Author: LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

Primary Keywords Consumer Credit Act 1974 reform solicitors Consumer credit dispute lawyers UK Consumer Credit Act borrower rights claims Section 75 claim solicitors Unenforceable credit agreement lawyers Long-Tail Keywords Consumer Credit Act 1974 reform legal advice UK Challenge unenforceable credit agreements before CCA repeal Section 75 lender liability claims solicitors Unfair relationship claims under sections 140A-140C CCA Motor finance voluntary termination rights legal advice Consumer credit litigation specialists London High-Intent Keywords Consumer Credit Act claim before law changes Challenge lender misconduct under CCA Credit agreement unenforceability solicitor Consumer credit rights repeal legal advice LEXLAW consumer credit dispute specialists Borrower rights under Consumer Credit Act reform

Consumer Credit Act 1974 Reform: What Borrowers Need to Know

From outdated statute to FCA rulebook: the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is facing its most significant overhaul in fifty years. Automatic sanctions that have protected borrowers for decades are proposed for repeal, voluntary termination rights hang in the balance, and the window to enforce existing statutory protections is closing. Here is what every borrower needs to know before the law changes.

Primary Keywords Mis-sold bridging loans solicitors Bridging loan mis-selling claims Lexlaw Unfair bridging loan penalties lawyers Long-Tail Keywords Lexlaw mis-sold bridging loan solicitors London Defend against bridging loan default charges Mis-sold bridging finance broker disputes UK Bridging loan unenforceable interest rates Lexlaw

“Bridging Loan borrowers sucked into the MFS Vortex” (Times Case Study)

Our Client, GP Elizabeth Donald, told The Times that MFS’s collapse had been a “nightmare” in regards to her personal portfolio. Barclays, Santander and Wells Fargo are some of the institutions thought to be caught up in the Mayfair lender’s collapse — but what about individuals? Article by James Hurley, Assistant Business Editor, The Times

Company directors reviewing a personal guarantee agreement after corporate default in a professional office setting

Directors’ Personal Guarantees: What Happens When a Corporate Debtor Defaults?

When a company defaults, directors who have signed personal guarantees may face direct personal enforcement. This guide explains how personal guarantees operate under UK law, when liability arises, how creditors pursue guarantors, and what legal options may be available to protect personal assets.

HMRC, Security Notice, Notice of Requirement, NOR, Tax Tribunal, Lexlaw, Tax Disputes, Director Liability, VAT Security, PAYE Security, Revenue Protection, Michael Duma, Harriot Rockey, Keith Gordon, Tax Litigation Solicitors.

Case Study: HMRC Security Notices Overturned – Duma & Rockey v HMRC (Tax Tribunal Appeal)

We are the leading firm representing Directors and Companies facing HMRC Security Notices and we regularly succeed on behalf of clients. Here, our counsel successfully fought HMRC Security Notices that sought to impose over £215,000 in personal liability for VAT and PAYE debts. The case is a landmark victory against HMRC Notices of Requirement to give Security.

Missing your HMRC tax tribunal appeal deadline doesn't mean your case is over. The Upper Tribunal's landmark decision in Medpro v HMRC fundamentally changed how tribunals approach late appeals, moving away from the strict Martland framework that previously barred most out-of-time applications. Today, tribunals weigh all circumstances equally—delay length, reasons for lateness, and your case's strength—rather than treating deadlines as near-absolute barriers. This shift opens new pathways for taxpayers with meritorious claims, but success depends on understanding the evolving rules and acting strategically. This guide explains the current tribunal landscape and your practical options.

Late HMRC Tax Tribunal Appeals: Medpro, Martland & Your Options

Under the old Martland rules missing a tax tribunal appeal deadline meant case closure as time limits were treated as virtually absolute. The Upper Tribunal’s 2025 decision in Medpro v HMRC restores judicial discretion and elevates case merits. Taxpayers with credible explanations now have a realistic path to rescuing late appeals. Understanding the shift and presenting your circumstances effectively to a tribunal, could mean the difference between recovering a valid claim and losing it permanently.

Only with court permission under CPR 36.10. You must prove a "change of circumstances" (e.g., new evidence), not just a change of mind. See our litigation guide.

Chinda v Cardiff: Rules on Withdrawing Accepted Part 36 Offers

Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.