Tag: lexlaw

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From outdated statute to FCA rulebook: the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is facing its most significant overhaul in fifty years.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

HMRC Sent Off in £584k Football Referees Tax Battle

In PGMOL v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 00654 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal determined that National Group football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd were not employees, allowing PGMOL’s appeals against Regulation 80 PAYE determinations and Class 1 NIC decisions worth over £583,000. Our specialist tax dispute solicitors and barristers analyse the multifactorial RMC Stage Three assessment, the significance for employment status disputes, and what this means for HMRC investigations into PAYE and National Insurance.

Ultimate Guide to HMRC Discovery Assessments: How to Challenge & Appeal (2026)

HMRC discovery assessments can arrive years after you filed, but many are successfully challenged. This guide explains the legal framework, grounds of appeal, and how to protect your position in 2026.

Digital cityscape at dawn highlighting a modern office building with overlaid financial charts and a glowing path, representing HMRC Time to Pay negotiation and structured tax repayment in 2026.

HMRC Time To Pay Guide 2026: Instalments for Unpaid Tax

A HMRC Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement lets businesses spread unpaid tax over manageable monthly instalments. In 2026, with HMRC enforcement increasing, well-prepared TTP proposals backed by financial evidence help avoid winding-up petitions, protect directors, and keep businesses trading.

London skyline (Houses of Parliament/Big Ben) with a cracked insurance contract, a bundle of Pound Sterling cash, and a symbolic broken chain. Represents the UK Court of Appeal ruling confirming COVID-19 business interruption cover and rejecting insurer arguments on causation

Insurers Lose Appeal on COVID-19 Business Interruption Cover (At-the-Premises Disease Clauses)

The Court of Appeal in London International Exhibition Centre plc v Allianz & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 upheld the High Court’s ruling that policyholders can recover COVID-19 business interruption losses under “at the premises” disease wordings, holding that each case of COVID-19 at the insured premises formed part of the concurrent cause of national closure orders.

Stylised digital illustration showing a blockchain network connecting to the Royal Courts of Justice silhouette, symbolising the intersection of cryptocurrency technology and English fiduciary law.

Court of Appeal: Blockchain Developers Owe Fiduciary Duties to Crypto Owners (Cryptocurrency Litigation)

In Tulip Trading Ltd v van der Laan & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83, the Court of Appeal held that software developers maintaining Bitcoin networks may arguably owe fiduciary duties to crypto owners, recognising a serious issue to be tried on whether developers’ control over blockchain code gives rise to duties of loyalty and care towards asset holders.

Manolete Case Study: Director Ordered to Repay £1.43m for Unauthorised Expenditure (Director’s Duties & Insolvency Act Breaches)

The High Court ordered Dr Amir Matta, director of Saint George Investment Holdings Ltd, to repay £1.43 million after he misapplied company funds for personal expenses, breaching his statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 and authorising unsubstantiated payments to connected parties during a period of financial distress.