Photo of Greg Standing, Wragge & Co’s finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales teamPPI mis-selling
decisions in lenders’ favour.

There has been a further
spate of judgments in recent months arising out of the high volume
of payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims being
brought against lenders. I reported on one such judgment in
Black Horse Ltd vs Speak in the September 2010 issue of
Motor Finance.

Five recent decisions,
Harrison vs Black Horse Ltd, Snailham & Elliott vs
Black Horse Ltd
, Vernalls vs Black Horse Ltd,
Morris vs Black Horse Ltd and Kerry vs Black Horse
Ltd
, have all gone in favour of the lender. Some common themes
arise from the decisions:

  • It is very difficult to
    persuade the court there is an unfair relationship between the
    parties (under the Consumer Credit Act) where lenders ensure their
    internal procedures and systems are compliant with the Insurance:
    Conduct of Business (ICOB) rules. Compliance with those rules is
    undertaken for the very purpose of avoiding the sorts of complaints
    that arose in these types of cases. Many of the complaints related
    to the alleged failure of the lender to undertake a proper
    assessment of the borrowers’ demands and needs and failing to bring
    certain matters to the borrowers’ attentions. The courts concluded
    in these cases that the use of a demands and needs questionnaire
    had meant the ICOB rules had been satisfied.
  • The borrowers had a choice
    when purchasing PPI and an option to cancel. The lender’s
    documented procedure clearly showed PPI was not compulsory, despite
    what some of the borrowers alleged. There was no reason why the
    lenders’ employees would suggest it was compulsory.
  • The commission on a PPI
    policy and the cost of a policy were irrelevant to a mis-selling
    claim and to the question of an unfair relationship, as was the
    fact the lender’s employee was paid a bonus. The courts held that
    the amount of the commission earned did not act as an inducement to
    the lender or its employee, nor give rise to a material conflict in
    breach of the ICOB rules.
  • There is no common law duty
    requiring lenders
    to advise more widely on the issue of the cost of the
    policy.
  • An absence of first-hand
    oral evidence from the lender’s sales representative wasn’t fatal
    to the lender’s case, even if there was a factual dispute. Some of
    the oral evidence given by the borrowers was inconsistent with
    their witness statements or was unconvincing. The lender’s
    documented written procedure, and evidence of the training that
    employees were put through, was preferred.

 

Comment

These are robust decisions
for lenders.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

The upshot is that where a
lender’s internal procedures are compliant with ICOB, and there is
nothing to suggest that those procedures were not complied with, it
will be very difficult for borrowers to succeed on a mis-selling
claim.

However, it should be noted
that Harrison vs Black Horse Ltd is being appealed to the
Court of Appeal on the issue of the cost of the policy and the
amount of commission.

Greg Standing is a partner in Wragge & Co’s
finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team