Tweet
The Court has today handed down Judgment in a case where we were instructed to represent an individual consumer and where the Appellant was Intrum UK Finance Limited (“Intrum”), formerly known as 1st Credit (Finance) Limited.
Intrum issued proceedings in the County Court in May 2019 alleging to be an assignee of a Halifax Credit Card Agreement entered into by the consumer in 2006. The consumer instructed Joanna Connolly Solicitors to defend him in the claim. We made an application in June 2019 for summary Judgment and/or the claim to be struck out. The application was heard in August 2019 by Deputy District Judge Trent, sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. After hearing from Mrs Connolly, Solicitor Advocate for the consumer, and Counsel of Gough Square Chambers for the Claimant, Deputy District Judge Trent made a finding that the Claimant (Intrum) was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), and thus not entitled to bring legal proceedings against consumers. The Judge therefore struck the claim out and ordered Intrum to pay the Defendant’s costs.
Intrum sought to appeal the decision. Owing to delays in the County Courts and as a result of the covid 19 pandemic the appeal was not heard until January of 2022. The Appeal was heard before His Honour Judge Robinson sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. Intrum was represented by a QC from Henderson Chambers. Our Client was represented by Counsel on instruction of Mrs Connolly.
Judgment was reserved and not handed down until 9.30 am 8 June 2022. In a considered judgment, based on the facts before him, His Honour Judge Robinson found, as a matter of fact, that Intrum had no authorisation from the FCA to commence proceedings, that Deputy District Judge Trent was correct to strike out the claim on the basis he did and that Intrum’s appeal fell to be dismissed.
It is noteworthy that Intrum having had their claim struck out at first instance sought to appeal on a separate issue not raised before the Deputy District Judge We therefore instructed counsel to oppose the appeal primarily for that reason. Intrum conceded their new argument during submissions, and it is refreshing to see His Honour Judge Robinson took into account the argument in the Court below, as well as the previous decision we obtained of Her Honour Judge Sykes in the case of Idem Capital Securities Limited v Webster in which the legislative provisions, the legal framework and the submissions of Mrs Connolly were considered.
Although not a binding decision this latest Judgment is a second persuasive Judgment, after that of Her Honour Judge Sykes in Idem, that creditor/assignees who are not authorised by the FCA are not authorised to, and therefore under statute should not commence legal proceedings against consumers in respect of regulated consumer credit agreements.
It is important for consumers to be aware that Intrum and Idem are not the only unauthorised consumer credit debt purchasers who embark upon legal proceedings against consumers, and although these claims can be defended, as in this case, it is not a simple legal argument.
Intrum issued proceedings in the County Court in May 2019 alleging to be an assignee of a Halifax Credit Card Agreement entered into by the consumer in 2006. The consumer instructed Joanna Connolly Solicitors to defend him in the claim. We made an application in June 2019 for summary Judgment and/or the claim to be struck out. The application was heard in August 2019 by Deputy District Judge Trent, sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. After hearing from Mrs Connolly, Solicitor Advocate for the consumer, and Counsel of Gough Square Chambers for the Claimant, Deputy District Judge Trent made a finding that the Claimant (Intrum) was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), and thus not entitled to bring legal proceedings against consumers. The Judge therefore struck the claim out and ordered Intrum to pay the Defendant’s costs.
Intrum sought to appeal the decision. Owing to delays in the County Courts and as a result of the covid 19 pandemic the appeal was not heard until January of 2022. The Appeal was heard before His Honour Judge Robinson sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. Intrum was represented by a QC from Henderson Chambers. Our Client was represented by Counsel on instruction of Mrs Connolly.
Judgment was reserved and not handed down until 9.30 am 8 June 2022. In a considered judgment, based on the facts before him, His Honour Judge Robinson found, as a matter of fact, that Intrum had no authorisation from the FCA to commence proceedings, that Deputy District Judge Trent was correct to strike out the claim on the basis he did and that Intrum’s appeal fell to be dismissed.
It is noteworthy that Intrum having had their claim struck out at first instance sought to appeal on a separate issue not raised before the Deputy District Judge We therefore instructed counsel to oppose the appeal primarily for that reason. Intrum conceded their new argument during submissions, and it is refreshing to see His Honour Judge Robinson took into account the argument in the Court below, as well as the previous decision we obtained of Her Honour Judge Sykes in the case of Idem Capital Securities Limited v Webster in which the legislative provisions, the legal framework and the submissions of Mrs Connolly were considered.
Although not a binding decision this latest Judgment is a second persuasive Judgment, after that of Her Honour Judge Sykes in Idem, that creditor/assignees who are not authorised by the FCA are not authorised to, and therefore under statute should not commence legal proceedings against consumers in respect of regulated consumer credit agreements.
It is important for consumers to be aware that Intrum and Idem are not the only unauthorised consumer credit debt purchasers who embark upon legal proceedings against consumers, and although these claims can be defended, as in this case, it is not a simple legal argument.
Comment