Mis-selling of PPI (again!)

I am assisting a relative in attempting to reclaim PPI on a First Plus secured loan. The PPI was a single-premium policy added to the loan from the start (at a cost of £4,500!) and he has been paying interest on that £4,500 over the 3 years that the loan has been running. Single premium PPIs have, of course, now been banned. The PPI only covers the first five years of the loan - whereas the loan itself is over 15 years. The relative claims that he was not aware of this and would not have taken out the PPI had he known. The problem is that the 5 year period 'is' shown on the documents that he signed.
Looking at the reasons for which PPI can be reclaimed there are such things as: "It was not made clear that the PPI was not compulsory" "It was not made clear that the PPI only covered the first five years of the loan" "It was not made clear that interest would be payable on the PPI premium throughout the length of the loan"
etc.
What puzzles me with regards to these points is the 'It was not made clear...'
If all of these factors are included on the documentation that the borrower signed prior to obtaining the loan, then can they still claim that 'It was not made clear...' simply on the basis that the loan provider did not 'verbally' make it clear during the discussions prior to the loan being taken out?
Reply to
Ret.
Discovered the answer for myself. The enquiry into mis-selling of PPIs made it clear that sellers should not just rely on documentation, but should ensure that the documentation is explained to potential customers so that they are fully aware of what they are signing up to. Excellent.
Reply to
Ret.

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.