Scotland & Anor v British Credit Trust Limited

Scotland & Anor v British Credit Trust Limited

The relationship between the claimants and BCT was unfair under s.140A because Zenith, acting as agent for BCT, misrepresented to the claimants that PPI was required for the loan, and breached ICOB rules. These acts are attributable to BCT under s.56(2) and s.140A(1)(c), and the existence of alternative remedies or limitation does not preclude relief under s.140A.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Scotland; Claimant/respondent: Emma Reast; Defendant/appellant: British Credit Trust Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Attribution of Broker Conduct to Creditor, Misrepresentation, Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Breach of ICOB Rules
Consumer Protection Contract Law Financial Services Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Attribution of Broker Conduct to Creditor Misrepresentation Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Breach of ICOB Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Scotland

Claimant/respondent

Emma Reast

Claimant/respondent

British Credit Trust Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between the claimants and BCT was unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to the conduct of Zenith salesmen
  2. 2 Whether misrepresentations and breaches of ICOB rules by Zenith can be attributed to BCT under s.56 and s.140A
  3. 3 Whether the PPI policy was a related agreement for the purposes of s.140A

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between the claimants and BCT was unfair under s.140A because Zenith, acting as agent for BCT, misrepresented to the claimants that PPI was required for the loan, and breached ICOB rules. These acts are attributable to BCT under s.56(2) and s.140A(1)(c), and the existence of alternative remedies or limitation does not preclude relief under s.140A.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of the trial judge requiring BCT to repay the claimants the sum of £2,165.52 and varying the loan agreement stands.