Black Horse Ltd v Speak & Anor

Black Horse Ltd v Speak & Anor

The court found as a matter of fact that the Bank did not require the Defendants to take out PPI as a condition of the loan. Therefore, the cost of PPI did not need to be included in the total charge for credit, and the agreement was not unenforceable. There was no misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty under ICOB, or unfair relationship. Judgment was entered for the Bank.

Parties
Claimant: Black Horse Limited; Defendant: David Speak; Defendant: Caroline Speak
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Consumer Credit Act, Misrepresentation, Unfair Relationship, Breach of Statutory Duty, Insurance Conduct of Business (icob) Rules
Consumer Credit Contract Insurance Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Consumer Credit Act Misrepresentation Unfair Relationship Breach of Statutory Duty +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Black Horse Limited

Claimant

David Speak

Defendant

Caroline Speak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

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) under the Consumer Credit Act and associated regulations
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was unenforceable due to misstatement of prescribed terms
  3. 3 Whether there was misrepresentation by the bank regarding the requirement of PPI

Ratio Decidendi

The court found as a matter of fact that the Bank did not require the Defendants to take out PPI as a condition of the loan. Therefore, the cost of PPI did not need to be included in the total charge for credit, and the agreement was not unenforceable. There was no misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty under ICOB, or unfair relationship. Judgment was entered for the Bank.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Bank in the sum of £7,496.88 as at 17 August 2009, plus interest since then.