New Consumer Credit Directive

The Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC (“the Directive”) and the Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010 has introduced new rights and obligations, although The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has decided that there will be a transitional period and any new agreements entered into after 31 January 2011 must comply with the new requirements.


Peter Hastings, Partner at Rogers and Norton reports on the key changes:


“There are several key changes. For example, Lenders have a duty to provide adequate explanations to consumers about the credit on offer to enable them to decide whether it is suited to their needs and circumstances. Lenders are also obliged to assess the creditworthiness of consumers before concluding a credit agreement or increasing the amount of credit available under an existing agreement. Lenders can decide how to assess creditworthiness, but are required to base their assessment on information obtained from the consumer, where appropriate and from a credit reference agency, where necessary.  If an application is refused on the basis of information from a credit reference agency, the lender must inform the creditor of this when it declines the credit”.

In addition, Jenna Phillips, litigation executive in Rogers and Norton
Commercial Litigation Group comments that:-

“The consumer has the right to withdraw from a credit agreement within 14 days without giving any reason, which replaces the current limited right to cancel some types of agreements. Credit intermediaries must disclose their links to lenders and disclose and agree fees for their services with the consumer. The consumer also has the right to repay an agreement early in part and to receive a reduction in the total cost of the agreement as a result. The existing legal framework for full early repayment has been retained and extended to cover partial early repayment”


Jenna Phillips adds:-


“Advertisements that contain specific information about the cost of the credit need to provide a representative example of a credit offer. The Consumer Credit (Advertisement) Regulations 2010 will dispense with the APR approach. Consumers must be given pre-contractual information in writing according to a specific format set out in the Directive. This information is set out in the Consumer Credit (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2010 and other contractual information required is set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulation 2010” .


Non-business unsecured overdrafts will be subject to the requirements for both pre-contractual and contractual information although an overdraft can be arranged urgently without prior written information. Where a current account allows the account holder to overdraw without a pre-arranged overdraft, information about the charges must be included in the agreement. (Regulation 19 of the Directive). Where a credit agreement is used to purchase goods, the consumer can pursue the creditor for a remedy. The value of the goods must be at least £30,000, the credit agreement must be for £60,260 or less and the consumer must have tried to obtain satisfaction from the supplier first. This supplements s75 of the Consumer Credit Act where the cash price of goods is not less than £100 and not more than £30,000. (Regulation 25 of the Directive). Finally, the total charge for credit and the APR must be calculated in accordance with a specified formula. The formula is different to the one which already applies in the UK, but the result it produces is the same and the assumptions are broadly similar. (Total Charge for Credit Regulations 2010).

Peter Hastings adds “The new Directive will provide more protection for the consumer and places extra burden and restrictions on the lender. I can foresee that there will be an increase in disputes arising from this, especially with pressure on businesses in the current economy”.


Rogers and Norton solicitors and its Commercial Litigation Group act for National and Local Finance Companies and Lenders on such matters.

R&N Business Leaders Lunch

On the 14th June 2010 Rogers & Norton Solicitors hosted their 3rd Business Leaders Lunch.  The event took place at the Assembly House in Norwich when 72 guests enjoyed a splendid lunch prepared from the kitchen of Richard Hughes followed by a presentation by Jeff Halliwell, Managing Director of Bernard Matthews Foods Ltd in which he discussed the Company's turnaround programme and plans for the future. 

The event, which was hosted in association with the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce was a great success and plans are already in place for a similar function later in the year.

Commenting on the event Mark Hambling, partner said "I am delighted that so many people from the local business community joined us for a delightful lunch in pleasant surroundings to listen to Jeff's interesting presentation.  Can I thank both Jeff Halliwell and Richard Hughes for making the event such a success". 

If you wish to be kept informed about the next lunch please contact our Practice Manager Graham Knights (tel 01603 675618 or gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk) for further details and dates.

R&N Act for Oceanteam II BV

Rogers & Norton solicitors based in Norwich are delighted to announce that they have been instructed by Oceanteam II BV (a member of the worldwide Oceanteam Group of Companies) to act on its behalf. Initially, the firm’s commercial litigation group has been instructed to act for Oceanteam II BV to deal with a dispute concerning one of its Sea-Ploughs and A-Frame, valued at between £1.7 million and £2.5 million.

The Oceanteam Group is an offshore services company, which charters Large Offshore Construction Support Construction Support Vessels and Fast Support Vessels throughout the world.  Oceanteam ASA's Quarter 1 report for 2010 published a total operating revenue of €7,406,000.

Rogers & Norton, Managing Partner Richard Etheridge comments, "We are delighted to have been instructed to act for Oceanteam II BV, having acted for its UK subsidiaries recently. Our client was impressed with not only our legal skills but also the way we delivered them and our commitment to providing an excellent service to our clients".

Peter Hastings and Phil Kerridge, partners in the commercial litigation group, are acting on the dispute.  Peter adds, "The case is proceeding in the Commercial Court and within a matter of days of receiving the instructions and meeting our client, we were ready to proceed with the case and take the necessary action to ensure that we secure our client's objectives. Our client is already delighted at the strength and depth of the commercial litigation group at Rogers and Norton and the ability to complete this case quickly and successfully".

Phil Kerridge, who is the Group's Head also comments, "This new instruction follows a number of very impressive client wins on some high value litigation recently, and is in accordance with our ambitious and targeted expansion programme. We are confident that we have the expertise and structure to deal with such claims, and at the same time, ensuring we successfully act for small to medium sized businesses locally and nationally".  Peter Hastings added that he hopes the Claim can be concluded this summer.

Solicitor looks to challenge HMRC's detentions

Peter Hastings, a Partner with Rogers and Norton solicitors and specialist in claims involving HMRC (and its predecessors Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue) is calling for businesses within the alcohol and warehousing sectors and industries to contact him concerning their experiences with HMRC when HMRC have detained and/or seized goods. 

He also wants to hear from businesses who have been the subject of assessments leading to the insolvency of their business, and as a consequence inability to appeal the assessment.  Initially, Peter is considering mounting a challenge to HMRC's apparent power and ability to detain goods and stock without reasonable grounds for doing so, or without suspicion as to the legality of the goods i.e. whether Duty has been paid.  He is also concerned at how long goods are detained before being released or seized.

Peter has successfully acted for businesses in securing the release of stock valued at millions through the Courts, by Judicial Reviews and Injunctions.  He comments: - “I very recently advised a business whose entire stock valued in excess of £1million had been detained by HMRC, whilst HMRC investigated the Duty status of the stock. This detention put the business and its employees' jobs at risk.  It was eventually released. I am now acting for another business whose entire stock has been detained, again pending an investigation. There are no apparent suspicions for believing that Duty has not been paid; HMRC are investigating the “chain” and 6 weeks after the detention, no progress appears to have been made. My client has had to make redundancies, even though there is no suggestion or evidence that my client has acted unlawfully in anyway. We are now preparing Court proceedings to seek the release of the stock and damages for conversion. HMRC, in my opinion, do not have reasonable grounds to suspect that the alcohol was or is liable to forfeiture. Certainly no grounds or suspicions were disclosed at the time of the detention”.

Peter adds "I also consider that such detentions may be a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol, European Convention on Human Rights. Even if there were grounds to detain, the decision to seize or return the stock really must be made within 4 weeks in my view, not just as a matter of law but for the sake of legitimate businesses, the economy and jobs. HMRC's powers derive from  the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Although it is relatively recent, it is in my view outdated and needs to be amended. HMRC want to be satisfied that duty has been paid and quite rightly have concerns on "missing traders".  However, it is impossible for legitimate businesses to prove this, unless they have bought direct from the brewer/manufacturer.  Of course, we all want to work with HMRC to ensure that Duty and VAT is paid, as required.  That is not the issue. I know that those within the industry are calling for a system that protects both HMRC and also legitimate businesses.  I therefore want to hear from businesses that have faced or are facing such problems, including their experiences of responding to assessments raised and being unable to appeal these due to the lack of funding.  I will then consider whether there are good prospects in challenging HMRC's powers and the current legislation, and at the time finding a solution to the current system.  We already have interest from one MP in the North on this”.

Contact Peter on 01603 666001 or ph@rogers-norton.co.uk.