Category: Bridging

Miniature family home with house keys, financial documents, calculator and hourglass representing time to avoid mortgage repossession.

Section 36 AJA 1970: Delay Mortgage Repossession

Behind on your mortgage and facing a court date? Learn how the court can give you more time, what evidence persuades a judge and why bridging loans are treated differently.

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From outdated statute to FCA rulebook: the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is facing its most significant overhaul in fifty years.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” (The Times)

Our client, Dr Elizabeth Donald represented by Jaron Dosanjh, 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

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.

McGuinness & Anor v Goldentree Financial Services PLC & Anor [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch)

Case Study: Commercial Lender Defeats Consumer Credit Claim (McGuiness v Goldentree 2025)

McGuinness v Goldentree [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch) clarifies investment property loan exemptions under Article 61A FSMA 2000. The High Court struck out regulatory challenges to commercial development finance, confirming contemporaneous evidence establishes business purposes. The judgment reinforces that former directors lack litigation authority during administration without administrator consent. This decision protects legitimate commercial lending from spurious consumer credit challenges whilst emphasising robust documentation practices for development finance practitioners.

London Litigation Solicitor Bridging Loan Finance Mis-selling Claim Complaint Compensation Settlement Case Study

Bridging Loan Case Study: McDonald v London Credit – Default Interest Rate – Unenforceable Penalty

In this case our lawyers defeated “London Credit”; a bridging lender that demanded circa £160,000.00 GBP. We applied to the High Court and successfully set aside a default judgment then forced the withdrawal of a statutory demand, and 3 interim charging orders. We then forced the other side to settle – for a fraction of the sum demanded.