Then, after they had lost, and the lender was about to recover possession, the borrowers issued a new claim in the High Court, contending, for the first time, that most of the land included in the charge was used in connection with a dwelling, that the charge was therefore a “regulated mortgage contract” entered into by an unauthorised person, and so unenforceable under s.26 of the 2000 Act, and that they were therefore entitled to set aside the possession order, and get back all the money they had paid and the costs incurred by them in the possession action. The borrowers lost and an appeal was dismissed.
#Acorn finance series#
There were a series of court hearings at which that claim was dealt with. The borrowers then sought to set aside the order on the ground that there was a sub-charge which prevented the lender from exercising its rights under the charge. The borrowers filed a defence admitting the loan, charge and arrears, asking for time to pay, and saying they did not want the court to consider if the relationship with the lender was unfair. The lender started County Court proceedings to enforce its rights. The case concerned a mortgage to secure a short term loan. Gary Cowen acted for the successful party in the High Court and Stephen Jourdan QC acted for them in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decisions of District Judge Smith and HHJ Hodge QC that a claim brought by borrowers against a lender under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was an abuse of the court’s process and should be struck out.
0 kommentar(er)
