Lecture 1 Flashcards
Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co
CCA 1974 was enacted to protect consumers, likely to be individuals. Consumer protected to get all information, difference in payments.
Hire of photocopier, there was difference in what they owed and what they had to actually pay. It should have been precise.
Re Charge Card Services (No 2)
Can’t expect someone to pay for it twice, aka the consumer.
Diamond v Lovell
Hiring care, when rights to cover cost were deferred. It was consumer credit agreement.
OFT v Ashbourne Managerial Services Ltd
Gym Membership isn’t
Asset Land Investment v FCA
Important not to allow for confusion of technical terms to frustrate purpose of legislation.
Koksal v FCA
Supervision model to a firm, they must give stuff to regulator and they will respond. Must be open. If lack of cooperation during authorisation then worried.
Heath v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd
Loan, then additional loan. One was restricted and the other un restricted. So could look at separate rules. Yet there was only one agreement here.
Citybank International v Schneider
Not a linked transaction, it can’t be unless it is entered into like compliance to main agreement
Credit Broking - Black Horse Ltd v Langford (Lender)
Determing who a credit broker is, by introducing and ensuring the transaction happens they are a credit broker.
36H (Lender)
Needs to be online platform operator so they can connect and operate or lend.
39D
Debt-Adjusting - Debts due under credit agreement, settlement of debt, facilatting repayment
39E
Debt-Counselling - Advice to those in debt about getting rid of debt.
39F
Debt collecting - Procure the payment of debt
39G
Debt Administration - Helping to preform duties under the credit agreement and relevant article
Brophy v HFC Bank
Send all information before entering agreement.
Key parts of disclosure of information
Type, identity and address of creditor, total amount of credit, duration, rate of interest, any obligation.
If phone must agree lesser information
Antecedent Negotiations
UDT v Whitfield - Purchase of a car, trading in another one. Loads of parties involved.
Forthright Finiance Ltd v Ingate - Bought a car traded in another, inquire where it is one transaction, it was.
Moorgate Services Ltd v Human Kabir
Crowther Report, court can order an agreement but not when non complacence is in relation to failure of notice.
Carey v HSBC Bank
Nature of information could be challenged. Must be a true copy.
McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland
Right of information, and what content.
JP Morgan Chase Bank v Northern Rock
Non-Compliance begins on last possible day of compliance. Creditor complies or does not comply. You provide the information or you don’t within the time limit.
Paragon Fiance Plc v Nash and Stuanton
Might be implied terms in relation to goods. Not set rates unreasonably, nor lender must have an eye to the market.
Durkin v DSG Retail Limited
Buys laptop into debtor-crdiotr-supplier, he pays £50 rest via a loan type, then rejects as not what he got. Reject attempts to rescind contract, Sheriff said they did. Then bank tried as in fault, can he reject on liability. Won at Supreme Court. Jointly and severally liable, can be indemnified, it is fine with the Crowther report, it applies to unrestricted credit too.
OFT v Lloyds TBS Bank
Unrestricted case, creditor-supplier-debtor also applies here too
Forward Trust Ltd v Whymark
Reflecting unearned interest element
Kassam v Chartered Trust
Hire purchase agreement, paid off 40% then became protected they couldn’t recover the car without court order, but had already given the car to someone else
Harrison v Black Horse Ltd
Paid for PPI and didn’t tell him there was going to be extra payment, court said it wasn’t unfair for commission payment
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance
Overruled Black Horse - Conduct is minimum, wide range of things may be relevant to relationship.
1) So one-sided as substantially to limit the debtor’s ability to chose
2) Legitimate interest of the creditor
3) Alleged unfairness must arise from one of three cateogroreies
4) Inherently unequally relationship, but cannot have been Parliamen’ts intention that the generality of such relationships should be liable.
Carey v HSBC
Failure to meet information, although breach it didn’t really make it unfair.
Patel v Patel
Unfair, because of the terms of the agreement because of the way in which the claimant has excessed his rights under agreement and because of the others acts and omissions, order made should reflect and be proportionate to the nature and degree of the unfairness.
