Court rules Interpretation & Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply to Scottish PAR, as repossession action dismissed as incompetent

Sheriff Reid at Glasgow Sheriff Court has ruled that the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland Act 2010 (ILR(S) Act 2010) does not apply to The Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 (SSI 2010/317 - the 'PAR')) in finding that a lender had raised incompetent mortgage repossession proceedings which did not comply with the Scottish PAR, and fell to be dismissed.

In a very thoughtful and complex judgment in the case of FirstPlus Financial Group plc v. Pervez, Sheriff Reid explains how the term 'default' as it appears in the PAR must bear the same meaning as it does in the relevant primary legislation - the Conveyaning and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894. This was necessary in terms of section 11 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

In so doing, the court preferred the construction of Sheriff Deutsch in the cases of NRAM, Santander, and Nationwide Building Society v. Doyle and four others (cases where GLC acted for all defenders) and not the approach that Sheriff Bicket took at Hamilton Sheriff Court in the case of Accord Mortgages v. Dickson, which GLC believes was wrongly decided in relation to Sheriff Bicket holding that the ILR(S) Act 2010 applied to the PAR which led to him not following the decisions of NRAM v. Millar and RBS plc v. McConnell (cases where GLC acted for all defenders).

The judgment in Pervez examines many other important issues in relation to Scottish repossession law, and clarifies the proper statutory construction that lenders should apply to the PAR. The case of Pervez represented a strategic attempt by Optima Legal - a top 100 UK firm - to challenge the ratio of Sheriff Deutsch's judgment in NRAM v Millar, which had been appealed to the Inner House by NRAM but then subsequently dismissed with expenses in favour of the defender.

The pursuer in the case of Pervez was represented by Mr Gannon of Optima Legal (Glasgow), and the Mr Pervez was represented by GLC's Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly. FirstPlus Financial Group plc
is a subsidiary company of Barclays Bank plc.

GLC campaign for lenders to reimburse unfair mortgage fees in Scotland

Banks are facing compensation claims of up to £30m from Scottish mortgage customers hit by "unfair, immoral and unethical' fees and charges added to their mortgages after court actions were dismissed by lenders for technical reasons. Govan Law Centre's (GLC) campaign to stop Scottish consumers being 'double charged' for mortgage expenses has been reported in The Herald (Sat, 29 December 2012).

GLC believes that the issue here is fairness, and that incompetent or defective proceedings cannot be the fault of consumers; rather it is the responsibility of lenders and their Scottish solicitors. GLC considers it to be unfair, immoral, and unethical for Scottish solicitors and UK lenders to profit twice by 'double-charging' Scottish consumers who are in financial difficulties.

GLC has set up a simple self-help website for affected customers or their advisors to seek free refunds.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders told The Herald that if costs were not added to mortgage accounts "then all customers would effectively end up paying for them, which many would regard as unfair and inappropriate". The Herald's own editorial has argued that this approach "fails to recognise the only fair and appropriate way for the charge to be borne is by the institutions whose incompetence caused the actions to fail". The Herald goes on to argue that:

"Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre, the solicitor who is leading the campaign to recover the charges levied for failed actions, is entirely justified in condemning the lenders and criticising their solicitors as "unfair, immoral, and unethical" in double-charging Scottish consumers who are in financial difficulties".

Repossession cases which were dismissed in Scotland centre on two significant legal rulings in the UK Supreme Court and the sheriff court that resulted in thousands of repossession cases being aborted: RBS v. Wilson; and NRAM v. Millar & RBS v. McConnell, respectively (GLC represented the defenders in NRAM v. Millar and RBS v. McConnell). 

GLC to participate in free Scottish mortgage repossession conferences

GLC's Principal Solicitor will be speaking at a free conference focussing on recent legislative and case law changes in Scottish mortgage repossession law, in Glasgow on 3 December 2012.

The event is being hosted and sponsored by the Carrington Dean Group. Mike will provide a review of recent Scottish case law, with a focus on statutory pre-action requirements and the issue of legal costs and charges in repossession cases. Other confirmed speakers include, Citizen Advice Scotland, Irwin Mitchell Solicitors and Tom McEntegart, managing director of TLT Solicitors. The conference will include an afternoon panel debate session chaired by advocate and Scottish Legal Action Group chairman, Robert Sutherland.

The conference will be held in the Laprohaig Theatre, Teacher’s Building, Glasgow on the December 3, 2012. A shorter seminar will be held in the Ramada Encore Hotel in Inverness on December 6. Anyone interested should contact alanmcintosh@carringtondean.com in the first instance. Both events are free to advisers and solicitors working in the industry.

Lenders new PAR arguments rejected in NRAM, Santander & Nationwide v. Doyle and 4 others

New legal arguments by Aberdein Considine & Co., solicitors on behalf of three UK lenders have been rejected in a Scottish judgement from Sheriff Deutsch at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The judgment pertains to five separate mortgage repossession actions which were heard together earlier this year, with GLC's Principal Solicitor acting for all five defenders.

The 'Doyle judgment' provides helpful discussion on what lenders need to do to satisfy the 2010 Pre-Action Requirements (PAR) Order, with examples of three cases which failed to meet the 'minimum standard' required under the 2010 Order, and two cases which met the statutory test.

The Pursuers' solicitors unsuccessful challenged the ratio in Northern Rock (Asset Management) Plc v. Millar 2012 SLT (Sh Ct) 58, but had also set forward a number of new legal arguments which had not been considered in Millar. A number of new propositions were advanced, including: that the Interpretation Act 1978 did not apply; 'default' was truly under standard condition 9(1)(b); there should be a flexible time for PAR compliance; and that there was no mandatory requirement to comply with regulation 2 of the 2010 Order. All of these arguments were rejected by the court.

The Pursuers' solicitors were able to show that there had been actual compliance with the PAR in two out of the five cases, and accordingly these were continued to determine further procedure, while three actions were dismissed as incompetent. The full judgment is available here (online PDF).

Northern Rock drops appeal as Scottish Government promises law reform for lenders

Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (NRAM) has asked the Court of Session to dismiss its appeal against the decision of Sheriff Deutsch in the NRAM plc v. Millar GLC test case. NRAM's appeal was dismissed on Friday, 7 September 2012 (the procedural hearing date of the case) with judicial expenses awarded in favour of the defender.

The reason given by NRAM for abandoning its appeal to the Inner House was because it had become aware the Scottish Government was now willing to bring forward law reform to amend its 2010 Pre-Action Requirements Order (PAR) so that 'default' would mean a simple missed mortgage payment. The ruling in Millar meant that key information - and a final last chance to remedy mortgage 'default' - had to be provided on or after the expiry of the calling up notice, generally served before court proceedings were raised.

It is understood* (see update below) the Scottish Government will amend the definition of 'default' in the PAR, so that there will be no need to provide key PAR information prior to proceedings being raised.

GLC's Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly said: "We believe the Millar judgment was fantastic news for Scottish consumers because it meant they would always get an extra and final chance to avoid court proceedings after a calling-up notice.  Govan Law Centre is dismayed to hear that the Scottish Government will now scrap this final last chance for Scottish homeowners, and in so doing render the Pre-Action Requirements toothless, and in effect a duplication of the FSA's existing equivalent MCOB rule. The Scottish Government should be backing struggling homeowners and not legislating for lenders".

GLC notes that Sheriff Deutsch had eloquently explained the logic of PAR information being sent after the expiry of a calling up notice in his judgement in Millar (at paragraph 84, which is reproduced below).

The first public mention of the Scottish Government legislating for lenders was raised in an article in the industry magazine, the Mortgage Finance Gazette, where Mr Rob Aberdein of Aberdein Considine & Co., Solicitors (a Scottish firm who act for a number of lenders in repossession proceedings in Scotland) said in relation to the NRAM v Millar case:

"Should an appeal not be forthcoming or be unsuccessful then I did meet the Scottish Government at the start of the year on the matter of the impending Glasgow cases decision and have exchanged correspondence with Alex Neil MSP, the cabinet minister for infrastructure and capital investment, on the topic.  Both are supportive of corrective secondary legislation as they believe the decision is not consumer friendly and potentially damaging to their goal of avoiding repossession and resultant homelessness".

GLC is not aware of evidence whatsoever to support the assertion by Mr Aberdein, which he ascribes to the Scottish Government.  We note that lenders have already changed their practice since earlier this year to comply with the legal reasoning in Millar. Further, we note that any proposed law reform cannot be retrospective.

Note
NRAM plc v. Millar &; RBS plc v. McConnell judgment:
[84] Regardless of whether those responsible for managing the bill which gave rise to the 2010 Act operated under a misunderstanding as to whether non-payment constituted a default for the purposes of section 19 of the 1970 Act, now that the position has been clarified, it appears to me that the required information will actually be sent to debtors at a time when, given the recent expiry of the calling up notice, they might be more inclined to pay that information some serious regard. At that point the debtor should be in no doubt that the creditor may apply to the Sheriff court for warrant to repossess and to sell the property. That level of understanding on the part of the debtor might be less likely to exist if, in accordance with the pursuers' interpretation, the default which triggers the requirement to provide information, need be no more than one month of arrears. The possibility must exist that there will be debtors with a tendency to pass in and out of an arrears position on a regular basis. One corollary of that situation might be that such persons would receive a regular stream of correspondence providing the required information. Such a volume of similar correspondence might be expected to be ignored. It might also be expensive for creditors.

* Update from 24 September 2012: Scottish Government confirms it has not made any decision to amend the 2010 Order: link to letter confirming same.

Further hearing in Scottish repossession test cases on pre-action requirements

The court has appointed parties be heard further in the Scottish repossession test cases of RBS plc v. McConnell and NRAM plc v. Millar next week. Sheriff AF Deutsch has given parties an opportunity to be heard on a new point in relation to the Interpretation Act 1978.

Since the Scottish Government's Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010, a lender must now give certain information to a debtor upon entering into 'default' before a repossession action is raised in court. This is known as the 'pre-action requirement' and failure to comply with this requirement can render the court action incompetent.

Many lenders and law firms in Scotland have interpreted 'default' to mean merely a failure to pay sums due under a mortgage, whereas Govan Law Centre has argued that 'default' is a technical term which means the failure to comply with a calling-up notice.

The cases of RBS plc v. McConnell and NRAM plc v. Millar look set to provide clarity on this point. Many repossession actions across Scotland have been continued or sisted (stayed) pending the court's judgment in these cases.

Free know-how on Scottish repossession competency arguments disseminated by GLC

In response to requests, having regard to our public legal education ethos, and considering the wider potential public interest and the need for advisers to consider the potential need to protect the interests of their own clients, Govan Law Centre (GLC) is making its competency arguments in the test cases of NRAM v. Millar and RBS plc v. McConnell publicly available for free (see below).

The decision of Sheriff Deutsch in the said test cases is expected sometime in February 2012, and advisers will need to consider what steps, if any, they may wish to take to safeguard the interests of their own clients pending the outcome of that judgment, and any implications and developments that may arise following thereon.

GLC's arguments are presented in the format of an illustrative set of Defences (known as 'Answers' as repossession procedure in Scotland is now by way of summary application procedure).  Please note the disclaimer, namely that this document contains information only and does not constitute legal advice; you should obtain your own independent qualified legal advice from a Scots law practitioner and must not rely upon this document which is illustrative only.

View as a WEBPAGE or download as a WORD DOCUMENT

.