High Street Banks And Plevin PPI


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

If your Bank/lender charged unfair commission on your PPI policy, incorrectly rejected your PPI claim, or miscalculated your redress payment, you may be due compensation.

Start FREE Plevin PPI Check

Start FREE Plevin PPI Claim Eligibility Check
Your lender may have charged unfair commission on your PPI policy, incorrectly rejected your PPI claim previously, or miscalculated your redress payment and you may be due a refund. To find out if you are eligible to reclaim under the Plevin ruling, complete your contact details below & we'll be in touch to start your no obligation Plevin PPI check.

Our form is Currently Under Maintenance – Please Try Again Later

Apologies for any inconvenience caused!

Secure Form & Connection .
Powered by
Potter has the potential to impact on all types of credit claims!

A new PPI court ruling in April 2021 revealed how the banks used YOUR MONEY to earn hefty commissions for themselves.

Strangely, they forgot to mention the secret commissions they kept when the original PPI rulings came out.

Now the courts have said that any commission they have earned by selling PPI policies is potentially YOURS.

This ruling saw the complainant awarded £7,953.53 in compensation for the commission alone. This includes fees and interest that accrued over the years.

And it’s estimated that other people who had PPI policies will be owed from £1,000 up to £40,000 in compensation.

We can find out if you’re owed money! Just fill out our ‘Start a FREE Plevin PPI Check’ form and we will call you back.

Potter v Canada Square Case

In Potter v Canada Square, the Lender [Canada Square Operations Ltd, formerly Egg Banking plc] accepted that the non-disclosure of commission caused unfairness in the relationship; however, it defended the claim on the basis that it was issued outside the widely accepted six-year limitation period.

Mrs Potter’s legal team invoked Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which extends the limitation period due to the deliberate concealment of commission levels by the lender.

Canada Square Operations Limited v Beverley Potter judgement [2020] EWHC 672 (QB)

What the press said?

Millions more customers can now make new PPI claims – could you get up to £40,000?

No, thank you. I do not want want to see the details of the judgement.
100% secure your website.
Powered by