The Government has announced that it is committed to a long-term wholesale reform of the Consumer Credit regime.
Whilst welcoming this announcement, it is rather difficult to see how there was any alternative.
Much of the legislation and regulatory framework around Consumer Credit in the UK has intimate links with the European Consumer Credit regime, which goes some way to explaining the inordinate complexity of the current framework, which is comprised of numerous layers of primary and secondary legislation, including the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”), detailed Regulations made under it and the FCA Handbook.
Disclosure of Brokers’ Commissions remains very much a live issue within the asset finance industry, and in our last Briefing we suggested some practical steps in Dealing with Broker Commission Refund Claims – Click Here
Since then we have been involved in a number of instructions which has caused us to undertake a thorough review of the case law both in terms of the Wood and Pengully decisions and various other cases, which has given us some encouragement in the approach to be adopted to at least some of these claims.
We recently succeeded in full in a claim for damages for conversion on behalf of a financier which raised the apparently novel point of whether a large Excavator fell within the definition of “motor vehicle”.
In De Lage Landen Leasing Limited t/a Hyundai Construction Equipment Europe Finance v Dring (Manchester Circuit Commercial Court 13 July 2022) both parties were the victim of a fraudulent disposition of the Claimant’s Excavator by the Hirer and/or an associated company.
Financiers have been, together with almost all other litigants, subject to what seems to be an ever-increasing spiral of expense in navigating the various fees and charges payable under the court system, a trend which is been in place now for almost 2 decades.
We thought it is worth highlighting two points which can bring some relief to this situation.
As we are moving towards the second anniversary of the pandemic it is worth pausing to reflect that, after some initial reluctance, technology has been quite successfully embraced both by lawyers and also by the courts to keep the system running.
Obviously meetings between lawyers and clients have largely been replaced by virtual contact through Microsoft Teams and Zoom, but virtual contact has now taken a firm foothold in relation to the litigation process.
Readers may recall our lengthy article on the somewhat contentious schools leasing issue in a recent Briefing following the High Court judgment in the Schools Facilities Management case which can be found here.
In our last Briefing we reported on the Court of Appeal decision on broker commissions in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd and the rather surprising decision of the NACFB in recommending that “both regulated and unregulated firms, working in all sectors, should be transparent about their commissions and fully disclose the amount of commission received”.
With the industry still reeling from revelations emerging from the demise of a certain Lessee, and taking into account the sensitivities of referring to any of the specific current or forthcoming matters in which we are instructed, we thought it might be worthwhile making some general remarks on steps which Funders may wish to consider to prevent being the victims of serious fraud going forward.
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to slow down (some might say even further!) the litigation process in the UK courts, and despite one or two high-profile decisions relating primarily to business interruption insurance there have been few reported cases dealing with the effects of the pandemic relevant to asset financiers.
One likely vehicle of attack by customers arises from the doctrine of frustration of contracts, which may discharge the parties from performance of a contract that has become legally or physically impossible through no fault of the parties. In general terms this doctrine is very difficult to establish, and for example the European Medicine Agency failed in its attempt to use frustration to extract itself from a long lease on its central London premises as a result of the fact that it had to move to Amsterdam following Brexit.
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltdand Others and Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Pengelly [2021] EWCA Civ 471, on the issue of broker “secret commissions”.
These decisions have caused something of a storm in the industry, and somewhat surprisingly in our view the NACFB is recommending “both regulated and unregulated firms, working in all sectors, should be transparent about their commissions and fully disclose the amount of commission received”.
| 
