fbpx

Mis-selling of Financial Products – Supreme Court Upholds PPI Claim

19th January 2024 By

If you have been mis-sold a financial product, any delay in seeking legal advice may jeopardise your right to compensation – but what if facts on which you might found your case have been deliberately concealed from you? The Supreme Court answered that question in a case of crucial importance to consumer rights.

A woman borrowed £20,787 from a bank. Of that sum, £3,834 related to a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy which the bank arranged on her behalf. Unbeknown to her, over 95 per cent of the latter sum was paid to the bank as commission on the sale of the policy. The insurer received £182.

More than 12 years later, after taking legal advice, the woman launched proceedings against the bank, seeking to recover sums that she had paid in respect of the PPI policy, plus interest. The bank’s failure to disclose the commission, she contended, rendered the relationship between them unfair within the meaning of Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The bank defended her claim on the basis that it had been brought far outside the six-year limitation period which applies to such cases under the Limitation Act 1980. In upholding her claim, however, a judge found that the existence of the commission had been deliberately concealed from her. That decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Ruling on the bank’s challenge to that outcome, the Supreme Court noted that it had not been established that the bank knew or intended that its failure to disclose the commission would render the relationship with the woman unfair. It could not be said, therefore, that the bank had deliberately committed a breach of duty. To displace the limitation period, it was insufficient to show that the bank had acted recklessly in turning a blind eye to the risk that the relationship would be unfair.

In dismissing the appeal, however, the Court found that the deliberate concealment of the commission, within the meaning of Section 32(1)(b) of the 1980 Act, meant that the limitation period did not start to run until the woman discovered its existence on taking legal advice. Her claim, which was issued promptly thereafter, was therefore not lodged out of time.

The Court noted that a fact is concealed if it has been kept secret, either by taking active steps to hide it or by failing to disclose it. The woman did not have to show that the bank was under a legal, moral or social duty to disclose the commission. All that she was required to establish was that the bank deliberately ensured that she did not know about the commission and so could not bring proceedings within the limitation period.

The woman could not, the Court observed, have pursued her claim without knowing about the commission and its amount. The bank deliberately concealed its existence by consciously deciding not to tell her about it. There was no suggestion that she could, with reasonable diligence, have found out about it any earlier than she did. The requirements of Section 32(1)(b) having been met, the start of the limitation period was postponed until the date on which she obtained actual knowledge of the commission.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...