We anticipate that many readers may be receiving a number of standard letters from either claims management companies or connected firms of solicitors alleging undisclosed commission, multiple agreements and PPI miss-selling. It is important in our view to take a robust stance as the companies representing the borrowers are seemingly not taking up front payments from the borrowers and therefore are relying upon settlements monies to fund their organisations. One tactic might be to ask for payment before providing any disclosure (assuming any disclosure is being provided).
Judges in Chester and Cardiff have already taken an active interest and are seeking to have test cases. Full case management conferences have been listed in the next few months. There is a possibility a similar approach might be taken by the judges in Leeds. A test case is going to be difficult and is likely to be opposed given each case is fact sensitive. The decision in Southern & Pacific v Heath has assisted the argument on behalf of lenders in respect of multiple agreements. See Wragge & Co's previous alert on the Meaning of multiple agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is understood public funding has been provided to seek leave to appeal.