Credit Cards Plevin PPI Check

People holding a credit card

IT’S NOT THE END OF PPI CLAIMS


With over 66m credit cards in circulation in the UK, millions were also sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) with their credit card between 1988 and 2010. The purpose of PPI was to help consumers meet their credit card payments if they were unable to work due to illness, an accident or unemployment.

How was PPI charged on credit cards?

PPI policies sold with credit cards were normally paid for by monthly premiums, which were added to the monthly card balance. The cost of the premium was a percentage of the total balance owed for that month, and if the balance wasn't repaid, then interest would be added.

Although the deadline for making mis-sold PPI claims expired back in August 2019, banks and lenders are now be facing more hefty payouts in what is being dubbed, ‘PPI 2’, unfair relationship or undisclosed high commission PPI claims. The basis of these claims was initially decided in a landmark judgement issued by the Supreme court in 2014 commonly known as the Plevin ruling. In addition, there have been subsequent landmark rulings in high commission PPI cases which have brought further clarification for claimants and potentially open the floodgates to new claims.

What is the Plevin Ruling?

In the case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd,  Mrs Susan Plevin discovered that 71.8% of her PPI premium was actually commission that was 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 known of this she may not have taken out the PPI policy. Ruling in her favour, the court ordered Paragon Finance to refund Susan Plevin the commission she paid with compensatory interest.

Read the full Plevin ruling here : https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0037-judgment.pdf

Potter v Canada Square - New ruling April 2021

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 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 credit card provider 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 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.

Secure Form & Connection .
Powered by
POTTER V CANADA SQUARE
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