PPI Court rulings

Print

Problems with Payment Protection Insurance are by no means a new phenomenon. This type of insurance has been mired in controversy for more than two decades. The first court case was brought by Mr L W Price against TSB Bank plc in 1992-93 (Bristol CC 93/10771). The case was won when it was judged that the sum total of all premiums was almost as high as the potential benefits that could be claimed. Following the decision, as part of the settlement, a ten-year nondisclosure clause was put in place. Once this had expired a copy of the judgement was passed to the Office for Fair Trading and Citizens Advice Bureau,  and soon afterwards a Super Complaint was raised.

Banks tried to defend their past sales practices

Print

In October 2010 the Banking Industry sought a judicial review of new measures in relation to PPI policies. Their argument was that the rules were being applied in respect of past sales practices, which they considered to be unfair. In the same month, The Competition Commission confirmed PPI could no longer be sold at the same time as borrowings were being arranged.

In January 2011 a High Court case was started, ruling against the Banking Industry three months later. This matter was brought about by the British Banking Association who believed they should appeal the judgement.

On 5th May 2011 Lloyds Banking Group announced its intention to cease making a legal challenge. Lloyds stated they wanted to ‘draw a line’ under the whole affair.

Four days later, 9th May, The British Banking Association made it known it would no longer pursue an appeal against the High Court judgement.