You may be one of the 1000s of individuals who has been given inappropriate advice in relation to financial products such as re-mortgaging, ISA’s, Personal Equity Plans, car finance and much more causing financial loss and leading to devastating consequences to you and your family.It is not always obvious that the advice was wrong, but a claim can be made for many reasons such as:
- Your personal circumstances were not properly taken into account.
- Commission/fees were not shared with you.
- You were not fully advised of the risk relating to the investment.
- The amount of actual money invested was not disclosed to you.
History has demonstrated that financial institutions are happy to take but not so happy to give back.
Get in Touch
We are committed to making your claim process as simple and stress-free as possible. You can contact us in whatever way best suits you.
Whether you would like to get in touch to register a claim, ask a question or simply enquire about your rights, we’re here to help.
Simply fill in your details below and we’ll be in touch. You can be confident that your enquiry will be completely confidential and will not commit you to any cost or obligation to proceed with us.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed a deadline of 29 August 2019 for complaints to be submitted. However, a decision of the Supreme Court has enabled a new category of Claimants to bring claims for the mis-selling of PPI.
The term Plevin claim refers to cases that have been brought following Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd  UKSC 61. A Plevin claim arises when it is found that a high proportion of the PPI premiums paid by customers were comprised of commission paid by and profit shared with underwriters and insurers in an arrangement that the customer was not made aware of, often referred to as secret commission.
The Claimant in the case of Plevin was found to have paid PPI premiums nearly 72 per cent of which was shared as commission between the credit broker and PPI provider.
The undisclosed nature of secret commissions and profit share arrangements make PPI agreements between banks and customers part of an unfair relationship. The unfairness stems from customers having been denied the opportunity to consider whether the premiums represented value for money.
This concept of unfairness was best summarised by Lord Sumption in the case of Plevin: “Any reasonable person in her position who was told that more than two-thirds of the premium was going to intermediaries, would be bound to question whether the insurance represented value for money and whether or not it was a sensible transaction to enter into. The fact that she was left in ignorance made the relationship, in my opinion, unfair.”
A court will consider all aspects of the PPI policy agreement when deciding whether a relationship is unfair. Where the evidence points to an unfair relationship between the customer and the bank, a customer may be awarded compensation.
Even when claims were brought before the FCA’s deadline of 29 August 2019 and compulsory mandatory redress payments had been made, a PPI customer may still bring a claim when the payment did not reflect the full value of their losses from the payment of undisclosed commission and profit share.
Despite the customer’s position as the data subject, with a right of access to their personal data under data protection law, a combination of institutional defensiveness, commerciality and poor file management means banks are frequently intransigent and robustly negative in their attitude to the disclosure of the account data necessary to fully evaluate a customer’s losses.
What Lysander Law Limited will do
Our goal is to secure an accurate settlement of the client’s losses in accordance with their best interests. This means pursuing the claim expeditiously, but also accurately, so that clients are fully compensated.
The Financial Mis-Selling Team at Lysander Law will obtain disclosure of the account data, which includes large volumes of complex data that requires expert attention. We will analyse this data in order to accurately assess the value of the customer’s losses (including where there has already been a mandatory redress payment) and identify the irregularities that will form the heads of claim.
This data will form the basis of our advice on the merits of settlement. Where settlement before action is not possible we will instigate proceedings to obtain remedy from the Court.