Phone Consultation , Call us 07947 488259
Phone Consultation , Call us 07947 488259
Banks and lenders across the UK were left feeling relieved after the PPI deadline of August 29th 2019, as they looked to put the PPI mis-selling scandal behind them. However, many UK residents are now finding themselves receiving compensation with Plevin PPI cases. What is Plevin, how might it affect you, and are you able to still claim compensation?
Claim Experts explains all you need to know below. If you believe you may have a Plevin case, our team can guide you through your next steps.
A Plevin PPI claim focusses on a Supreme Court case ruling from 12th November 2014, and is centred around hidden commission. Mrs Susan Plevin was sold a PPI policy to cover her secured loan from Paragon Personal Finance Ltd. Through careful reading of the small print, Mrs Levin discovered that an incredible 71.8% of the PPI premiums she had paid under the policy were in actual fact a hidden commission to the lender. Plevin and her legal team put to the court that this was unfair.
The Supreme Court agreed, and stated that the sale of the PPI policy was unfair due to:
Non-disclosure of the commission payment; and
The percentage of the PPI premium that was paid as commission.
This case then set precedent for future cases. The FCA has since ruled that if anyone else wishes to bring a PPI claim about the high levels of hidden commission within PPI premiums, they could do so.
Yes, there a few differences to the two claims. Both are made in relation to the sale of PPI premiums, but a Plevin case does not consider whether the PPI policy was mis-sold. Instead, this type of case focusses on the secret commission that was paid during the sale, that lenders failed to disclose. This hidden commission could be paid to brokers who brough customers to banks.
This distinction actually means that even if it was deemed you were not mis-sold PPI, you may still be eligible to claim compensation. If you have had a PPI claim rejected, you might still be affected by Plevin.
Hidden PPI commissions will have occurred when an agent, introducer, or finance broker sold you a PPI agreement from a bank or lender. If the agent or broker received a fee or commission for bringing you to the bank, and the bank did not inform you of this, that is a hidden, secret, or undisclosed commission. The lender or bank must inform you of ALL of the fees within the PPI transaction.
A general statement that “a commission may be paid in certain circumstances” is not adequate enough either. They must inform you at the point of sale how must the commission was. If they fail to do so it is a form of fraud. Both the bank and the finance broker may be liable for potential claims.
Yes. Because the two types of claims are completely different, the 2019 PPI deadline does not apply to Plevin cases. In fact, there is no deadline at all. This is down to the fact that the claim itself is centred around a different area of law – The Consumer Credit Act 1974.
If the below applies to you, you may be eligible to claim:
Your PPI policy was sold before 6 April 2007 and open after 6 April 2008; or
Your PPI policy was sold after 6 April 2007 (whether or not it was still open after 6 April 2008);
You have not previously complained about Mis-sold PPI;
You have had a PPI Claim rejected; or
You had a refund for the “Plevin only” part of your PPI (also known as a “tipping point offer”)
The Plevin ruling means that if more than 50% of your PPI’s cost went to hidden commission to the lender, or the lender and the broker combined, and it was not sufficiently explained to you, you are due compensation.
This means if you were sold PPI, it is more than likely you have a claim, as an average of 67% of what customers paid for PPI premiums was attributed to commissions from insurers. Banks invariably failed to mention the commission.
Because Plevin also applies to those who have been turned down historic PPI claims, there could be an additional 1.2 million individuals affected. If you were turned down prior to the August 2019 deadline, you may have been mis-sold through secret, undisclosed commission.
If you purchased PPI and the commission was above 50% of the cost and you weren’t informed, you are entitled to the difference back in the compensation. For example, typically, a £10,000 loan over five years would see £500 compensation for a Plevin PPI case.
The FCA has also advised there will be a historic interest rate plus 8% to consider when doing calculations.
Our team are well versed in working out compensation for mis-sold financial product claims like these, and can guide you through how much you may be eligible for should you have a claim.
SCM make starting your Plevin PPI hidden commission claim easy. We have a team of experts who are on hand to talk you through the process. There is no obligation to use our service after we have performed our initial checks, and none of the checks will affect your credit score.
If you are one of the thousands in the UK that might have been affected by the undisclosed PPI commission scandal, contact one of the SCM team today and we will be in touch to talk you through the next steps.
There are no up front costs, and any payments to us will simply be deducted from your compensation award should your claim be successful.
Have you been a victim of hidden PPI commission mis-selling? If you were subject to secret fees from your PPI broker and/or bank, you may be entitled to compensation. SCM can guide you through any potential claim, and we work on a No Win, No Fee basis, so there is no risk to you.
Our legal team come from a financial services and compliance background. We have experience of bringing successful claims against those who mis-sell financial products. We are regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation.
If you have lost money due to receiving negligent advice about your pension Suffolk Claims Management can help.
In many cases, investors were advised to transfer funds from their private pensions and to invest in high risk, highly speculative SIPP investments, under advice that they would receive much higher returns. However, due to the high risk involved, these investments are usually only suitable for experienced investors. They are not suitable for the ordinary investor.
In some cases investments have been made into high risk unregulated schemes. Examples of these investments include:
Foreign property investments
Hotel rooms
Carbon credits
Green energy
Forestry
Self-storage units
Airport parking
Collective investment schemes
The risks involved were not properly explained to you
Your personal circumstances were not properly considered by your financial advisor
You were of an age for the investment to be deemed unsuitable for you
You were not properly advised on how your money would be invested
You were sold an investment that was riskier than your financial circumstances or attitude to risk required.
If you have invested your pension in a SIPP scheme and have suffered financial losses as a direct consequence, you may have grounds for a mis-sold pension claim if the following criteria apply:
Investment failed– You were guaranteed a financial return which didn’t materialise.
Unexplained Fees– You were faced with additional costs, which weren’t explained to you from the start.
Unexplained Risks– You were not informed of the financial risk associated with your investment.
Unsuitable Scheme– You received advice to move your pension into a higher risk SIPP, when this was not suitable for your needs.
Pressure Selling– Your financial advisor used aggressive sales techniques to pressure you into investing in a scheme that you did not want.
You may have been a victim of mis-sold motor car finance if you received poor advice on your financing options or if you were not sufficiently made aware of the various commissions being charged within your agreement.
A recent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) investigation discovered widespread evidence of mis-selling on all types of vehicle financing options.
A Plevin PPI claim focusses on a Supreme Court case ruling from 12th November 2014, and is centred around hidden commission. Mrs Susan Plevin was sold a PPI policy to cover her secured loan from Paragon Personal Finance Ltd. Through careful reading of the small print, Mrs Levin discovered that an incredible 71.8% of the PPI premiums she had paid under the policy were in actual fact a hidden commission to the lender. Plevin and her legal team put to the court that this was unfair.
Unknown to customers buying vehicles, lenders systematically incentivised brokers and car dealers to charge their customers higher interest rates so they could receive higher commissions themselves.
As one car dealer openly admits in a recent article, “frankly, we were getting away with murder. We weren’t treating customers fairly and were, in effect, charging them to earn us money.”
Another dealer said their agreements with their lenders “let us car salesman adjust the interest rate on customer loans in order to boost our commission.
A PCP car on a finance deal was not the best option; it would have worked out 40% cheaper if the customer had used a hire purchase agreement.
The customer felt that they were pushed into making the wrong decision without complete understanding.
Vauxhall – Corsa – Manual
Mis Sold Car Finance PCP
The salesperson did not make it clear who would own the vehicle, whether it be the customer, the finance company, or the car dealership.
PCP interest was overcharged.
The customer did not receive alternative options from the dealership.
BMW – 3 Series – Manual
Mis Sold Car Finance PCP
The salesperson did not fully explain they would receive a commission on the sale of the car.
The customer was mis sold their mileage estimation; the mileage was estimated at 9,000 per year when the dealer knew the customer exceeded this substantially.
Mercedes – A Class Saloon – Manual
Mis Sold Car Finance PCP
It has been unveiled that lenders tend to conceal the existence of commission offered to their brokers. A mystery shopper exercise carried out in 2018 reviewed the processes followed by 122 retailers in their provision of Motor Finance. Of those 122 retailers only 11 disclosed to the customer that commission may be received by the broker for arranging the finance. This violates CONC requirements as it creates an unfair relationship between customer and lender.
It has been found that lenders often incentivise a broker to charge a higher interest by compensating them with a commission proportional to the interest the sell. The estimated cost of this behaviour for the customers is £300m annually. An FCA consultation entitled : ‘Motor Finance discretionary commission models and consumer credit commission disclosure,’ found that Difference in Charge models are the most damaging to the customer which unnervingly consist of 95% of the 1000 agreements the FCA looked into.
The mystery shopper exercise mentioned earlier which was carried out by the FCA also wanted to investigate whether or not lenders fully disclosed all the necessary information regarding the Motor Finance agreements to be made. The shoppers found that the concept of ownership of a car under PCP was frequently brushed over or poorly explained. 69% of the mystery shoppers were not made aware by the broker that they would not fully own the vehicle until they had payed the final ‘balloon payment.’ The FCA concluded that they were ‘not satisfied that firms are complying with regulatory requirements.’
Lenders are required by law to give an APR of a Motor Finance Agreement so the customer may compare products, however, they are then free to give an equivalent representation of the APR. A prevalent example comes in the form of flat rate interest. Flat rate interest is applied to the starting balance for the entire duration of the loan no matter how much of it is paid off. This means that as a percentage value, flat rate interest is very low compared to other types of interest while still providing the same returns. In failing to clarify to the customer this key detail of their interest rates, lenders are in breach of UK consumer credit law.
There is concern over some dealers who are trying to get customers approved by second-string lenders if the customer has been declined by their primary lender. This may result in much higher rates as the finance company they may get approval from will probably specialise in sub-prime customers as they were not able to get a check from the main lenders.
It appears that an alarming number of PCP companies have seemingly been acting without regulation. They have been manipulating PCP’s to their own benefit at the cost of the consumer. Many brokers have been operating without the oversight of FCA regulators which is not only irresponsible but also illegal, this unfairly places the consumer in a very precarious position.
The Difference in Charge agreements showed a direct correlation between broker earnings and higher customer interest rates. Only now are regulators clamping down on lenders to review their systems, revealing the fact that brokers have been earning higher commissions straight from the higher interest rates. The FCA warned that thousands of customers could be paying 50% more interest than necessary. This is also due to the consumers being made to take out more money than actually necessary and then have interest charged upon that higher number.
There are many different types of charges you can received through a mis sold PCP. One of the charges is often from the ‘Mileage Limit’ which if exceeded, the fee could be very steep. People are often not made aware of the exact details of the mileage limit so it becomes scarily easily to go over the limit and receive a charge. The other fee to look out for is the ‘Wear and Tear’ because although you may believe you have kept the car in good condition, the dealers may count smaller things you were unaware of as a part of this charge and again the fees won’t be small.
PCP stands for Personal Contract Purchase, it is a financial plan to help you obtain a motor for an average of 2-4 years by paying a monthly fee.
The finance plan is set up in three forms of payment.
1. You will make a deposit for the vehicle, this could be 10% of the vehicle’s retail price.
2. Once you have paid a deposit the rest of the agreement is made up of monthly installments.
3. After 2-4 years when the vehicle agreement comes to an end you will now have a decision to make, either pay a large balloon payment that can be up to 50% of the retail price of the vehicle or you simply hand back the vehicle and have nothing to pay, as long as the vehicle is in good condition and you did not exceeded over your mileage allowance .
See the example below to understand how it works. Imagine you sign up for a PCP over three years.
The vehicle costs £20,000 the finance company calculates that the vehicle will be worth at least £8,000 after three years. This is how it would look…
You pay a deposit for example £2,000 the rest will be obtaining a loan for the sum of £18,000.
The outstanding balance is now £18,000, however it has been agreed that the vehicle will only be worth £8,000 at the end. You only repay £10,000 (plus the interest on the entire £18,000) over the three year period.
At the end of the agreement, you either pay the final £8,000 to keep the vehicle or have the option to hand the vehicle back.
Importantly, even if you return the car, you will still have paid interest for the full loan amount (£18,000) over the three year period
When a potential borrower is introduced to a mortgage company, it is common for the introducer to be paid a commission by the lender. However, where neither the mortgage broker or lender inform you that a commission was to be paid, you may have a valid claim against either of them.
The body of law relevant to the question of ‘secret commission’ payments stems from a 2007 Court of Appeal case in the name of Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007). In this judgment, the borrower Mr Wilson was introduced to Hurstanger Ltd by an independent mortgage broker. In addition to a broker fee that was added to the loan, Hurstanger also paid the broker a further commission of £240.
Although Mr Wilson was informed by Hurstanger that a commission was to be paid, they failed to disclose the exact monetary amount that was to be paid. Accordingly, the Court found that the mortgage broker was in breach of his fiduciary duty to the borrower. Equally, the Court found that Hurstanger, the lender, was an accessory to this breach, and effectively induced the broker to breach his duty. The Court ordered Hurstanger to compensate Mr Wilson up to the amount of the commission plus interest.
When you engage the services of a professional from whatever discipline, they have a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. However, in certain scenarios, the duty they owe you is significantly higher and the relationship between you is classified as a fiduciary one.
The classic test relating to fiduciary relationships is set out in the Court of Appeal judgment; Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533. What this means for clients of such a professional is:
1. A fiduciary is one that acts in circumstances where the relationship is one of trust and confidence
2. You would be entitled to single minded loyalty from the fiduciary
3. They must act in good faith
4. They must not make a profit from the trust
5. They must not put themselves in a position where their duty and interest may conflict
6. They must not act for their own benefit without your informed consent
In summary, this means that if the professional advising you is paid a commission, and they have not informed you that they are being paid, you would likely be compensated the amount of that commission plus any associated interest. Also, depending on the circumstances of your case, you may be entitled to have the loan ‘written off’.
A recent body of case law now means that credit brokers introducing and advising clients to enter into secured loans owe a fiduciary duty to the borrowers they introduce. Prior to 2008 it was extremely rare for either brokers or lenders to confirm both the existence and amount of commission paid.
If you entered into a secured loan prior to 2008 and were not informed that a commission was to be paid, contact SCM to see how we can help
Your landlord has a legal duty to maintain the structure of your home and ensure the structure is kept in a reasonable condition and that you are able to live in it safely and comfortably. If this has not been your experience as a tenant and you’ve suffered as a result of your landlord’s refusal following notice to carry out repairs or maintain the property, you may be entitled to make a housing disrepair claim.
If your landlord has failed to maintain the property or has refused to make repairs when asked, he or she could be in breach of your tenancy agreement and you can likely ask the court to compel your landlord to make the repairs as well as make a claim for compensation.
The responsibilities of your landlord will depend on the terms of your contract. However, as a minimum your landlord will be expected to keep the property structurally safe and to repair faults when they arise within the property.
Some landlords are responsible for the maintenance of the whole property, including the exterior, any communal areas and garden, and the white goods used in the house. However, as a guide, landlord responsibilities include:
Ensuring the property meets fire safety regulations
Servicing the boiler
Maintaining the plasterwork, roof and brickwork
Fixing any gas and water leaks
Removing any mould and damp
Housing disrepair can cause stress, inconvenience and worse – living in substandard or dangerous conditions can lead to illness, injury and even death.
Housing disrepair risks include the following:
Damage to belongings caused by leaks
Higher heating bills incurred due to draughty windows
Respiratory problems caused by leaks and damp
Injuries caused by dangerous, poorly maintained brickwork
Illness or fatalities caused by inadequately serviced boilers leaking carbon monoxide
Fire risk caused by poorly maintained white goods
When a claim is made for housing disrepair against a landlord, many factors need to be considered, including the level of inconvenience and stress caused by living in the property or whether you’ve had to move out because of the disrepair, and the amount of damage to belongings or to you personally as a result.
Factors that are taken into account with a housing disrepair claim, include:
Length of time you’ve lived with the disrepair
If you’ve had to move into another property
Amount and severity of ill health or injury caused. It is important that you have records of visits to your GP or a hospital recording the injury or ill health.
Damage to belongings – keep photos of any items that have been damaged
Evidence of disrepair, loss or damage – take photos or videos and record damage to clothing or furniture that may be thrown away.
Compensation is usually awarded as a percentage of the amount of rent you pay depending on your suffering and loss, and it doesn’t matter if someone else pays your rent, such as the Housing Benefits department, as it’s simply a way of calculating the amount of compensation you should receive. In rare cases where the property has been without heating, water and electricity plus has had a risk of structural failings, the tenant may receive 100percent of the rent – normally however, compensation is in the region of 25-50percent of the rent.
Our experienced property solicitors have handled all types of claims against landlords for disrepair and are here to help you if you’ve suffered an illness or injury, stress or loss, due to property disrepair and want to make a claim for compensation.
There is a Housing Disrepair Protocol we all follow and a process for making compensation and we will guide you through each step. It can be a daunting prospect to make a housing disrepair claim, which is why we provide support from the outset – from the initial consultation to decide the details of your claim for compensation right through to the outcome of your claim, we will support you at every step to make the process as straightforward and stress-free as possible.
Suffolk Claims Management is a team of specialists dedicated to investigating, negotiating and settling a broad range of claims against a wide variety of financial services providers.