header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 September 2021 / Fred Philpott
Issue: 7949 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Consumer credit—which way forward?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
58614
The EU hs proposed a new Consumer Credit Directive. A major question is how does the UK react? Fred Philpott investigates
  • Considers how the UK might react to the EU proposal for a Directive on Consumer Credit.

On 30 June 2021 the EU issued a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Consumer Credits (2021/1071 (COD)). The question is how will the UK react to this new Directive if at all?

Background

The current Directive is 2008/48/EC, which is a maximum harmonisation Directive and was implemented by a raft of UK Regulations in 2010. The only previous EU Directive on Consumer Credit was 87/102/EEC. This was to a significant extent modelled on the UK Consumer Credit laws which began with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) and therefore little had to be changed in UK law to comply with the 1987 Directive.

The 2008 Directive was very significantly different from that of 1987 and required the UK to introduce numerous changes to consumer

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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll