Banks deny customers' rights over payment cancellations

BBC Business reports that two of the UK's biggest banks have admitted denying some customers their right to cancel recurring payments.

But since 2009, banks have been legally required to cancel CPAs when a customer asks. Customers seeking to cancel continuous payment authorities (CPAs) have been told by banks such as Lloyds TSB, Bank of Scotland and Santander that only the payee can agree such action.

The new rights were enshrined in the Payment Services Regulations, which came into force in November 2009, but have been subject to ongoing discussions between the banks and the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

Mike Dailly, a consumer lawyer at the Govan Law Centre, who also sits on the FSA's Consumer Panel, told Radio 4's Money Box programme that the obligations for banks were clear. "You have the right to cancel one of these continuous payment authorities and you can go to your bank, they can't put up any hurdles," he said.

"They should have a simple procedure for you to do that. You don't have to have the permission of the payee."

Mr Dailly said he has experienced a problem when trying to help a client who banks with Bank of Scotland, also now part of the Lloyds Banking Group:

"I can think of a case of a pay-day loan company where the consumer was paying that through one of the government schemes yet the pay-day loan company is still taking money from the person's account”.

"Now that person went to the Bank of Scotland and asked for them to cancel the CPA and they said 'You can't do it. You need to get the permission of the pay-day loan company.' Now, that's wrong in law."

International report recognises GLC prevention of homeless work in Glasgow

Govan Law Centre’s award winning prevention of Homelessness Partnership section 11 project is highlighted in a new international report published this week reporting on tenancy sustainment programmes.

The report by Chris Povey of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Of Australia, entitled ‘Investigating tenancy sustainment programs and approaches in relation to clients at risk of homelessness’, describes Chris’ Homeless Persons Legal Clinic based in Victoria. The report also considers and focuses on work being undertaken in Glasgow as well as in Edinburgh, the North of England, New York, Washington and Toronto.

In Glasgow the report highlights our approach to homelessness prevention which delivers prevention in a unique way.

The report considers how our project developed ground-breaking and innovative approaches to preventing homelessness in Glasgow, in particular, the dedicated ongoing coordinated approach is described in the report “as the lynchpin” to the success of our homelessness prevention work.

Alistair Sharp, senior project manager at GLC said: “For Govan Law Centre’s prevention of homelessness partnership s11 project to be considered in such a high profile international report is testimony to the hard work of GLC and all of the partners involved, and is fantastic recognition of our partnership working and model of early intervention to prevent homelessness and homelessness prevention in Glasgow”

The Prevention of Homelessness Partnership Project was set up in 2005 by Govan Law Centre, Govan Money Matters Advice Centre and the South West Community Health and Care Partnership (SW CHCP) to pilot s11 of the Homelessness etc., (Scotland) Act 2003.

The s11 Project was set up to achieve, and tasked with, halting repossession and evictions and preventing homelessness through the provision of high quality legal representation, money and benefits advice and access to specialised support services and specialised dedicated coordination of support services. It has prevented over 2000 people and their families from being made homeless. The project was awarded the Scottish Social Services Council Accolade for Partnership Working in Adult Care in 2010.

The full report is available here; and Govan Law Centre’s Prevention of Homelessness Partnership can be found at page 49 et seq.,.

Decree for repossession refused in Glasgow civil trial and expenses awarded against lender

Decree for the ejection of an East End Glasgow woman from her property and the repossession of her home was refused at Glasgow Sheriff Court yesterday following an evidential hearing (known as a 'proof' in Scots civil law).

Most of the defender's mortgage was being now paid by the Department of Works and Pensions albiet there was a small shortfall and the lender, Platform Funding Ltd (an intermediary lender of the Co-operative Bank plc) argued that it did not believe the mortgagor could sustain her mortgage.

Platform Funding Ltd argued in court that the defender had not personally made any payments to her mortgage since 2010 and that as the action had been in court for two years they were entitled to decree for possession.

After hearing the evidence in the case and adjourning to consider the matter, and legal submissions, Sheriff Gilchrist refused the lender's request for decree notwithstanding it would take six and half years for the defender to repay her mortgage arrears.

The court followed the landmark English Court of Appeal decision in Cheltenham and Gloucester Buliding Society v. Norgan [1996] 1 All ER 449, which was persuasive authority in Scotland to the proposition that the starting point for determining a 'reasonable period' to clear arrears was the remaining term of the mortgage, which in this case was 9.5 years.

The court awarded ordinary cause level Sheriff Court expenses against Platform Funding Ltd for the cost of the proof, and suspended the lender's enforcement powers and continued the cause for six months to monitor payments to arrears. 

The defender was represented by Govan Law Centre's Mike Dailly, and the pursuer was represented by Ms Malone of Morisons LLP Solicitors.

Cuts to Home Owners' Support Scheme will create needless homelessness across Scotland

Govan Law Centre is very concerned to learn that the Scottish Government will reduce its funding to the very successful Home Owners' Support Fund (HOSF, which includes the Mortgage to Rent Scheme) by a massive 46% or £8.5m from April 1 2012, for the year 2012/13.

The HOSF had funding of £18.5m in 2011/12, but without any apparent public consultation the Scottish Government has decided to slash this budget to £10m for the financial year 2012/13.

GLC's Principal Solicitor Mike Dailly said:
"The Mortgage to Rent Scheme has been a great Scottish success story where demand massively outstrips supply. Often it is the only safety net for vulnerable homeowners facing repossession and homelessness, and without access to it, we are deeply concerned that many Scots are going to become homeless needlessly. Homelessness is a traumatic and terrifying prospect for families, and we should be extending this fantastic scheme in these tough times not cutting it. We hope the Scottish Government will think again on this cut".

"The Scottish Government had made access to the scheme much harder by tightening the eligibility rules in March 2009 and from next month those rules will be tightened once again - especially for bankrupt applicants. Govan Law Centre believes the Home Owner Support Fund is a huge Scottish success story which enables families to keep their homes by becoming a tenant instead of an owner. The scheme needs to be made more available to vulnerable Scots as a core part of Scotland's prevention of homelessness and housing policy and strategy. It is tried and tested. It works".

"Cutting the scheme's funding by almost 50% is the equivalent of taking a life ring from a drowning man or women".

Note:
The Mortgage to Rent (now part of the HOSF) scheme was introduced in Scotland in February 2003: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254517/0075356.pdf

The equivalent Mortgage Rescue Scheme was introduced in June 2008 in Wales and January 2009 in England: http://www.housingrepossessions.co.uk/mortgage-rescue-scheme.html

Details of the HOSF are available here: www.scotland.gov.uk/hosf

Unfair bank charges update from GLC

GLC has settled a claim in full for the refund for overdraft charges with Santander UK plc. The claim was settled extra-judicially after proceedings had been raised utlising new legal and factual arguments.

Some of these arguments (but not all) are scheduled to be tested in the cases of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, and Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc. 

A debate will take at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 2 April 2012 in the case of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, with GLC's Mike Dailly appearing for the pursuer, and Clydesdale's in-house legal team and counsel appearing for the defender.

The case of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland awaits a fresh hearing date.

GLC rings alarm over growing mis-selling of consumer credit products across the UK

With around £9bn of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) mis-sold to UK consumers the issue of the mis-selling of financial products is big consumer news; yet the potential for the mis-selling of consumer credit products - particulary pay day loans and second charge mortgages regulated under the Consumer Credit Act - is relatively new and unchartered waters.

Govan Law Centre believes alarm bells should be ringing over the growing potential for mass mis-selling in the UK consumer credit market, with the growth of aggressive pay day lending and the ongoing mis-selling of expensive home secured loans. Changes introduced by the 2006 Consumer Credit Act have opened new gateways for consumer redress in law and through the independent Financial Ombudsman Service.

GLC todays publishes a 'think piece' paper which discusses the scope and possibility for consumer redress in relation to mis-sold and unfair consumer credit products in the UK. The paper is available here. Thoughts and comments are welcome and can be made below.

GLC secure unsecured loan write-off using CCA

In RBS plc v. Ahmed, a creditor sought to recover payment under a unsecured loan agreement for a sum just under £2,500, together with its legal expenses, which would have been on the undefended summary cause scale, at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

GLC had defended the action upon the basis the statement of claim was lacking in specification, and was irrelevant on a number of grounds, including failing to indicate whether a default notice under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) had been properly served prior to proceedings being raised.

RBS agreed to dismiss the action with expenses at 10% of the sum sued in favour of the defender, together with an undertaking to write off the debt under the loan agreement. The case serves to illustrate the importance of advisers always checking court documents for payment, as opposed to taking the debt and charges as stated as being necessarily due at the level claimed, or being lawfully due.