Tweet
Hillesden Securities v Harry Moore (June 2014)
On 12th June 2014 at Oxford County Court, a case which had been on-going for over a year finally came to an end. The trial extended to 2 days, the judgment was reserved, and then after judgment was handed down, the rather unusual steps of a further adjournment took place. This then led to further […]
More...
Ok, well the claim was brought by Hillesden Securities against Mr Moore, the defence argued that the creditor Hillesden securities had failed to comply with s78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 by providing easily legible documents which satisfied the test laid down in Carey v HSBC Bank Plc. Now for all those debt purchasers arguing “were not the creditor” hard luck, Jones v Link Financial Limited, a High Court ruling, confirms that the assignee takes responsibility for the statutory compliance with the Consumer Credit Act. So any s78 requests outstanding become the obligation of the debt purchaser on assignment.
Anyway, in November 2013 the Court handed down Judgment. The Court found that there had been non compliance with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act because the documents were
a) Not complete, that is to say parts were missing
b) the documents simply were not easily legible.
More...
Ok, well the claim was brought by Hillesden Securities against Mr Moore, the defence argued that the creditor Hillesden securities had failed to comply with s78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 by providing easily legible documents which satisfied the test laid down in Carey v HSBC Bank Plc. Now for all those debt purchasers arguing “were not the creditor” hard luck, Jones v Link Financial Limited, a High Court ruling, confirms that the assignee takes responsibility for the statutory compliance with the Consumer Credit Act. So any s78 requests outstanding become the obligation of the debt purchaser on assignment.
Anyway, in November 2013 the Court handed down Judgment. The Court found that there had been non compliance with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act because the documents were
a) Not complete, that is to say parts were missing
b) the documents simply were not easily legible.
