Store Card Plevin PPI Check
IT’S NOT THE END OF PPI CLAIMS
To help consumers meet their need for retail therapy, many signed up for store cards from high street retailers during the 1980s and early 2000. During this time most retailers such as Debenhams, Top Shop and Mothercare, sold PPI alongside their store cards without the customer's knowledge or consent. High street retailers also did not carry out adequate checks when selling PPI, to ensure the product was something the consumer needed or was eligible for. This has resulted in many consumers being entitled to compensation for mis-sold the store card PPI.
Store card PPI was a lucrative earner for high street retailers as they were often sold to customers who couldn't pay for their products in one go. This meant that the consumer was charged interest between 18 and 30 per cent, with PPI charges calculated as a proportion of the debt on top.
Although the deadline for making mis-sold PPI claims expired 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 to 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 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 her favour, the court ordered Paragon Finance to refund Susan Plevin the commission she had paid with compensatory interest.
Potter v Canada Square - New ruling April 2021
The case of Canada Square Operations Limited v Beverley Potter  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 Store Card Provider Charged Unfair Commission On Your PPI Policy, Incorrectly Rejected Your PPI Claim, Or Miscalculated Your Redress Payment, You May Be Due Compensation.