header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 January 2015
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 23 January 2015

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Regulated unregulated credit, cross-border harassment & CPR latest

NOT AS IT SEEMS

Prior to 6 April 2008 consumer credit agreements for more than £25,000 were not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). For nine years before then, Northern Rock had a product which allowed borrowers to take out an unsecured loan as an adjunct to their mortgage under which interest was charged at the mortgage rate. However, Northern Rock used the same paperwork for these over £25,000 loans as they did for the £25,000 and under loans (as did certain other lenders). Not only the loan agreement itself but the pre-contractual and other contractual documentation repeatedly informed borrowers that the loan was regulated and that they would benefit from the rights available under CCA 1974.

The failure to distinguish between what was regulated and what was intended by the Northern Rock to be unregulated has presented headaches which a bucketful of aspirin would fail to mitigate for the state-owned Northern Rock successor company. They arise because it was discovered that the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll