MIS-SOLD SOLAR PV SYSTEMS
PLEVIN PPI CLAIMS
SECTION 75 CLAIMS
HOUSING DISREPAIR
Rowan Rose News
Wilson v Hurstanger
The borrowers sought a second loan of £8000 to pay off the arrears from a mortgage broker after falling behind with their mortgage payments. .
The lender, Hurstanger Ltd, provided the borrowers with documents that included a document that authorised payment of the broker's arrangement fee of £1000 out of the loan. Another stated that the broker was acting as the borrowers' agent and that "in certain circumstances [the lender] does pay commission to brokers/agents…We will pay monies to your broker strictly in accordance with your signed authority by the deduction from this advance". The borrowers signed the documents and the lender paid the broker commission of £240.
The borrower's counsel put to the Court that the non-status lending market had become so competitive that it had become necessary for small companies like Hurstanger to pay this sort of commission to brokers to attract business. This was in addition to the arrangement fee the broker would negotiate with the borrower. The issue was as to whether the payment of £240 was a secret profit, in breach of the broker's fiduciary duty to his clients.
Common law principles of agency state that a broker owes fiduciary duties to act in the client's best interests and not to put himself in a position of conflict or make a secret profit. In this case, the broker had an incentive to look for a lender who paid the best commission, rather than getting the best deal for his clients. The only way he could act without breaching his fiduciary duty would be if the borrowers had consented but without knowing the amount they could not give their informed consent.
The Court of Appeal noted that there is no clear authority to say that an agent's duty requires him to disclose the actual amount of this sort of commission. However, the Court took into account that the borrowers in this market were likely to be vulnerable and unsophisticated and therefore concluded that disclosure of the amount was necessary. The broker had not made a secret profit because the borrowers knew about the commission, but in failing to disclose the amount, the broker had, nevertheless, acted in breach of his fiduciary duty because he had not obtained his clients' informed consent to the potential conflict of interest. Significantly, the lender, who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This meant that the borrowers were entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against Hurstanger. Where there has been a breach of fiduciary duty, the court has a discretion whether or not to grant rescission. In this case, it could have ordered rescission of the whole loan agreement. The court, however, decided it would be sufficient to require the lender to pay the borrowers the amount of the commission, plus interest from the date it was paid.
Posted in Legal PrecedentsTagged Hurstanger, Legal Precedents, mortgage payments, Wilson v Hurstanger
Social housing: Woman in Clarion home ends up in A&E after plaster falls from ceiling
ICE BLOCK Our flat is so cold I've had to stick bubble wrap around the windows…. no one gives a s*** about us because we're poor
Kings Norton family in doomed flat 'so cold and damp' they live in coats and dressing gowns
"There needs to be change" says the Housing Ombudsman after a damning report into the state of the UK's Social Housing
Solar Panel company cease trading after mis-selling solar panels on finance provided by Barclays. Rowan Rose pursue Barclays for refund for solar customer, by presenting irrefutable evidence of the mis-selling, calculated by the firm upon looking into the financial returns obtained from the solar panels. The outcome being a settlement in favour of the client within just 9 days of presenting the case to Barclays.
Porterfield -v- Yorkshire Building Society 10th
Daily Mail: Fury over fading benefits of solar power
BBC: Solar panels: Thousands of customers complain
The Telegraph: Solar panels – the returns don't add up
Secret Commissions and unfair credit relationships: Wood v Commercial First Business Limited (in liquidation) 2019
Categories Select Category Case Studies (3) Legal Precedents (3) Mis-sold Solar PV News (3) Secret Commissions (1) Uncategorized (2)
About Rowan Rose
Rowan Rose is a high-end boutique law firm providing our clients with expert legal advice in all areas of law. Our approach is client focused and we are committed to delivering the highest quality of service and advice.
Click to view Sitemap
Our Complaints Policy
1.03 Boat Shed, 12 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EQ
contact@rowanrose.co.uk
Rowan Rose Solicitors is a trading name of GLM Legal LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England under number OC394680. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 620443. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. © 2020 GLM Legal LLP, All rights reserved
We would like to use Cookies to give you the best possible experience on our website. To allow us to do this, please opt-in by clicking this button GDPR Cookie consent To find out about our Cookie Policy click Read more