P – PPI
4/10/23
SMITH v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2023] UKSC] 34
A claim for a remedy in relation to an unfair relationship under s.140B Consumer Credit Act 1974 can be made at any time while the credit relationship said to be unfair is continuing. In cases where the claim of unfairness relates to non-disclosure of a PPI policy commission, the applicable limitation period of 6 years does not start running when the policy premiums were paid or when the policy is terminated. In considering whether the relationship is unfair, the court must consider the history of the relationship, so until the relationship is terminated there is no applicable limitation period. If there has been a long period of inaction by the debtor, that is a relevant factor in determining whether the relationship was unfair when it ended and to the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant a remedy.
20/3/20
CANADA SQUARE OPERATIONS LTD v POTTER [2020] EWHC 672 (QB)
A lender’s failure to disclose in 2006 a commission in connection with a PPI policy had been unfair and amounted to wrongdoing within the unfair relationship provisions of CCA 1974 ss 140A-D. The lender was to be taken to have deliberately concealed the wrongdoing, so s 32 Limitation Act 1980 applied so that time did not run for the borrower to bring a claim to recover the premium until the borrower discovered the commission payment in November 2016.
12/11/14
PLEVIN v PARAGON PERSONAL FINANCE LTD [2014] UKSC 61
Non-disclosure of the amount of commissions paid in respect of a PPI policy made the creditor’s relationship with the debtor unfair and justified reopening the transaction under s 140A CCA 1974. The decision in Harrison v Black Horse Ltd (2012) that the relationship could not be unfair if the creditor had not breached duties imposed by the ICOB regulatory regime, was wrong. A wider range of considerations may be relevant to the fairness of the relationship including the characteristics of the borrower. It is a question of degree. Here the commissions were so large that the customer should not have been kept in ignorance. The creditor was responsible for making the relationship unfair by failing to disclose the size of the commissions. The creditor had no regulatory or other duty to assess the borrower’s needs. Although s 140A also covered things done on behalf of the creditor, this requires agency to be established and the independent broker could not be regarded as the creditor’s agent.
16/4/14
FIGURASIN v CENTRAL CAPITAL LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 504
In selling a PPI policy with a loan, the lender failed to explain that the entire PPI premium was to be paid in advance. The borrower was misled into thinking that the premium was merely paid over the term of the loan and did not give rise to additional borrowing. The lender had therefore acted in breach of the requirement of ICOB 2.2.3(1)R to communicate in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading. The fact that the loan documentation did make the position clear was not enough to break the chain of causation because the misleading explanation had caused the borrower not to bother to read the detail in the documents which followed the misleading explanation.
1/8/12
Guidance on the FOS’s approach to PPI mis-selling complaints was published in the August 2012 edition of the FOS Ombudsman News.
GOODMAN v CENTRAL CAPITAL LTD [2012] EWHC 8 (QB)
No breach of ICOB rules proved in sale of PPI.
31/5/12
WARD v OFFICIAL RECEIVER [2012] BPIR 1073
Compensation paid to an individual after he made a successful complaint to the Financial Ombudsman over PPI mis-selling, was property which vested in the individual's trustee in bankruptcy.
19/4/12
GINN v FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL GROUP PLC (Unrep) Birmingham County Court
A broker had acted as an introducer, not as an adviser, in arranging a PPI policy. He had not acted as an agent in a fiduciary capacity, and he had no duty to disclose the amount of his commission. He had been negligent by suggesting that the premium would be refunded in full and failing to point out that interest would be payable on the premium. But the limitation period started running when the policy was taken out in August 2004, the claimant knew the material facts by December 2005 and as the claim was not issued until October 2010 it was time-barred.
13/1/12
LOUGHLIN v BLACK HORSE LIMITED [2012] EW Misc 8 (CC)
District Judge’s decision to allocate PPI claim to small claims track upheld by Judge on appeal.