Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) (28 February 2011)

Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) (28 February 2011)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that MBNA did not send the required terms and conditions with either the application pack or the card, constituting breaches of sections 62 and 63 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The default notice was found to be defective as it was sent by second class post and did not allow the required statutory period. Although the defendant eventually complied with section 78(1) by providing a reconstituted agreement, the cumulative breaches and the manner of debt recovery led the court to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for the outstanding balance.

Citation
[2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Keith Harrison; Defendant: Link Financial Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Consumer Credit / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed; no order for repayment of sums already paid by the claimant to MBNA.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Credit Agreements, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Compliance, Assignment of Debt, Default Notices, Section 78 Requests
Consumer Credit Contract Law Enforceability of Credit Agreements Consumer Credit Act 1974 Compliance Assignment of Debt Default Notices Section 78 Requests

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Keith Harrison

Claimant

Link Financial Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Consumer Credit / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MBNA provided the claimant with the required terms and conditions under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 at the relevant times
  2. 2 Whether the default notice served was compliant with statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether the defendant complied with section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that MBNA did not send the required terms and conditions with either the application pack or the card, constituting breaches of sections 62 and 63 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The default notice was found to be defective as it was sent by second class post and did not allow the required statutory period. Although the defendant eventually complied with section 78(1) by providing a reconstituted agreement, the cumulative breaches and the manner of debt recovery led the court to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for the outstanding balance.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed; no order for repayment of sums already paid by the claimant to MBNA.

Orders

  • Counterclaim for £20,269.69 dismissed.
  • No order for repayment of money already paid to MBNA.