Santander UK Plc v Harrison & Anor [2013] EWHC 199 (QB) (07 February 2013)

Santander UK Plc v Harrison & Anor [2013] EWHC 199 (QB) (07 February 2013)

Capitalisation of arrears did not constitute provision of credit in the form of a cash loan; therefore, the loan agreement did not become regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the borrowers' defences based on statutory non-compliance failed. Securitisation did not deprive the bank of title to sue. The judge's costs order was correct as the bank was the successful party.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 199
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Santander UK Plc; Defendant/appellant: Keith Harrison; Defendant/appellant: Susan Patricia Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on all issues except capitalisation, where permission was granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Mortgage Possession, Securitisation, Unfair Relationship, Assignment of Debt, Costs
Consumer Credit Property Law Civil Procedure Consumer Credit Act 1974 Mortgage Possession Securitisation Unfair Relationship Assignment of Debt +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santander UK Plc

Claimant/respondent

Keith Harrison

Defendant/appellant

Susan Patricia Harrison

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether capitalisation of arrears constituted provision of 'credit in the form of a cash loan' under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the loan agreement became regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 after capitalisation
  3. 3 Whether securitisation of the loan deprived the bank of title to sue

Ratio Decidendi

Capitalisation of arrears did not constitute provision of credit in the form of a cash loan; therefore, the loan agreement did not become regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the borrowers' defences based on statutory non-compliance failed. Securitisation did not deprive the bank of title to sue. The judge's costs order was correct as the bank was the successful party.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on all issues except capitalisation, where permission was granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on capitalisation issue but appeal dismissed
  • Permission to appeal refused on all other issues