TFG Security Ltd v Howard Shade & Anor [2019] EWHC 3975 (Ch) (22 January 2019)

TFG Security Ltd v Howard Shade & Anor [2019] EWHC 3975 (Ch) (22 January 2019)

The defendants are estopped from denying that the loan was for business purposes due to their signed declarations and the claimant's reliance. The loan agreement is not unenforceable for regulatory failings. The defendants cannot claim consumer status and thus cannot rely on unfair contract terms legislation. The default interest clause is a primary obligation and not a penalty. There is no unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant is entitled to possession and judgment for the outstanding sums, with quantification of the monetary claim adjourned.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3975 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: TFG Security Limited; First Defendant: Howard Shade; Second Defendant: Jayne Shade
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Possession and Monetary Claim (mortgage Enforcement) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed (possession and judgment for claimant)
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Regulated Credit Agreements, Unfair Contract Terms, Penalty Clauses, Estoppel, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Property Law Contract Law Consumer Credit Mortgage Enforcement Regulated Credit Agreements Unfair Contract Terms Penalty Clauses Estoppel +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TFG Security Limited

Claimant

Howard Shade

First Defendant

Jayne Shade

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Monetary Claim (mortgage Enforcement) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan agreement and mortgage are unenforceable due to regulatory failings under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the loan agreement are unfair or constitute penalties
  3. 3 Whether there is an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants are estopped from denying that the loan was for business purposes due to their signed declarations and the claimant's reliance. The loan agreement is not unenforceable for regulatory failings. The defendants cannot claim consumer status and thus cannot rely on unfair contract terms legislation. The default interest clause is a primary obligation and not a penalty. There is no unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant is entitled to possession and judgment for the outstanding sums, with quantification of the monetary claim adjourned.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed (possession and judgment for claimant)

Orders

  • Order for possession of Oak Tree Manor in favour of the claimant
  • Judgment for the outstanding sums under the loan agreement (quantification adjourned)