Black Horse Ltd v Speak & Anor [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB) (21 July 2010)

Black Horse Ltd v Speak & Anor [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB) (21 July 2010)

The PPI was not required as a condition of the loan; the bank's representative did not misrepresent the requirement for PPI; the agreement was not unenforceable for failure to include the PPI premium in the TCC; there was no breach of ICOB rules or creation of an unfair relationship; the claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1866
Parties
Claimant: Black Horse Limited; Defendant: David Speak; Defendant: Caroline Speak
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Consumer Credit Claim With Counterclaim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Unenforceability of Credit Agreements, Misrepresentation, Breach of Statutory Duty, Insurance Conduct of Business (icob) Rules, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974
Consumer Credit Contract Insurance Financial Regulation Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Unenforceability of Credit Agreements Misrepresentation Breach of Statutory Duty +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Black Horse Limited

Claimant

David Speak

Defendant

Caroline Speak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consumer Credit Claim With Counterclaim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PPI was required as a condition of the loan and thus should have been included in the total charge for credit (TCC)
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was unenforceable for failure to comply with prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation by the bank's representative

Ratio Decidendi

The PPI was not required as a condition of the loan; the bank's representative did not misrepresent the requirement for PPI; the agreement was not unenforceable for failure to include the PPI premium in the TCC; there was no breach of ICOB rules or creation of an unfair relationship; the claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the claimant £7,496.88 as at 17 August 2009, plus interest since then.