Various credit card customers said that the respondent banks had mis-stated the interest rates applied to them, in that the interest charged did not match the APR advertised, and that therefore the agreements were unenforceable.
Held: The claimants’ calculations did not apply. The driver of the interest rate was not the statement as to the APR, but the agreement itself. The APR was not a term of the agreement, and a mis-statement of it, if one had occurred, did not make the agreement unenforceable.
Waksman QC J
[2010] EWHC 1865 (QB)
Bailii
Consumer Credit Act 1974 60, Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – Wilson and Another v Hurstanger Ltd CA 4-Apr-2007
The company sought to enforce its loan agreement and charge over the defendants’ property. The defendants appealed saying that the agreement was unenforceable under the Act, since a commission had been paid to the introducing broker, and his fee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Banking
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.421269
