header-logo header-logo

Debtor has PPI compensation reduced

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
A highly unusual nuisance case is explored by James Naylor, partner at Naylor Solicitors, in NLJ this week
Tech companies will be legally required to prevent material that encourages or assists serious self-harm appearing on their platforms, under Online Safety Act 2023 regulations due to come into force in the autumn
back-to-top-scroll