Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swayne and Co (A Firm): CA 26 Aug 1998

The parties entered into a regulated copier finance agreement. The defendant defaulted. The plaintiffs served a notice to determine the agreement, but providing what sum was to be paid to continue. The defendant said that the notice specified the amount incorrectly, and appealed.
Held: A notice under the Consumer Credit Act specifying an amount of arrears, and claiming default, had to specify the arrears accurately otherwise the customer would not properly know what to do to remedy the default: ‘The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If the hirer is said to have broken its terms, the hirer needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as ‘the next step’. ‘ The notice was invalid.


Kennedy LJ, Sumner J


Times 29-Aug-1998, Gazette 26-Aug-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1209, [1999] 1 WLR 263




Consumer Credit Act 1974 87(1) 88, Consumer Credit (Enforcement Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (S/I No 1561)


England and Wales


CitedFox v Jolly HL 1916
The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .
CitedHandel v The City of London Brewery 1901
. .
CitedSilvester v Ostrowska 1959
A notice was served under section 146, and specified breaches of the covenant to repair and breach of a covenant against sub-letting. In fact there was no covenant against sub-letting in the lease.
Held: Having regard to earlier cases, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90590