header-logo header-logo

03 February 2021
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Compensation , Insurance / reinsurance , Insolvency
printer mail-detail

Debtor has PPI compensation reduced

Money owed to debtor can be set off against amount to be repaid

Banks can reduce the amount of compensation paid in payment protection insurance (PPI) claims in order to recover debts owed by those customers, according to a landmark judgment.

The Court of Session found the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) was entitled to reduce the discharge of a customer’s trust deed, in RBS v Donnelly [2020] CSOH 106. The decision means banks can limit compensation due where a customer entered into a trust deed having been unable to repay borrowings to the bank, but later makes a PPI claim.

Alison Donnelly borrowed money from RBS between 1997 and 2003 but was unable to repay the sums. She entered into a protected trust deed and appointed an insolvency practitioner as trustee to administer her estate. In December 2013, the trustee paid a first and final dividend of £6,654 to RBS and granted Donnelly’s discharge, leaving £25,344 unpaid. Six weeks later, Donnelly brought a PPI claim which settled for about £11,000, of which RBS paid only £1,000, prompting Donnelly to bring legal action.

Joanne Gillies, contentious insolvency partner at Pinsent Masons, who acted for RBS, said: ‘This is particularly relevant to creditors facing PPI claims from customers who have a history of insolvency.

‘The Court of Session confirmed that the discharge of a trust deed for creditors can be reduced. This finding leaves open the possibility for sums subsequently found due to the debtor to be set off against amounts remaining owed to the creditor.’

She said: ‘The Court has confirmed that failure by a trustee to ingather any existing PPI claims which would be treated as an asset of the estate will be considered a material error upon which any discharge may be reduced, even if the debtor was unaware of the existence of the PPI claim at the time of ingathering the trust assets.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll