Miller Gardner Ltd, Solicitors acted for Mrs Susan Plevin who brought a claim for mis-selling of payment protection insurance (“PPI”) against the lender who financed the transaction, Paragon Personal Finance Limited. The sole issue of relevance before the Court was to determine whether the relationship between Mrs Plevin and Paragon was unfair under s.140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”), by reason of Paragon’s failure to disclose that it had received 71.8% of the single premium in commission from the PPI Insurer.
Miller Gardner were the first law practice in the country to seek compensation or damages from lenders by reason of what was alleged to be unfairness arising from the failure to disclose substantial commissions earned and have been making this case since 2008, when Mrs Plevin’s claim started.
Lenders took the view in the majority of these cases that it would be more appropriate to agree to settle such claims rather than take matters through to Trial and accordingly Miller Gardner were successful in almost 100% of its claims brought for a number of years. However, another law practice acted for Mr and Mrs Harrison (“Harrison”) who brought a similar claim before the Court which went to Trial and the Court dismissed the Harrisons’ case, because the Judge held that there was no unfairness arising from failure to disclose commission.
Harrison went to Appeal before the Court of Appeal who upheld the Trial Judge so that the position from 2010 was that no unfairness arose from the failure to disclose commission.
Miller Gardner were consulted by the Solicitors acting for Mr and Mrs Harrison and with Miller Gardner’s help the matter was taken before the Supreme Court but settled in favour of Mr and Mrs Harrison with full redress and costs before the matter was to be heard.
In the meantime Plevin went to Trial in 2012 after being robustly defended, and perhaps not surprisingly, in view of the Court of Appeal decision in Harrison remaining in place, dismissed Mrs Plevin’s case and was indeed critical of Miller Gardner and Counsel for bringing the claim.
Miller Gardner sought permission to appeal the rejection of this case on behalf of Mrs Plevin, successfully sought permission to appeal the dismissal of her claim and the matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in 2013 who agreed to reverse the Trial Judge’s decision, but that Judgment was again challenged by Paragon taking the matter through to the Supreme Court resulting in the final ruling in Mrs Plevin’s failure and the overturning of Harrison.
The Supreme Court ordered the County Court to determine damages and in that case such amount was limited to the 71.8% commission.
Since Plevin, Miller Gardner have pursued a large number of cases and have been overwhelmingly successful on behalf of the claimants in recovering compensation, none of which have required the client’s court appearance. Miller Gardner have acted throughout on a conditional fee basis (‘no win – no fee’)