Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 APRIL 2014

PPI (Saville v Central Capital Limited )

In Saville v Central Capital Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 337, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal brought by a couple provided with insufficient payment protection insurance (PPI) sold in breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (the ICOB Rules).

United KingdomInsurance
Leo Spicer-Phelps
Leo Spicer-Phelps

In Saville v Central Capital Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 337, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal brought by a couple provided with insufficient payment protection insurance (PPI) sold in breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (the ICOB Rules).

Mr and Mrs Saville entered a 25-year loan agreement with First Plus following discussions and mediations with a credit broker, Central Capital (the Broker). The couple obtained PPI cover to secure their obligations to make interest payments under that loan agreement. The term of the PPI cover was 5 years. It was paid for by a lump sum premium, payable in advance, and financed by a sum added to the loan amount.

It was common ground that in the course of selling the PPI policy, the Broker breached certain of the ICOB Rules. Primarily, the Broker failed to properly ascertain, and subsequently assess, the "needs and demands" of the Savilles regarding the PPI cover.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from