Read About The Court Case That Could Open The Floodgates For Excessive Commissions Claims

Law court
Author: Samuel Beckingham
Updated: Jun 17, 2022
3 minutes read

In July 2006, Mrs Potter took out a loan with Egg Banking plc (now Canada Square) for just under £17,000. Canada Square then suggested Mrs Potter also take out insurance under a payment protection insurance policy (the PPI Policy).

However, Mrs Potter was unaware that over 95% of the premium for the PPI Policy was paid to Canada Square as commission on the sale of the Policy.

In December 2018, Mrs Potter issued a claim against Canada Square, to recover the amount that she had paid under the PPI Policy, plus interest.

Canada Square said it was too late for Mrs Potter to make this kind of claim, as section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 included a six-year time period, which had expired.

Mrs Potter argued that the commission had been deliberately concealed and the six-year period did not begin to run until she found out about the Commission in 2018, as per section 32 of that Act.

The County Court agreed that as per section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, the commission should have been disclosed but was deliberately not. Therefore, The County Court ordered Canada Square to pay Mrs Potter £7,953.

This is great news for consumers because it extends the time period in which claims can be brought forward due to both the commissions and deadline not being disclosed.

Canada Square has appealed to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, both of which were unsuccessful. They have now appealed to the Supreme Court which was heard on the 15th June 2022, and is currently awaiting judgement.

For more information about claims and money saving tips visit our homepage.