From the Business Post
www.businesspost.ie
A Cork-based couple have launched High Court proceedings against Pepper Finance alleging that the firm made “unconscionable and unenforceable” increases on their mortgage interest rate.
Darren Hennessy and Emer Barrett, of Togher, County Cork, said the interest rates on loans they initially received from PTSB have risen to 8.5 per cent, which they said amounted to a difference of €7,400 a year in payments.
Pepper became the legal owner and servicer of the couple’s loans when it purchased them from PTSB 2019. The couple already had alternative repayment arrangements in place with the bank dating from 2014.
Legal filings allege that Pepper remains bound as successor in title to offer the same rates as those offered by PTSB.
In July, the couple allege they were told that the interest rate was increasing from 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent, and then last month they were told it would increase to 8.5 per cent at the end of this month. The commensurate rate charged by PTSB was listed as 4.3 per cent.
The papers, seen by the Business Post, state that while it was provided for that the interest rate could be adjusted, it was expressly stated that this could be done by the “lender”.
As Pepper was not a lender, the case claims “the contract on its plain and natural interpretation bestowed the ability to amend the rate of interest with PTSB”.
“It is denied that the changes to the European Central Bank rate have the effect claimed by the defendant, or any effect, on its costs,” the papers stated.
“Instead the approach taken by the defendant in setting its interest rates is drives exclusively by determining the maximum amount it can extract from its consumer base with a view to making a profit,” it added.
Among the case’s central points relates to the so-called Braganza Duty, which originates from an English court but has been examined in a number of Irish cases. It requires a decision maker to act with honesty and good faith in arriving at a decision.
In this case, the couple plead that Pepper breached this duty by allegedly failing to take into account relevant matters when setting the interest rate.
They are also seeking an order that the imposition by Pepper of an interest rate on their accounts which is in excess of the commensurate rate charged by PTSB is unlawful and in breach of an EU consumer regulation.
Damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation are also sought.
The case involves loans drawn down to remortgage the family home in 2005 and then to renovate it in 2007. The couple have interest rates on two accounts with the defendant.
The case came before Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on an ex-parte basis this morning where John Kennedy, SC for the couple, said that the outcome of the case could affect thousands of other homeowners.
Kennedy said there was a “real urgency” in the case being resolved because his clients were having difficulty maintaining the current rate of interest. He also said there was significant public interest in the litigation.
“We are anxious to get it up and running,” he added.
The judge put the matter in the High Court’s Chancery list for later this month and gave liberty to serve the defendant’s by email in addition to normal service. He said he hoped that an a timetable could be agreed with the defendant by the time the matter returns to court.
Also here https://www.msn.com/en-ie/money/oth...31&cvid=e5bd36ae4a724df1a52396ea6fdb4a21&ei=9
Pepper Finance accused of ‘unconscionable’ attempts to increase mortgage interest after couple saw rates rise to 8.5%
Cork couple claim that Pepper’s imposition of a higher interest rate than that charged by original loan lender is unlawful
www.businesspost.ie
Darren Hennessy and Emer Barrett, of Togher, County Cork, said the interest rates on loans they initially received from PTSB have risen to 8.5 per cent, which they said amounted to a difference of €7,400 a year in payments.
Pepper became the legal owner and servicer of the couple’s loans when it purchased them from PTSB 2019. The couple already had alternative repayment arrangements in place with the bank dating from 2014.
Legal filings allege that Pepper remains bound as successor in title to offer the same rates as those offered by PTSB.
In July, the couple allege they were told that the interest rate was increasing from 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent, and then last month they were told it would increase to 8.5 per cent at the end of this month. The commensurate rate charged by PTSB was listed as 4.3 per cent.
The papers, seen by the Business Post, state that while it was provided for that the interest rate could be adjusted, it was expressly stated that this could be done by the “lender”.
As Pepper was not a lender, the case claims “the contract on its plain and natural interpretation bestowed the ability to amend the rate of interest with PTSB”.
“It is denied that the changes to the European Central Bank rate have the effect claimed by the defendant, or any effect, on its costs,” the papers stated.
“Instead the approach taken by the defendant in setting its interest rates is drives exclusively by determining the maximum amount it can extract from its consumer base with a view to making a profit,” it added.
Among the case’s central points relates to the so-called Braganza Duty, which originates from an English court but has been examined in a number of Irish cases. It requires a decision maker to act with honesty and good faith in arriving at a decision.
In this case, the couple plead that Pepper breached this duty by allegedly failing to take into account relevant matters when setting the interest rate.
‘Real urgency’
The couple, who are represented by Carley and Associates Solicitors, are seeking a declaration that the mortgage interest rate being charged by Pepper is “out of proportion” to any legitimate interest under the loan contracts.They are also seeking an order that the imposition by Pepper of an interest rate on their accounts which is in excess of the commensurate rate charged by PTSB is unlawful and in breach of an EU consumer regulation.
Damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation are also sought.
The case involves loans drawn down to remortgage the family home in 2005 and then to renovate it in 2007. The couple have interest rates on two accounts with the defendant.
The case came before Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on an ex-parte basis this morning where John Kennedy, SC for the couple, said that the outcome of the case could affect thousands of other homeowners.
Kennedy said there was a “real urgency” in the case being resolved because his clients were having difficulty maintaining the current rate of interest. He also said there was significant public interest in the litigation.
“We are anxious to get it up and running,” he added.
The judge put the matter in the High Court’s Chancery list for later this month and gave liberty to serve the defendant’s by email in addition to normal service. He said he hoped that an a timetable could be agreed with the defendant by the time the matter returns to court.
Also here https://www.msn.com/en-ie/money/oth...31&cvid=e5bd36ae4a724df1a52396ea6fdb4a21&ei=9
Last edited:
