High Street Banks And Plevin PPI
IT’S NOT THE END OF PPI CLAIMS!
Britain's banks aggressively sold 'ineffective and inefficient' – but highly profitable – payment protection insurance for more than two decades. PPI policies have been sold alongside mortgages, loans and credit cards since the 1990s. They were meant to “cover peoples’ repayments on their borrowing if their income fell because they became ill or lost their jobs.
The deadline for mis-sold PPI has now passed, but consumers can still claim for undisclosed or hidden high commissions that were charged on their ppi policy premium by the policy providers. These new claims are being dubbed, as ‘PPI 2’ and came about with the introduction of a Supreme Court ruling known as 'Plevin'. This meant that consumers whose policy provider had earned a high level of commission from their PPI policy that they weren't aware of could put forward a claim for a refund. This is what is now commonly known as a 'Plevin PPI' claim or a 'Plevin' claim.
What is Plevin PPI?
In a 2014 landmark case Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd, Mrs Susan Plevin discovered that 71.8% of her PPI payments were actually commission taken by Paragon for the sale of the policy. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a breach of the Consumer Credit Act as Mrs Plevin was unaware of the high rate of commission, and had she of known, she may not have taken out the PPI policy. Ruling in Plevin's favour, the court ordered Paragon to refund the commission she paid with compensatory interest.
Since this Plevin ruling there have been a number of other PPI commission cases where landmark rulings were issued bringing further clarification from the courts and and justice for consumers regarding these unfair practices.
Potter v Canada Square
The case of Canada Square Operations Limited V Beverley Potter [2020] brought a degree of clarity to the issue of limitation points in Plevin Litigation. This judgment was welcomed by law firms, claims management companies and claimants alike as it strengthened the claimant's argument that these claims should not have a limitation period applied to them due to the concealment of PPI commission levels. This meant that the claims are no longer confined to a six-year limitation period from when your credit card/loan/mortgage or other finance ended.
Potter V Canada Square Ruling - April 2021
