Case Studies

Good news for victims of PPI mis-selling

There appears to be a lot of inaccurate speculation as to the effect of the Plevin judgment and the practical effects for victims of PPI.

We explain in detail, below, but, put simply, Plevin opens the door for customers to claim undisclosed commission from lenders.  However, where customers have already received a full refund, in respect of the monies they have actually paid, they are not also entitled to the commission also.  This would lead to a “double-bubble” of recovery.

Plevin was listed on the same day as the case of Conlon v Black Horse Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1658, in which this firm was instructed and we made the same arguments as in Plevin.

We had advanced the argument, in both Harrison, discussed further below, and Conlon, that PPI victims should be able to claim back the undisclosed commission.  

Of course, we were instructed by Mr and Mrs Harrison, regarding their claim for the mis-sale of Payment Protection Insurance by Black Horse.  The Harrisons took out a loan of £60,000 with the PPI premium being £10,200.  However, Black Horse did not inform the Harrisons that a significant proportion of the premium was commission.  In fact, up to when the loan was discharged, the Harrisons had paid £10,529.70 for the premium and £8,887.49 of this figure was for commission (around 85%!).

The Harrisons’ case lost in the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.  We appealed to the Supreme Court and Black Horse settled on the steps of Court in order to buy off the risk.  However, if it would have proceeded to the Supreme Court, the outcome would have been the same as Plevin and therefore vindicated what we had argued all along.