References: [1997] CCLR 7
The borrower had first borrowed money on mortgage (the 1989 loan) to pay off an existing third party mortgage (as well as raising additional funds) and later paid off the new mortgage as part of the process of substituting that mortgage for a different one from the same lender. One issues was whether the 1989 loan agreement should be construed as falling into parts, so as to engage section 18(1)(a).
Held: The 1989 loan was an integrated package which could not be split up without altering its essential character and that section 18(1)(a) did not therefore apply.
Statutes: Consumer Credit Act 1974 18
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Heath -v- Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 103 (Ch))
The appellant challenged a mortgagee’s possession order saying that the loan agreements sought to be enforced were invalid and the charges unenforceable. The loan had been in two parts. She said that as a multi-part agreement it fell within section . .