Court Rulings

Plevin & Related Court Rulings

After the PPI scandal you can now make a claim against your lender for undisclosed high commission. A number of landmark court rulings have paved the way for this new type of PPI claim, known as Plevin. However, these claims have to be made through the courts.

Under Plevin, if more than half of your PPI cost went towards a commission for the lender (joint lender and broker/adviser) and you weren't made aware of it, you have the right to receive that amount back. The responsibility falls on the lender to reimburse this to you, regardless of whether your payments were made in one lump sum or on a monthly basis.

Below, we highlight the most important cases have been brought before the courts, all of which challenged different aspects of the high commissions charged and which were not disclosed to the buyer. The court rulings for each case have had a major impact on how Plevin-based PPI cases are considered by the courts.

  • The first case involved Mrs Plevin. This case was significant as it meant that customers who had had their cases rejected previously could now have them reconsidered purely based on the commission.
  • The second case involving Mr & Mrs Doran meant that lenders may face more claims for compensation, and for larger pay-outs, than previously envisaged.
  • The third case of Potter v Canada Square brought a degree of clarity to the issue of limitation points in Plevin litigation.

Find out more information on each case and ruling below:

Latest Ruling

Potter v Canada Square 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 claimants’ 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 is a trading style of MoneyPlus Legal. MoneyPlus Legal is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA Number 428794.
Our Fees | Privacy Policy | Complaints Procedure

Start FREE Plevin PPI Claim 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.


The contact form is currently under maintenance – please try again later

Apologies for any inconvenience caused!

Latest PPI Commission Claim Ruling

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 £1000s in compensation.

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.

Read the 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?

Close Box.
100% Secure Website.
Powered by