Unfortunately the digital process will not work with Javascript disabled. You can find out more on how to enable javascript by clicking here.


29th Aug 2019

The Plevin vs Paragon Case Summary

Susan Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance 2014 – Plevin, a retired college lecturer, was introduced to Paragon by a broker who assessed her ‘demands and needs’ for PPI. Paragon accepted the business and carried out money laundering checks but did not discuss the suitability of the insurance.

The loan, for £34,000 at 7.3% APR over ten years was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The PPI was a single premium policy costing £5780 – 71.8% of this was commission.

Action: Plevin claimed she was mis-sold the PPI as it didn’t meet her needs. She discovered the PPI contained undisclosed high-levels of commission and argued she may not have taken out the policy had she known this as the PPI wasn’t value for money.

The Supreme Court case in June 2014 centred on an ‘unfair relationship’ under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between her and Paragon regarding the non-disclosure of high commission within the PPI premium.

Outcome: The Supreme Court rule Plevin had been mis-sold PPI and the non-disclosure of commission was as an unfair relationship with the lender. The commission was beyond a ‘tipping point’ but didn’t explain what the limit or starting point of such a tipping point was.

Customer Reviews


Rejected PPI Complaints

If you had a previous complaint about mis-selling of PPI rejected, you can still complain about commission earned by a bank or other provider.

Rejected PPI claims can be now be re-opened on a New Legal Ruling

Don't Give Up On What You Could Be Owed Claim Against Undisclosed Commission Rates We Can Re-Open Your Claim‎

Claim back any undisclosed commissions over 50% plus interest