PPI and Plevin Claims Explained for UK Consumers

 


If you are researching Payment Protection Insurance compensation, you have probably seen references to both standard PPI claims and Plevin claims. While they are related, they are not the same.

Understanding the difference is essential, especially if your original complaint was rejected or you believe you missed the 2019 deadline.

This guide explains both routes clearly and outlines what may still be possible in 2025.

What Was the Original PPI Scandal?

Payment Protection Insurance was designed to help borrowers cover repayments if they became ill, unemployed, or unable to work. However, it was widely added to loans, credit cards, and mortgages without proper explanation or suitability checks .

By 2019, banks had paid over £38 billion in compensation for mis-sold PPI . The Financial Conduct Authority introduced a deadline of 29 August 2019 for traditional mis-selling claims.

Many consumers assumed that once this deadline passed, all PPI matters were closed.

They were not.

What Are Standard PPI Mis-Selling Claims?

Traditional PPI claims focused on how the policy was sold.

Banks assessed whether:

  • You were pressured or misled
  • The policy was unsuitable for your employment or health
  • The terms were not clearly explained
  • You were unaware PPI had been added

If none of these factors were established, claims were rejected .

Successful claims usually resulted in a refund of the full premium plus interest.

However, this process often ignored a separate issue: commission.

What Are Plevin Claims?

Plevin claims emerged after the Supreme Court decision in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd in 2014 .

In that case, Mrs Plevin discovered that more than 70% of her PPI premium was taken as commission by the lender, without her knowledge .

The Court ruled that such non-disclosure could create an “unfair relationship” under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 .

This opened a new legal route for consumers whose policies involved high undisclosed commission.

What Qualifies as a Plevin Claim?

Typically, a Plevin-style claim may apply where:

  • Commission exceeded 50% of the PPI premium
  • The commission was not disclosed
  • The policy was active at some point after April 2008

Importantly, commission-based claims are not restricted by the FCA’s 2019 mis-selling deadline in the same way .

They are instead subject to general limitation rules, such as six years from sale or three years from when you became aware of the commission issue .

Key Differences Between Standard and Plevin Claims

Legal Basis

Standard claims focus on sales conduct.
Plevin claims focus on unfairness caused by hidden commission.

What Is Refunded

Standard claims: full premium plus interest.
Plevin claims: commission above 50% plus statutory interest .

Eligibility

Standard claims depend on individual suitability.
Plevin claims depend primarily on the size and disclosure of commission.

Can You Claim If You Were Rejected Before?

Yes, potentially.

Many rejection letters only assessed mis-selling. They often did not examine whether the lender retained excessive undisclosed commission .

If commission was not addressed in your original complaint, you may still have a separate legal route.

Why This Still Matters in 2025

Thousands of consumers believed their cases were closed after rejection or partial settlement. However, if high commission was involved and not properly disclosed, compensation may still be available .

Understanding the distinction between mis-selling and unfair commission can significantly affect your options.

For a detailed explanation of how these two routes differ and how to assess your eligibility, read our full guide:

Standard PPI vs Plevin Claims: What You Need to Know in 2025


#CRS #Legal #Law #LegalServices #LegalNews #LegalAdvice #LawFirm #ConsumerRights #Claims #PPI #PlevinClaims



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Car Finance After the Supreme Court Ruling: What Borrowers Should Know

Image
  The Supreme Court’s August 2025 judgment clarified how commission in motor finance agreements should be treated under the law. For borrowers, the outcome is more nuanced than many headlines suggested. 1. What the Supreme Court Decided The Court confirmed that a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) does not automatically create an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It also made clear that dealers are commercial intermediaries, not fiduciaries, and that disclosure of the possibility of commission can defeat claims of secrecy. Importantly, unfairness now requires additional aggravating factors, such as very high commissions or inadequate disclosure. In practical terms, this narrowed certain court-based claims. 2. What Changed After the Judgment Shortly after the ruling, the Financial Conduct Authority announced plans for a consumer redress scheme targeting undisclosed or excessive commission. Consultation Paper CP25/27 proposes an industry-wide sche...
Read more

What a past PPI rejection does and doesn’t rule out today

Image
  If your PPI complaint was rejected years ago, it is easy to assume the matter is closed permanently. In practice, a rejection answers one specific question: did the complaint meet the regulatory tests that applied at the time it was assessed? It does not automatically answer every possible question about fairness. What a past rejection does mean A rejection usually means: The firm applied FCA complaint-handling rules and concluded that the complaint did not meet the threshold for redress at that time  The complaint may have been considered out of time, particularly after the 29 August 2019 deadline  There may have been insufficient evidence about how the policy was sold  The firm concluded that mis-selling tests were not met under the rules then in force  In short, it reflects a regulatory judgment made within a defined framework. What a past rejection doesn’t necessarily rule out It does not automatically rule out: That the complaint was assessed under narr...
Read more