The following PI & Clinical Negligence guidance note Produced in partnership with Andrew Wilson provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Some credit hire agreements have been vulnerable to attack as unenforceable where the credit hire company has failed to comply with certain regulations, concerning either the agreement itself or the formalities. The significance of an agreement being unenforceable, as against the hirer, is that in such circumstances the hirer has suffered no loss and has no right to recovery.
As was confirmed in the House of Lords in the case of Dimond v Lovell, such hire agreements are credit agreements and are subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) (as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) and the Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1010 unless the terms meet the conditions for exemption. If the agreement is found not to be exempt, and is therefore a regulated agreement, it is likely to be found to be improperly executed, pursuant to CCA 1974, s 61(1)(a) for failing to state the 'total cash price for the services' at that stage.
However, the Court of Appeal in Clark v Tull (trading as Ardington Electrical Services) confirmed that if an agreement requires no more than four payments and limits the period of hire to no more than 12 months, it will be an exempt agreement. Even if the liability to pay may stretch
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234