Harrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd: CA 12 Oct 2011

The appellant sought under section 104A to recover a Payment Protection Insurance premium paid in support of a loan. The borrower dealt directly with the lender, who acted as an intermediary with the insurer. The commission taken by the lender was 87%.
Held: Tomlinson LJ described this level of commission as ‘quite startling’, adding that there would be ‘many who would regard it as unacceptable conduct on the part of lending institutions to have profited in this way’. However that of itself was not enough to render the relationship with the consumer unfair. The lender had not breached the applicable rules either as to the amount of commission or as to the failure to disclose it. He said: ‘the touchstone must in my view be the standard imposed by the regulatory authorities pursuant to their statutory duties, not resort to a visceral instinct that the relevant conduct is beyond the Pale, In that regard it is clear that the ICOB regime, after due consultation and consideration, does not require the disclosure of the receipt of commission. It would be an anomalous result if a lender was obliged to disclose receipt of a commission in order to escape a finding of unfairness under section 140A of the Act but yet not obliged to disclose it pursuant to the statutorily imposed regulatory framework under which it operates.’
Lord Neuberger MR, Patten, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1128
Bailii
Consumer Credit Act 1974 140A 140B
England and Wales
Cited by:
BindingPlevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd and Another Misc 4-Oct-2012
Manchester County Court – The claimant sought repayment of insurance premiums paid as payment protection insurance when aking out a loan with the defendants as advised by the second defendant. The second defendant was in liquidation by the time her . .
See AlsoHarrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd SCCO 7-Mar-2013
. .
BindingPlevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd and Another CA 16-Dec-2013
The claimant sought repayment of a personal protection insurance premium paid to her broker. The broker was now in insolvent liquidation, and she sought to recover the premium from the next intermediary.
Held: Any limitation of section . .
DisapprovedPlevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 March 2021; Ref: scu.445400