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 followed proper procedures and made clear that PPI was optional. Therefore, the agreement was not unenforceable, there was no misrepresentation, no breach of ICOB rules, and no unfair relationship. The claim by the bank succeeds and the counterclaim fails.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1866 (QB)
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), Misrepresentation, Unfair Relationship, Breach of Statutory Duty, Consumer Credit Act 1974, ICOB Rules, Total Charge for Credit, Prescribed Terms
Consumer Credit Contract Law Insurance Law Financial Regulation Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Misrepresentation Unfair Relationship Breach of Statutory Duty +4 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 5 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 state prescribed terms
  3. 3 Whether there was misrepresentation by the bank regarding the requirement of PPI

Ratio Decidendi

The PPI was not required as a condition of the loan; the bank's representative followed proper procedures and made clear that PPI was optional. Therefore, the agreement was not unenforceable, there was no misrepresentation, no breach of ICOB rules, and no unfair relationship. The claim by the bank succeeds and the counterclaim fails.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

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