Howard couple wins partial appeal against GE Money

On 25 April 2025, the County Court at Birmingham ruled on the appeal case of Trevor Anthony Howard and Anita Margaret Howard versus GE Money Mortgages Limited and Promontoria (Vantage) Limited. This case stemmed from an earlier judgment delivered by District Judge Longworth on 23 July 2024, where multiple claims from the Howards were dismissed.

The primary matter revolved around a credit agreement for £121,750 entered into on 6 October 2004 by the Howards with GE Money, then operating as iGroup Mortgages Limited, secured against their home. After experiencing repayment delays, GE initiated possession proceedings in 2007, resulting in a suspended order in 2008. The credit agreement was later assigned to Promontoria in 2015, and the Howards fully paid it off by September 2019.

On 17 August 2023, the Howards commenced legal action against GE and Promontoria, alleging unfair relationships, secret commissions, and breach of fiduciary duty. Their main complaint was about the £4,261.25 commission paid by GE to their broker, The Loan Company Limited, of which they claimed to be unaware. However, in his prior ruling, District Judge Longworth dismissed the secret commissions claim, concluding that the Howards had knowledge of these payments.

The appeal brought by the Howards focused chiefly on the dismissal of their unfair relationship claim under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They contended that the dismissal was erroneous due to being time-barred, stating that the limitation period only initiated upon the termination of their credit relationship, which they argued did not occur until late 2019.

In a pivotal finding, the appeal court upheld the Howards' arguments against Promontoria, determining that their unfair relationship claim had not expired and was still within the six-year limitation period. This assessment stemmed from the understanding that their relationship with Promontoria concluded in October 2019. As a result, the appeal court overturned District Judge Longworth's earlier dismissal concerning this particular respondent.

Conversely, the court maintained the decision relating to GE Money, affirming that the relationship with GE concluded when the agreement was assigned to Promontoria in September 2015. Consequently, this rendered the unfair relationship claim time-barred, as it was filed after the six-year limitation period.

In conclusion, the appeal court allowed the claim against Promontoria while dismissing the complaints against GE for procedural reasons. The court ordered that the unfair relationship claim against Promontoria be returned to the County Court at Telford for further merit assessment. Furthermore, it annulled the costs order previously issued in favour of Promontoria, deeming it unjust considering the new ruling on the unfair relationship claim.

This case exemplifies the complexities inherent in consumer credit agreements and highlights the intricate dynamics of time limitations and relationships between lenders, brokers, and borrowers. The Howards now have a renewed opportunity to pursue their claims against Promontoria in a lower court, which may further illuminate consumer rights in the context of credit agreements.