Legal Updates

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP

Lenders had hoped that the Court of Appeal ruling in Harrison v Black Horse had shut the door on PPI/unfair relationship claims. Particularly welcome was the ruling that compliance with an industry specific rule governing the sale of insurance (the “ICOB” rules) should effectively block any allegation of unfair relationship brought under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However The Court of Appeal’s decision at the end of last year in the conjoined appeals of Conlon v Black Horse and Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance means this issue will remain in the legal limelight. Both cases involved the sale of a single premium PPI policy with the policy for Mrs Plevin being arranged by a broker.

The Dangers of Using an Automatic Dialler

In Roberts v Bank of Scotland the Court of Appeal reminded lenders that debtors are not obliged to speak to them. This article by Jeremy Bouchier appeared in the December 2013 addition of "credit, collections and risk".

GUARANTEES – enforceability depends on precise wording

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has underlined that lenders can expect little judicial sympathy if their standard forms of guarantee are not watertight. This article appeared in 'Consumer Credit' (October - December 2013) published by the Consumer Credit Trade Association.

Dealing with Data – who makes the rules?

The “Subject Access Request” (SAR) set out in Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”) requires a creditor to inform a customer what personal data it holds about him/her. Given the amount of data processed by businesses this is often a significant obligation. This article appeared in the October 2013 edition of 'Credit Collections and Risk.

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP – THE LATEST

As noted previously two borrowers had recently applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the dismissal of allegations of unfair relationship arising out of the sale of PPI. The decisions which were challenged had robustly applied the Court of Appeal ruling of Harrison v Black Horse.

CHARGING ORDERS-When a Charging Order does not guarantee security

A Charging Order needs to be registered at the Land Registry; otherwise it could be ignored when the property is sold. Despite having a Court Order, creditors should not always assume the registration will be automatic. Article appearing in "Consumer Credit" (June - September 2013) published by the Consumer Credit Trade Association.

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

In the context of how the “unfair relationship” provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 apply to PPI mis-selling cases Harrison v Blackhorse remains the authorative ruling. The compromise reached by the parties in Holdstock v Endeavour deprived the Court of Appeal of an early opportunity to revisit the important decision it made last year. For how long remains to be seen.

DATA ACCURACY

The legal effect and repercussions of entries made at the Credit Reference Agencies (“CRAs”) have received judicial scrutiny in two recently decided cases. Both claimants sought substantial damages allegedly because adverse entries at the CRAs had prevented them from obtaining finance.

HFC BANK LIMITED v MOODY - DEFAULT NOTICE SUCCESS FOR CREDITORS

At long last good news for creditors on Default Notices.

WHEN DOES FINAL MEAN FINAL?

A stark reminder of the differences between a complaint brought before the Financial Services Ombudsman (“FOS”) and court proceedings was provided by the recent High Court decision of Clark & Anor v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Limited.


Our Core Values