Error in Limiting Mortgage Claim Dismissal Unveiled

Error in Limiting Mortgage Claim Dismissal Unveiled

Fresh Take

Hey there! Let's dive into an intriguing legal case that recently shook things up in the Birmingham County Court. Coming hot off the press on April 25, 2025, Judge Saira Singh made a significant ruling regarding unfair relationship claims and limitations under the Consumer Credit Act.

The case at hand involves Trevor and Anita Howard, who found themselves entangled in a GBP 121,750 secured credit agreement with GE Money Mortgages back in 2004. After falling behind on payments, the couple faced legal action, but they're not going down without a fight.

Previously, the Howards pursued a claim against GE and their new lender, Promontoria, alleging hidden commissions and the lenders' complicity in a breach of fiduciary duty. They also claimed that their relationship with the lenders was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The District Judge, however, dismissed these claims and ordered the Howards to pay Promontoria a staggering GBP 9,600 in costs.

Our heroes took their case to the Birmingham County Court, where Andrew Clark, representing the Howards, argued that the limitation period for unfair relationship claims is six years from the end of the relationship. He also contended that the District Judge was incorrect to dismiss the unfair relationship claim based on the same facts as the breach of fiduciary duty claim, claiming these two claims have different limitation periods.

The legal eagles from GE and Promontoria defended the District Judge's decision, stating that the relationship between the Howards and GE ended when the credit agreement was assigned to Promontoria in September 2015, making the unfair relationship claim time-barred.

Judge Singh ultimately agreed with the Howards, finding that the District Judge had erred in dismissing the unfair relationship claim against Promontoria based on limitations. The judge ruled that the relationship between the Howards and Promontoria ended in September or October 2019, so the original judge had made errors in law dismissing the unfair relationship claim against Promontoria.

The judge also noted that the unfair relationship claim against GE was precluded by the exclusionary rule set out in Barnes v Black Horse Limited. However, Judge Singh found that while the dismissal of the claim against GE was upheld, the District Judge had made errors of law in dismissing the unfair relationship claim against Promontoria. The costs order was accordingly set aside, and the claim against Promontoria will now be heard again.

So there you have it! The judge's decision is a clear reminder that courts are willing to reassess decisions and set aside orders if there are mistakes in how the limitation rules are applied. This ruling could pave the way for reviving claims that may have otherwise been dismissed, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

For more information on unfair relationship claims under the Consumer Credit Act, be sure to brush up on the principle established in cases like Hurstanger v Wilson and understand the flexibility courts have when it comes to determining what constitutes an unfair relationship based on the entirety of the credit history. Keep an eye on future cases to see how courts are shaping consumer credit relationships and pushing for greater transparency and fairness.

1. Judge Singh, in her ruling, found that the District Judge had made errors in law dismissing the unfair relationship claim against Promontoria due to misunderstood limitations, paving the way for a reconsideration of the claim against Promontoria.
2. Singh's decision also set aside the initial costs order, allowing the claim against Promontoria to be heard once more, emphasizing the importance of courts scrutinizing the application of limitation rules.
3. Singh's ruling could have a significant impact on consumers' ability to revive claims, particularly in the light of such landmark cases as Hurstanger v Wilson, where court flexibility in determining unfair relationships based on the entirety of the credit history is a key principle.

Read also: