RE: Volumes16 Jan 2025 00:24
Schedule itself has been fully redacted. It is therefore not possible to ascertain how this figure was calculated in Jordans' case. Close's witness, Miss Shaw, accepted in cross-examination that in 2014 the disclosure of any commission was not required by Close and was not part of their practice (Hopcraft judgment, [36]).
Miss Hopcraft was unaware that Jordans were being paid a commission. She told the judge that if she had known about the commission she would have shopped around, but he found that she was focused on buying the car and as long as the monthly payments were "about right", she was happy with the situation (Hopcraft judgment, [34]).
On 10 January 2014, Miss Hopcraft signed a hire-purchase agreement with Close under which they provided her with credit in the sum of £8,280. The total cash price of the car was £8,530. She paid a deposit of £250. The monthly instalments were £144.42. The interest rate was fixed at 5.5% (12.3% APR) and the total interest charges were £2,452.42 which were split and payable in instalments over the terms of the agreement.
Miss Hopcraft repaid the loan in full earlier than scheduled in around September 2016. The claim form was issued in March 2023. Close did plead a limitation defence, but that does not appear to have been pursued.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
