The respondents appealed an order for possession under a legal charge which they argued was an extortionate credit bargain, and had been improperly executed and was unenforceable. The appellants were ‘non-status borrowers’.
Held: A concession letter was not intended to over-ride other clear descriptions of the appellant’s obligations. The judge had compared the interest rate charged with other rates charged to non-status borrowers, rather than with interest rates at large. That was correct for this particular market. The interest rates were not extortionate, and nor did the right to vary the interest rate contradict fair dealing. The redemption calculation was based upon the rules. The rules had been criticised, but the clause was common, and not extortionate for the time. ‘The cap imposed by the administrative agreements has not operated in an extortionate way, because the margins between the Halifax rate, for example, and the Claimants are not so wide as to be capable of being categorised as harsh and oppressive within the ambit of Section 138.’ Appeal refused.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 35, [2002] 1 All ER 446
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Credit Act 1974 138, Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 60(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc v Pender and Another CA 27-Jun-2005
The defendants had purchased their property from the local authority with the support of a loan from the claimants. The defendants fell into arrears but now sought to resist possession on the basis that the claimant, in securitising their portfolio . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Land
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167538