header-logo header-logo

28 February 2008 / Paul Beevers
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Unfair windfalls

Paul Beevers welcomes the demise of the rule of 78

The rule of 78, which increases the amount borrowers have to pay on early redemption by adding the loan interest to the end of the term and then giving only a partial rebate of the future interest charges, is something that both borrowers and conveyancers need to watch out for. The attraction of the rule to lenders is clear, particularly as the windfall for the lender increases with the term of the loan and the rate of interest. However, in Evans v Cherrytree Finance Ltd (unreported, 13 April 2007), the High Court decided that a contract term which permitted a lender to use the rule to calculate a settlement figure fell foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083), and was therefore void.

Evans had borrowed £105,000 from Cherrytree, but when he wanted to redeem his mortgage 18 months later, a rule of 78 calculation gave the lender a windfall of £34,000 over and above the capital balance outstanding.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll