On 21 March 2019, the European Court of Justice gave its decision in Pouvin v Electricité de France (Case C 590/17) on whether a French electricity provider (EDF) was a supplier for the purposes of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC) (the UCTD). EDF provided a loan to one of its employees and his spouse to buy a house. The ECJ decided EDF was acting for purposes relating to its “trade, business or profession” and was therefore a supplier for the purposes of the UCTD.
Because the employee was classed as a consumer, the French court must therefore consider if the terms of the loan are fair under France’s laws implementing the UCTD. The broad interpretation of the definition of “supplier” helped achieve the UCTD’s objective of protecting the consumer (as a weaker party) and making sure there was balance in the relationship.
On 25 March 2019, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) published a press release and its policy paper on its long-awaited ‘Review of retained provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974’ (the Paper). The Paper has been presented to the Government and follows on from the FCA’s interim report (published in August 2018).
The devil is, of course, always in the detail (particularly where
consumer credit is concerned). However, and somewhat frustratingly, it
appears the FCA’s views in the Paper broadly follows its views set out
in the interim report.
For example, the FCA says certain ‘rights and protections’ need to be
maintain in legislation (but some rights and protections could be
transferred to the FCA’s handbook) (see Chapter 5). But it seems the
awfully complex modifying agreement provisions in Section 82 of the
Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA), which have
long-since passed their sell-by date and often cause lenders headaches
when they want to do ‘the right thing’, will remain (see para 5.23).
Similarly, the FCA says the information requirements provide an “appropriate degree”
of consumer protection and should be kept. But the impact of the
sanctions, and some of the information, needs further consideration (see
Chapters 6 and 7).
But what the Report overlooks is the fact that the current regime is
complicated for both consumers and lenders (and the sanctions are more
serious than those which apply to a mortgage lender). Even a very
experienced Court of Appeal, in McGinn v Grangewood Securities Limited  EWCA Civ 522, said (in para 1) that the appeal in that case raised “a
number of issues under the [CCA] which has recently provided so much
work for the courts. Like others, this case demonstrates the
unsatisfactory state of the law at present. Simplification of a part of
the law which is intended to protect consumers is surely long overdue
so as to make it comprehensible to layman and lawyer alike. At present
it is certainly not comprehensible to the former and is scarcely
comprehensible to the latter“. Since that decision, we have had
further significant changes in 2005, 2007/2008, 2011 and 2014 (none of
which have made the regime any easier to understand). No doubt the
Court of Appeal will have more to say on this in the future.
On 25 March 2019, the UK Competition & Markets Authority published a press release announcing it had taken Europe-wide action against car rental providers to ensure they give consumers clear information about charges and other key information.
This work follows earlier work by the CMA in 2015.
The CMA’s action was based upon the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Interestingly, the CMA says if “a firm sells to UK customers, they do so under UK law and must answer to it” and it is “prepared to act if we find any that any company is misleading UK customers – be it based in the UK or abroad“.
On 20 March 2019, the Advertising Standards Agency (the ASA) published a decision deciding an advertising email sent by Cash On Go Limited t/a Peachy.co.uk was irresponsible by saying “…
no one really knows what’s going on with this whole Brexit malarkey …
and some say it could affect the amount of food available … We do not
want to believe that Brexit will impact the amount of food available but
it’s still a good idea to have a little stockpile ready. That way
you’re always prepared for the worst … Things can pop up even when you
think everything is going swimmingly … That’s when you might need a
little extra help“.
The ASA acknowledge the email used “a light hearted tone“, “did not use definitive language regarding the future” and “concluded that credit decisions should be made after careful consideration“. However, it considered the overall approach was likely to put “emotional pressure on readers” so they would “go
further than they would otherwise have been able to afford by taking
out a loan and that, if they did not, they risked being unable to feed
themselves or their families“.
This is another robust decision by the ASA – it is starting to be
increasingly more difficult to publish complaint financial promotions.
On 21 March 2019, the FCA’s Executive Director of Supervision – Retail and Authorisations, Jonathan Davidson, gave a speech on what the consumer credit sector can expect from the FCA.
There are some key messages including:
– There has been a lot of change in the sector.
– The FCA will continue to focus on affordability, business models and culture.
– Brexit will not change the way the sector is regulated.
– The FCA’s focus in the high-cost sector is on (a) re-lending and (b) affordability (particularly on guarantor lending).
– The Senior Manager & Ceritifcation Regime will help improve culture.
The speech ends by saying: “My top top for today is to keep ahead of the rules, you can invest in expensive tick box compliance or you can get on top of your culture., A healthy purposeful culture will be the best way to deliver value for you, your clients and your business”.
Private parking tickets apparently incurred by drivers often cause lenders under motor finance agreements some practical issues.
In England and Wales, the Protection from Freedoms Act 2012 came into force on 1 October 2012. It effectively banned clamping vehicles on private land but allowed landowners to pursue a vehicle’s registered keeper for unpaid parking charges (subject to certain conditions).
The position in Scotland is, however, different: parking charges on private land are not recoverable from the vehicle’s owner. However, The Courier has today claimed the Transport (Scotland) Bill (which is currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament) could change the position. It’s one for lenders to keep an eye on.
Our recent article for Motor Finance looked at the legal issues of consumers financing electric vehicles. There’s some challenging issues, and some which are very familiar. If you want to read it, you just need to click here.
We’re delighted to launch our very own blog. From here, we’ll be posting items from time to time impacting the UK’s motor finance industry. If you have any feedback, please get in touch with us