, Lloyds decided to do the right thing and refunded my Dad all of his PPI with interest.

Very happy with that result.

About paul @ watsons solicitors
Member of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and a litigator for one of the leading firms of solicitors in Consumer Credit Act litigation. I was the fee earner in the landmark ruling of Harrison v Link Financial Limited and many other County Court decisions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: