TOMLIN JITTERS
Many regard the Tomlin order as the best thing since sliced bread. Alas, CFL Finance Ltd v Laser Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 228 in which the creditor was unrepresented may have persuaded some debt litigators to return to the carbohydrates for it decided that the schedule to the typical Tomlin order involved a contract which was capable of amounting to a regulated agreement within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). That being so, the contract could be unenforceable for non-compliance with one or more of ss 40 (enforcement of agreement made by unlicensed trader), 61–64 (making the agreement including duties to supply copy and notify cancellation rights), 77A (statements in relation to fixed-term agreements) and 86B (notice of arrears under fixed-term etc agreements) of CCA 1974.
But the battleground will be whether a particular scheduled Tomlin contract provided credit by way of debt deferment and on this battle, the Court
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
