Sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act give courts broad powers to protect borrowers from unfair relationships with lenders under fully regulated and most liberated credit agreements. Once the borrower has asserted that a relationship is unfair, the burden of proof shifts to the lender and it must be proven that the relationship is not made unfair by what he did or what he taught [7]. If you think there is an unfair relationship between you and your lender about a credit agreement, it`s best to talk to a lawyer who specializes in financial irregularities. You may wonder if the relationship is unfair and if you have a basis for a claim. For more information, see our page on financial errors. This practice examines the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974), which allow a court to establish that the relationship between a creditor and a borrower is abusive; including the types of consumer credit agreements covered by the law and the power of courts to remedy unfair relationships. For more information on the regulation of consumer credit companies under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), please see the Practice Note: Regulated Activities Related to Consumer Credit, ACF Licensing Rules for Consumer Credit Companies and What is Credit and What is a Regulated Consumer Credit Agreement? Regulatory requirements for consumer credit companies are available in the FCA`s Sourcebook on Consumer Credit (CONC). More than a decade later, the concept of an unfair relationship has developed considerably and the way in which the courts have interpreted the scope and application of the abusive relationship provisions. This article summarizes the abusive relationship test and how it has been applied by the courts, particularly since the Supreme Court of Plevin`s decision in Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61. Creditors can ask creditors to send them information about their credit agreements. If the information is not provided within 12 working days, the fault will not be applicable until they receive the information they have requested. The court will focus on the relationship as a whole, not whether the agreement itself was unfair.[3] As a result, the court may verify the relationship between the lender and the borrower after the conclusion of the agreement and the review could cover the entire history of the banking or credit relationship.
Under section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the court may find an abusive relationship in a large number of circumstances, including the following: however, no attempt was made to justify the administrative costs of delay which the judge found both punishable and unfair. The procedural judge amended the terms of the second bridge loan by removing the obligation to pay the default tax, but did not change the terms and issued a possession order. The borrower defended the claim on the grounds that the relationship between it and the lenders was unfair, because: Nugee J continued to respond to arguments that the trial judge had based on his finding that the interest rate was not unfair, on Chubb and Bruce v Dean & Anor [2013] EWHC 1282 (Ch), which took place prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Plévin. . . .
