Blackshaw v MFS Portfolio Ltd (2017)

[Amethyst]

Interesting and quite useful for reference Judgment that doesn't seem to be already on here ( tho it is from Nov 2016)

Judgment
https://goughsq.co.uk/wp-content/upl...-Portfolio.pdf

Summary
"Chancery judge hearing insolvency appeal dismisses all technical challenges to agreement validity under the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

A credit card agreement from 1995 had been assigned twice. The debtor defaulted in 2009 and a default judgment and charging order were obtained. In 2013 the assignee served a statutory demand on the debtor to try and obtain payment proposals. A bankruptcy order was then made in June 2014. At that point the debtor sought to apply to annul the bankruptcy order. Half a dozen points were made including that the credit card agreement did not comply with the CCA or the agreements regulations and that the default notice
was invalid or defective in some way. The assignee had difficulty in reconstituting copies and retrieving a copy of the default notice. The
application to annul was refused. The debtor appealed and this came on for hearing before Mann J in the Chancery Division. He upheld the district judge’s ruling that there were no defects in either the credit card terms and conditions or the default notice. Whilst the judge said there had been inefficiencies in producing documentation in this case, that was not sufficient to annul the bankruptcy order. He lifted the stay and the assignee can now proceed in its bankruptcy. The assignee has conceded it has to surrender the benefit of its security in its charging order for the benefit of all creditors.

more from http://www.ewriter.eu/articles/Blackshaw.pdf

[Amethyst]

For ref. https://goughsq.co.uk/high-court-cas...fault-notices/

[pt2537]

For ref.

huh? #confused

[pt2537]

huh? #confused

ahh ok got it now, slow on the uptake today sorry

[Amethyst]

Looks like there has been a County Court Judgment on the Authorisation issues with MFS ( Cabot ) ( only persuasive and subject to appeal - so should be an interesting one to watch https://goughsq.co.uk/barrister/ruth-bala/
(you'll recognise a few of Ruth Bala's cases )

MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan (Peterborough county court, 9th March 2018, subject to appeal): two day trial on the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001. This exemption from the need for FCA authorisation is commonly relied upon by debt purchasers who enter servicing arrangements with authorised servicers, who are often within the same corporate group. The borrowers unsuccessfully argued that debt purchasers were not entitled to rely on this exemption when issuing proceedings. Issuing was an activity that could not be delegated to the servicer, but had to be undertaken by the purchaser, who had title to the debt;

UPDATE TO THIS

MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan: four day appeal before HHJ Walden Smith upholding the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001. This exemption from the need for FCA authorisation is commonly relied upon by debt purchasers who enter servicing arrangements with authorised servicers, who are often within the same corporate group. The borrowers unsuccessfully argued that debt purchasers are not entitled to rely on this exemption when issuing proceedings: issuing is an activity that cannot be delegated to the servicer, but has to be undertaken by the purchaser, who has title to the debt;