Black Horse defeats PPI claim

Posted: 3rd October 2012

In a legal triumph for high street lender, Black Horse Limited, a judge has refused to accept a borrower’s plea that he was mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) on the basis of misleading representations that the insurance was mandatory on taking out a £10,000 loan.

In claiming compensation from Black Horse, the borrower had argued that the true nature, exclusions and suitability of the loan had not been explained to him, that PPI was not mentioned during negotiations and that he was ‘required’ to take out the insurance as a pre-condition of receiving the loan.

Rejecting the borrower’s case, Judge Bernard Wallwork said that he had found him to be an unimpressive, although honest, witness. It was unlikely that the Black Horse representative who carried out the negotiations would have departed from the company’s sales guidelines and embarked on a ‘frolic of his own’.

The burden of proof resting on the borrower, the judge said he was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the optional nature of PPI had not been explained to him or that insurance cover had been represented as a pre-condition.

Directing the borrower to pay Black Horse’s legal costs, the judge also rejected his pleas that the loan agreement was unenforceable and that there existed an ‘unfair relationship’ between himself and the lender within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.