312. Secondly, the Court of Appeal considered (at para 161) that the difference between
the sum borrowed and paid to the dealer and the actual value of the car “was largely
Page 98
accounted for by commission”. It proceeded on the basis that the discrepancy between
the cash price of the car and the Glass’s Guide valuation, as reflected in the personal loan
of £1,595.31, was largely accounted for by the payment of the commission of £1,650.95.
It considered (at para 154) that the proceeds of the additional personal loan were, in effect,
required to pay the dealer the commission, and that if the commission had not been
payable Mr Johnson would have been able to fund the purchase at the actual Glass’s
Guide price using the hire purchase agreement which the lender offered. However, linking
the two in this way was a factual error on the part of the Court of Appeal. On behalf of
Mr Johnson, Mr Weir accepts that the similarity in amount between the commission paid
by FirstRand and the personal loan was a coincidence, and he did not seek to support the
Court of Appeal’s conclusion on unfairness on that ground.
..
(i) The size of the commission
323. The commission paid by FirstRand to The Trade Centre Wales was £1,650.95.
This must be compared with the total amount payable by Mr Johnson under the credit
agreement of £9,422.20 (17.5%), the advance of credit of £6,399 (26%), the total charge
for credit (comprising interest and fees) of £3,023.20 (55%) and the interest payments
alone of £2,635.20 (63%).
324. In support of his case on the size of the commission Mr Weir, on behalf of Mr
Johnson, relies heavily on the decision of this court in Plevin. That case was concerned
with payment protection insurance (“PPI”) which was taken out by Mrs Plevin in
conjunction with a loan from the lender’s designated PPI provider. The lender paid
commission to the broker in respect of both the loan and the PPI and itself received
commission from the PPI provider. As a result, 71.8% of the PPI premium was made up
of commission, not disclosed to the claimant, which was shared by the broker and the
lender. Lord Sumption, with whom the other members of the Supreme Court agreed,
noted (at para 18) that Mrs Plevin must be taken to have known that some commission
would be payable to intermediaries out of the premium before it reached the insurer.
However, Lord Sumption explained, at some point commissions may become so large
that the relationship cannot be regarded as fair if the customer is kept in ignorance.
Wherever the tipping point may lie, the commissions paid in that case were a long way
beyond it. Mrs Plevin did not have to take PPI at all. Any reasonable person in her position
who was told that more than two thirds of the premium was going to intermediaries would
be bound to question whether the insurance represented value for money. The fact that
she was left in ignorance made the relationship unfair
..