Black Horse Ltd v Speak
High Court 21 July 2010

This was an uneforceability claim, based on Mr Speak's claim that the payment protection insurance (PPI) was compulsory.

The bank brought the staff member who had dealt with Mr Speak, and the court preferred her memory to that of the consumer. This was not surprising because Mr Speak's previous credit agreement with the bank had included PPI and Mr Speak had claimed on it.

The court therefore rejected the claim but did comment that any case must be a matter of fact; if a lender intends to make the PPI compulsory, this will not be affected by a debtor's subequent approval of "optional" PPI.