Mr & Mrs Figurasin v Central Capital Ltd & Paragon Finance Ltd

Posted on 07/05/2014 · Posted in Financial Litigation

This case was an appeal by CCL, the first Defendants, against a first instance judgement in the Manchester County Court in favour of Mr and Mrs Figurasin. CCL were ordered to pay damages to them of £13,000 for mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance (‘PPI‘) in conjunction with a loan of £25,000. CCL appealed principally on the grounds that the Figurasins had not read the documentation sent to them about the loan.

Neither a borrower nor a lender be. .”
William Shakespeare

Mr and Mrs Figurasin, both NHS nurses, wished to borrow £25,000 in order to consolidate their debts. They carried out a search on the Money Expert website and came across CCL as a possible provider. Mrs F spoke to a representative of CCL in a recorded conversation in September 2005 which formed the basis of the original damages claim. After asking a number of detailed questions about the couples financial position, assets, existing life cover and medical conditions, the representative used her computer to generate various loan offers based on the information provided. She proceeded to give an offer of £25,000 over a term of 10 years with a monthly payment of £393.68 stating that ‘the monthly payment also includes your payment protection and that is tailor made for the loan product…’ No breakdown of the monthly payment was given and it was not made clear that the PPI was financed by a further loan. She did not realise that by declining the offer of PPI she and her husband would have saved £102 per month by not having to borrow the cost of the premium.

Subsequent documentation did give a breakdown and the Figurasins admit they did not read this clearly as they had relied on the explanation given over the phone and had trusted the representative. Lord Justice Patten felt that the influence of the telephone conversation could not be underestimated and that the Figurasins failure to read all the documents was not sufficient to remedy the defects in the telephone conversation. Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (‘ICOB‘ Rule 2.2.3(1)) requires a firm to communicate in a ‘clear, fair and not misleading’ manner and the phone conversation had not met this standard. ICOB rules are meant to protect consumers from being misled and there had been an inadequate explanation as to how the PPI would be funded. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Link: Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504 (16 April 2014)

Expert Evidence Limited is a professional firm concentrating on the four main areas of dispute resolution; acting as expert witnesses in financial litigation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The firm has a civil, criminal and international practice and has advised in many recent cases. Areas of specialisation include banking, lending, regulation, investment, and tax.

Ask a question about expert witness services. We are here to help!

Contact Us Now

Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.