What are Plevin claims and are they linked to car finance?

‘Plevin claims’ are a specific type of complaint about undisclosed, high levels of commission on payment protection insurance (PPI) sold alongside a regulated credit agreement. The term comes from Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (Plevin), in which the Supreme Court ruled in November 2014 that non-disclosure of a substantial commission could make a credit relationship ‘unfair’ under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974.

In contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) work on identifying the scale of car finance mis-selling has focused on commission and conflicts of interest in the motor finance agreements themselves, as well as on contractual ties between car dealers and lenders. These aspects are reflected in the FCA’s redress scheme consultation paper, CP25/27: Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme, and in the Supreme Court judgment handed down on 1 August 2025 in Johnson, Wrench and Hopcraft.

Plevin and car finance claims overlap in principle because both concern undisclosed commission and the potential unfairness of the credit relationship. They differ in what the commission relates to, however: PPI premiums versus commission and conflicts embedded in the motor finance agreement itself.

What is a Plevin claim?

A Plevin claim is an ‘unfair relationship’ complaint.

Under the CCA 1974, a borrower can challenge a credit relationship if that relationship is unfair to the borrower due to:

• any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
• the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his* rights under the agreement or any related agreement; or
• any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

*this is the pronoun used in the CCA 1974

In Plevin, the Supreme Court ruled that a relationship can be unfair when:

• the borrower was sold PPI funded by credit; and
• a significant proportion of the PPI premium was taken as commission by the broker and other parties; and
• that commission was not disclosed to the borrower.

In practical terms, borrowers could argue that the undisclosed commission embedded in the PPI premium made the credit relationship unfair.

Consequently, this ruling led to a significant volume of Plevin complaints, in addition to earlier PPI mis-selling claims. The FCA later introduced a deadline of 29 August 2019 for PPI complaints, including those based on Plevin. However, it may still be possible to bring a claim through the courts.

Why do people associate Plevin with high commissions over 50%?

Following Plevin, the FCA introduced the concept of a 50% commission ‘tipping point’ for PPI claims, meaning that, where commission exceeded 50% of the PPI premium paid, firms were generally expected to treat non-disclosure as creating an unfair relationship, unless the case had exceptional features. In those cases, redress was typically calculated by reference to the portion of commission above 50%, with interest applied in line with the FCA’s approach.

Two cautions are crucial here:

1. The 50% figure was specific to PPI and Plevin claims. It is not a blanket legal test for every financial product. Indeed, in CP25/27, the regulator defines a high commission as commission ‘equal to or greater than 35% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan.’
2. Relevant facts and how the product was sold also mattered.

The key point is that the unfairness argument turns on non-disclosure of material commission and the imbalance of knowledge between the consumer and the person receiving the commission.

Is Plevin still relevant?

Plevin claims arose within the wider PPI scandal and were most prominent in that context.

However, the Plevin case remains important as authority on undisclosed commission and the unfair relationship provisions of the CCA. Its relevance today is mainly about the principle it confirmed: that commission and disclosure can influence the fairness of a credit relationship.

Are Plevin claims linked to car finance?

Plevin-related PPI commission complaints and motor finance complaints can overlap in several ways.

1. The same ‘unfair relationship’ framework can apply

Plevin complaints and some motor finance complaints rely on the same statutory concept of an unfair relationship under the CCA 1974. Motor finance claims and the FCA's redress proposals focus on commission arrangements and conflicts of interest, including:

• discretionary commission arrangements, where the broker could influence the interest rate, and, in doing so, increase the commission earned;
• high commission arrangements; and
• contractual ties and arrangements between dealers and lenders.

While Plevin claims and car finance claims are not the same thing, they both share the principle that a lender-borrower relationship can be unfair when the consumer does not receive material information about commissions and conflicts of interest.

2. A factual overlap can arise through add-on insurance products sold with car finance

The clearest practical link between Plevin claims and car finance is the add-ons that were often sold at the point of sale. While Plevin was related to the sale of PPI, some car finance investigations may also uncover grounds to complain about the mis-selling of add-ons such as GAP insurance. If an add-on product was funded by credit and carried a high, undisclosed commission, a consumer may have grounds to consider an unfair relationship complaint with similarities to a Plevin-style argument.

For that reason, commission disclosure in add-on products like GAP insurance has attracted scrutiny. While the FCA’s proposed motor finance redress scheme focuses on motor finance itself rather than add-on insurance products, an underlying question remains: whether the consumer paid for an insurance product that was priced in part to fund commission that was not disclosed and which could have influenced the sale.

3. Why people conflate them, even though the remedies differ

Some consumers may link the two because Plevin claims (or more mainstream PPI claims) and motor finance mis-selling both relate to large-scale customer detriment and commission structures that consumers were not adequately informed of.

However, the frameworks and remedies differ:

• Plevin claims relate to PPI commission within unfair relationship complaints.
• Car finance mis-selling focuses specifically on commission and contractual tie elements within motor finance agreements that the regulator has defined as within scope for its proposed redress scheme.

Consumers can therefore be in a position where:

• they have a potential claim relating to commission in the motor finance agreement; and
• separately may have grounds for complaint where they have also paid for add-ons that present other commission-related issues.

While these issues are related, they are not interchangeable.

What this means for car finance claims

A practical way to assess whether Plevin may be relevant in a car finance context is to ask two questions.

1. Was the motor finance agreement itself mis-sold due to undisclosed commission arrangements, high commission, or a tied dealer-lender relationship?

This is the focus of the FCA’s proposed motor finance redress scheme.

2. Were add-on products sold and financed in the same transaction as the motor finance agreement?

This is where Plevin-style logic may become relevant, depending on the product, commission structure and disclosure. However, there is no established ‘tipping point’ for what constitutes an unfair level of commission for these add-ons. The FCA raised concerns about fair value in the GAP insurance market, saying it had seen ‘examples of some firms paying out 70% of the value of insurance premiums in commission to parties involved in selling GAP policies’, and asked firms representing around 80% of the market to pause sales in February 2024 while changes were made.

Indications that add-on products may merit scrutiny

None of these points proves a claim on its own. However, they are consistent with the commission disclosure issues that arise in Plevin-style complaints and those identified in the FCA’s motor finance work.

• The add-on was presented as ‘essential’ or as a condition of obtaining finance.
• The add-on cost was rolled up into the finance, so interest was paid on it.
• Documentation did not clearly explain commission, or it used vague language that obscured any broker incentives or conflicts of interest.

Register your motor finance claim with Harcus Parker

The regulator’s proposed motor finance redress scheme is intended to allow consumers to complain directly to lenders without instructing a solicitor or paying a fee.

However, among the benefits of instructing a solicitor to manage your claim is the opportunity to have an expert team look beyond your car finance claim and identify if you may have grounds to claim compensation for mis-sold add-ons, too.

If you regularly purchased add-ons like GAP insurance or cosmetic cover that were subsequently rolled up into your finance payment, or you fell into financial difficulty due to your car finance agreement and wish to explore whether you may have grounds to bring an irresponsible lending claim, you can register your claim with Harcus Parker here.