High Court to rule in December on s. 140A

[amonkey-rbs]

In December, the High Court in London will rule on an appeal which I am bringing under s. 140A of the Consumer Credit Act. This will set a precedent on the sub-prime lending practices of Logbook Loans and in particular on the interest rate they charged me of 341% APR.

 

Earlier this year, I asked the County Court to rule that my relationship with Logbook Loans was unfair within s. 140A. In a judgment handed down on September 21, a Recorder described the lender's behaviour as "not reasonable". He said, "I regard the decision to terminate and seek payment of £13,451.63 on 29 September 2008 as a product of an unfair relationship. It was a disproportionate exercise of contractual power". He went on "Moreover, in my judgment it was obviously the product of an unfair relationship for a person to borrow £3,000 in July 2008 and by the end of September 2008 be then contractually required to pay £13,451.63."

 

The Recorder also described the early settlement figures provided by the lender as "not accurate". He added that I had exercised "very bad financial judgment" in taking out a loan with Logbook Loans. He concluded "I deprecate the practice whereby debtors are asked to sign a statement that the terms of a loan agreement are fair and reasonable", because "it acts as a disincentive to invoking the protection of the Consumer Credit Act".

 

The Recorder reinstated the lender's original settlement figure of £1,500. I am appealing against this award. I'm saying that the Recorder's award is excessive because by reinstating the original settlement figure it did not sanction Logbook Loans for the unfair relationship. I will also argue that Logbook Loans' interest rate of 341% is excessive and that an excessive interest rate is itself evidence of an unfair relationship.

 

Giving me permission to appeal, Mr Justice Butterfield said: "It is clearly arguable that ... the Recorder applied an excessive rate of interest to the advance ... In my judgment, the appellant [me] has a real prospect of persuading the judge hearing the appeal that the sum awarded fell outside even the broad discretion available to the Recorder." The judge went further, stating that there is "a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard". This will happen on 16 or 17 December.

[Conniff]

This could be very interesting, can you keep us updated please, I would love to see how this pans out.

[2ltr16valve]

This could be very interesting, can you keep us updated please, I would love to see how this pans out.

 

 

it does indeed

 

Shall watch this closely

[amonkey-rbs]

Thanks.

[Kraken1]

subbing