|
|
|
|
The
Queen v Kettering Magistrates’ Court ex parte M.R.B. Insurance Brokers Limited M.R.B, a motor insurance broker, gave to a consumer a
credit agreement which gave the APR as 28.3% whereas the true rate was at least
64% - they had failed to take into account an advance payment of £52 nor a
compulsory payment of £1 per month for accident cover. They were convicted at
the Magistrates’ Court of an offence under s.20 of the Consumer Protection Act
1987, and wished to appeal against conviction. They asked the magistrates to
state a case for appeal but the magistrates refused, and the company then
appealed against the magistrates’ decision. Issues covered in the judgement were 1.
whether
the rate of 64% was correctly determined - the court were satisfied with the
affidavit of Mr Smith, a Trading Standards Officer and output from the Office of
Fair Trading’s computer program. 2.
that a
statement of APR is not an indication as to price for the purposes of the
Consumer Protection Act - the court disagreed on the basis that “indication”
was widely drawn, and there was no doubt that it did have a bearing on the total
cost of credit. 3.
that
s.170(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prevents any criminal sanction except
as provided under that Act - the court held that the purpose of s.170(1) was to
clarify the position in relation to the application of the common law to
breaches of the Act. Accordingly, the court refused to grant leave to appeal. |