Swift Advances Plc v Daley

[pt2537]

Heres is the Judgment from the Swift case i referred to in my last blog entry.   IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BOW*********************************************** **** Case No: 4PB02756   96 Romford Road Stratford London E15 4EG 13th April 2016 * BEFORE:   ********************************************* DISTRICT JUDGE BELL   BETWEEN: ********************************************* *SWIFT ADVANCES PLC******************************************** Claimant ************************************************** ****************** * ************************************************** ************* -and- […]


More...

[EXC]

Re: Swift Advances Plc v Daley

Excellent result Paul & Tom.

Some notable exerpts:

As is clear from the Supreme Court decision in the Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 116, it is not open to the Court to assess the fairness of the actual interest rate charged, neither party arguing that this is a Regulation 6(2) case. It is, however, open to a court to assess the fairness of a term that sets a mechanism for changing that rate.

Nice! So that'll be Hatosag as successfully used in Foster-Burnell v Lloyds.

It is not, as the Defendant’s counsel states, “possible to vary the rate for any reason Swift sees fit”. Increases must be linked to the cost of borrowing.

Considering all these matters, in my judgment, the charge provisions imposed on the account for the years 2006 through to before November 2009, are to be regarded as unfair under the Regulation. They created an imbalance between the parties to the detriment of the consumer, who had to pay charges not linked to Swift’s costs of dealing with a customer in default.

In my judgment, these matters, based on the management of the account and the charges imposed which were contrary to the Regulations, gives rise to an unfair relationship.

Secondly, with regard to the management of the account, my attention has been drawn to the cases of Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 and Roberts v Bank of Scotland PLC [2013] EWCA Civ 88. In the latter case brought under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, damages were awarded of £7,500. The events as I have described are of a similar magnitude and therefore I order that the sum of £7,500 be credited to Ms Daley’s account to reduce the sums outstanding.