Timeshare Credit Agreements Worth £47 Million May Be Unenforceable

4th December 2018 By Arman Khosravi

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

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...