Its been a while since i have had any spare time to sit down and type up another article for the blog. I’ve literally been so busy that i haven’t had time to share some of the results good and bad with everyone.
So, what’s been happening, well we’ve been getting notice of discontinuance from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited over and over, were up to about 12 cases in the last three weeks that have been abandoned. Long may it continue.
PRA Group UK Limited, they lost a case recently which determined that they had failed to comply with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and had acted in a way that gave rise to an unfair relationship under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as a result their claim was dismissed, and our client awarded £3k in damages.
We also have an appeal on going with the PRA Group too. More details will follow when possible.
1st Credit Finance Limited, they have been on the radar a bit too. We succeeded in defending a case brought by 1st Credit, the case had a default judgment which was set aside, we then lodged a defence to the Claim. The case was finally settled with discontinuance being filed as part of an agreed settlement.
Swift Advances Plc v Daley, i can now talk about this case, it was subject to an appeal so i didn’t place too much detail on the blog for obvious reasons, however we now have a Judgment that states Swifts tariff of charges levied on the clients account were unfair within the meaning given by UTCCR 1999, and furthermore, Swifts conduct in pursuing the client in financial difficulties overstepped the line and caused an unfair relationship resulting in a considerable sum of money being ordered by the Court to be repaid to the client. This case sends a clear message to creditors, including debt purchasers, that the Courts will not accept or tolerate unfair practices nor will they accept oppressive calls to consumers struggling to pay their debts.
And on to NRAM or Landmark as they are now called. So, as everyone following the blog will be aware ive taken an interest in this company, ever since the NRAM v Mcadam & Hartley ruling ive been looking to get redress for those who had loans over £25k and lost out the protections the Consumer Credit Act offered to the customers with under £25k loans. It is clear that NRAM were responsible for misrepresenting to consumers that their loans were regulated when they weren’t, that their loans offered protections of the 1974 Act etc and from the Court of Appeal ruling its clear that the Court found a breach of warranty too. Anyway, letters of claim have landed at NRAM, time will now tell how they will be dealing with these matters, either they will settle amicably or the Court will decide the outcome, im hopeful that we will be able to provide updates on any settlements, but do bear in mind that some times settlements come with confidentiality attached.
Theres plenty more cases going to trial over the next three months or so. I will try and update a little more regular, time permitting.