Archive for the ‘Civil Litigation, General’ Category

Ombudsman Orders Compensation Following Planning Approval

A Council that took account of the personal circumstances of an applicant for planning permission, when granting an application to construct a bungalow outside the designated development area and in green belt land, has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman.
 
The person who applied for permission to build the bungalow was elderly, disabled and owned a home which was susceptible to flooding. Melton Borough Council granted planning permission despite the objections of the owners of adjoining land and even though the application was contrary to the Council’s stated planning policies and went against the recommendation of the planning officer who had reviewed the application.
 
The Ombudsman ruled that the owners of the adjoining land should be compensated for the diminution in value of their property as a result of planning permission being granted and awarded an additional £500 for their time and trouble in raising the complaint.
 

Tags: , ,
Posted May 27th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |

Comments Off

If it is in the Sky, It is Weather!

Plane on runway

The Financial Services Ombudsman has refused to refer a test case involving a travel insurance claim to the court in order to determine whether the volcanic ash cloud which caused so much disruption to European aviation in 2010 was not covered by the phrase ‘poor weather conditions’.
 
Most travel insurance policies contain limitations in cover which exclude or limit claims resulting from ‘acts of God and those relating to areas where there is civil unrest or war or to which travel is undertaken when the Foreign Office has advised against it. Normally, they allow a claim to be made where it results from adverse weather conditions.
 
The case involved a woman whose claim was refused by the insurer, which argued that it was not covered by the clause that allowed a claim to be made when the travel disruption resulted from adverse weather conditions. She appealed to the Ombudsman.
 
The ombudsman concluded that it was not a suitable case to refer to the court as a test case and made an award to the claimant.

Posted May 20th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |

Comments Off

Banks Give in Over PPI

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) has been all over the press over the last few months and the banks have no started paying out in big volumes for the unlawful selling of unecessary and unwanted payment protection policies.
Selling of PPI policies was a huge money earner for the banks who traded largely on the ignorance and fear of customers keen to get their mortgages through fast during the rampant property market over the last decade.

PPI policies were very profitable for banks due to the claim rates being very low but with policy costs comparatively high.

We now all know that this irrational exuberance has had huge consequences and this is yet another example of problems being linked to excessive and fast and loose policies by banks.
But are borrowers also to blame ?  It is believed that in the self certification mortgage market a huge number of individuals embellished information they gave to get mortgages and many may have "played the game" of accepting the extra costs of a PPI policy so the lender wouldn't perhaps look to closely at their real earnings and financial background. Or are we being controversial ?
What do you think ?

This debacle looks like it could end up costing the banks over £5 billion, short term gain seems to now be having a habit of coming round full circle !

Get in touch with any views and if you have a litigation issue, we can help.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted May 19th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |

Comments Off

Claim Procedure Reforms Will Affect Smaller Claims

Stafford CourtWith all the hoop-la about the proposed change to the ‘no win, no fee’ regime, another set of proposals, which may well be of greater importance for many people has slipped under the radar of the popular press.

 
A new consultation paper proposes changes to the limits on claims to be heard by the lower courts. The proposals include:
 
  • the limit of a claim which can be dealt with in the small claims court is to be increased from the current £5,000 to £15,000; and
  • the minimum limit for a case to be sent to the High Court is to be raised from £25,000 to £100,000; and
 
In addition, the online system for settlement of smaller road traffic accident cases is to be adapted for use in all small personal injury cases up to £50,000 in value and trialled for use in claims for clinical negligence against the NHS.

Tags: , ,
Posted April 28th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |

Comments Off

Banks Receive PPI Compensation Setback

Offixe 23The long-running battle between banks and their customers over alleged mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) plans took another step forward last week when the High Court dismissed a challenge brought by the banks that guidance on such policies issued by the Financial Services Authority on sales of insurance did not apply to PPI policies.

 
PPI policies were sold aggressively by banks to customers who took out loans. They insure the person taking the loan against redundancy and illness, with the insurer covering any loan payments due during the period of incapacity or unemployment. The cost of the policy was normally added to the loan on day one, meaning that if the debt was paid off early, premiums had been paid unnecessarily. Typically, a PPI policy would add more than 20 per cent to the loan.
 
The move paves the way for customers to receive refunds of premiums paid. However, an appeal by the banks is likely and, even if unsuccessful, the estimated £4.5 billion cost will inevitably end up being met by the current customers of the banks, most probably through the demise of free bank accounts.
 

If you have suffered a loss through being mis-sold a financial product, you may be able to obtain redress. Contact us for advice

Tags: , ,
Posted April 26th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |

Comments Off