The several claimants had hired motor vehicles following accidents, being re-assured that the costs would be recovered from defendant insurers. The agreements would not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. They each envisaged short periods of hire, but with repayment rather later. The insurers argued that the term was that defined by the expected repayment period, and that they therefore were consumer credit agreements, and, since they lacked the appropriate form, they were void, and unenforceable. As unenforceable agreements, they were not obliged to pay out the drivers who had entered into the agreements. The claimants asserted that the terms were the terms of the hire itself, and that accordingly they were not subject to the Consumer Credit provisions, and were therefore valid, and the insurers could be called on to pay them.
Held: The agreements were for the actual hire period, rather than the credit term, and therefore they were valid.
Judge Charles Harris QC
[2002] Lloyds Rep IR 138
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Appeal from – Clark v Tull (T/A Ardington Electrical Services) CA 1-May-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.166179
