The Court of Appeal has found that a recorder had been entitled to find that the relationship between the parties to a consumer credit agreement was not unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The appellant sought remortgage finance. The appellant had signed up to a series of business courses and her trainer, who was the principal of a financial planning consultancy and co-owner of the respondent bridging loan finance company, suggested a bridging loan to reduce her credit card debts to obtain remortgage finance. The bridging loan was ineffective for this purpose and the appellant’s remortgage applications continued to be declined.

The recorder found that the agreement was “inappropriate” in its origin, but rightly concluded that the inappropriate nature of the relationship was not so much as to render it unfair.

The Court of Appeal cited Lord Sumption’s judgment in Plevin but emphasised that the application of s.140A CCA is dependent on the court’s “judgment of all the relevant facts”. The Court of Appeal noted that Plevin had clarified that “acting on behalf of” was restricted to agency relationships or deemed agency relationships – overruling the wider view of the Court of Appeal in the Plevin case.

To read the case click here.