The Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd & Ors

The Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd & Ors

Ashbourne's standard form agreements are not regulated consumer credit agreements under the CCA. However, terms imposing minimum membership periods of 12, 24, or 36 months (in Agreements 1-10, and in Agreements 11-13 where the minimum period exceeds 12 months) are unfair under the UTCCR as they cause significant imbalance to the detriment of consumers, contrary to good faith. Clauses requiring payment of all sums for the minimum period upon termination for non-repudiatory breach are unfair and constitute penalties. Requiring notice of cancellation to be given only to Ashbourne is unfair. The agreements failed to clearly identify the supplier in earlier versions. Ashbourne's practices in...

Parties
Claimant: The Office of Fair Trading; Defendant: Ashbourne Management Services Ltd; Defendant: John Clayton-Wright; Defendant: Dawne Clayton-Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declarations and injunctions granted in favour of the OFT; further argument to be heard on precise form of order if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Consumer Credit Agreements, Unfair Commercial Practices, Collective Consumer Enforcement, Penalties in Contracts
Consumer Protection Contract Law Commercial Law Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Consumer Credit Agreements Unfair Commercial Practices Collective Consumer Enforcement Penalties in Contracts

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Office of Fair Trading

Claimant

Ashbourne Management Services Ltd

Defendant

John Clayton-Wright

Defendant

Dawne Clayton-Wright

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ashbourne's standard form agreements are regulated consumer credit agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether terms in Ashbourne's agreements are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
  3. 3 Whether Ashbourne engaged in unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Ratio Decidendi

Ashbourne's standard form agreements are not regulated consumer credit agreements under the CCA. However, terms imposing minimum membership periods of 12, 24, or 36 months (in Agreements 1-10, and in Agreements 11-13 where the minimum period exceeds 12 months) are unfair under the UTCCR as they cause significant imbalance to the detriment of consumers, contrary to good faith. Clauses requiring payment of all sums for the minimum period upon termination for non-repudiatory breach are unfair and constitute penalties. Requiring notice of cancellation to be given only to Ashbourne is unfair. The agreements failed to clearly identify the supplier in earlier versions. Ashbourne's practices in...

Court Disposition

Declarations and injunctions granted in favour of the OFT; further argument to be heard on precise form of order if not agreed.

Orders

  • Declarations that various terms in Ashbourne's standard form agreements are unfair and not binding on consumers.
  • Injunctions restraining Ashbourne from using or enforcing unfair terms and from engaging in unfair commercial practices.