Timeshare Credit Agreements Worth £47 Million May Be Unenforceable

4th December 2018 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Lending money to the public is, for obvious reasons, a heavily regulated activity and, as a case concerning timeshare properties showed, any involvement by those who are not authorised to carry out such activity can render credit agreements entirely unenforceable.

A bank had entered into more than 1,400 regulated credit agreements with members of the public by which they borrowed money to pay for the timeshare properties. About £47 million was payable under those agreements. It later emerged, however, that they had been brokered by a company that was not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to perform that role.

As a result, the bank faced the prospect of the agreements being unenforceable against the borrowers, who would also be entitled to recover any money or property they had transferred to the bank pursuant to them. The bank, however, said that it had not intentionally contravened the requirement to only engage with authorised third parties when making the agreements and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ordered that the agreements should be retrospectively validated under Section 28A of the Act.

In challenging that decision before the Upper Tribunal (UT), lawyers representing 45 of the borrowers argued that they had suffered detriment as vulnerable consumers. It was said, amongst other things, that the agreements had not been adequately explained to them and that they had been put under pressure to sign them. False representations were alleged to have been made by the unauthorised broker and borrowers claimed that they had been given insufficient time to consider before the agreements were executed.

In the light of those arguments, the bank and the FCA both conceded that the decision to grant validation orders should be reconsidered. The UT found that evidence of consumer detriment arising from the agreements was relevant and should be fully taken into account by the FCA.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Court Visit Required to Give Clarity to Will

18th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Many wills contain clauses which alter the distribution of assets in the event of changing circumstances, such as the death of one of the beneficiaries under the will before the person making it. When drafting such clauses, it is essential that they are absolutely clear to prevent confusion, as a recent case shows. It involved the will of a woman who died in 1973, leaving her estate in trust for her son for his lifetime and then to his children if he had any. If he did not, the estate was...

Fraud Victim Sacrificed His Home by Delay in Seeking Legal Advice

15th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

If you have a legitimate legal complaint, any delay in consulting a solicitor is highly likely to benefit the wrongdoer. A man whose home was taken from him by fraud, but who delayed over 20 years before taking legal action, found that out to his cost. The man had been dispossessed of his home in 1989 by a fraudster who made use of forged documents in successfully having the property registered in his name. The fraudster subsequently transferred the house to his son, who was aware of the fraud. The...

UK Fairness Test Mitigates Italian Pre-Nuptial Agreement

12th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

The law relating to the division of family assets on divorce varies widely across the world and the UK is generally regarded as one of the fairer jurisdictions for such financial arrangements in that the assets tend to be divided more equally than in many other countries. Accordingly, where a family with an international lifestyle breaks up and there is a reasonably strong connection to the UK, it is often chosen as the jurisdiction of preference for divorce proceedings by a spouse who might be disadvantaged if the proceedings are...

What is the Tax Status of Compensation for Financial Product Mis-Selling?

7th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Is compensation paid to individuals whose businesses have failed due to mis-selling of financial products subject to Income Tax? In a decision that will disappoint many victims of bank wrongdoing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has answered that question in the affirmative. The case concerned seven brothers whose property letting business had been mis-sold interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). The business subsequently failed, allegedly due to the high interest rates imposed by the IRHPs. After they lodged complaints, the relevant bank paid them basic compensation totalling almost £360,000. HM Revenue and...