The following is general information on Intrum UK Finance, one of the debt purchasers we frequently find ourselves fighting in court. We do not act for this company, we act for clients being sued by them.
Intrum UK Finance Limited
The Intrum Group describe themselves as a market leading credit management company specialising in debt collection. Intrum has offices in 24 countries across Europe and employs over 8,000 people. Intrum UK Finance Limited was formerly known as 1st Credit Limited until 1 Mar 2018. They are part of the Intrum Group and buy unpaid loans, credit cards, store cards and other debts from banks and credit card companies etc.
Like most debt purchasers, Intrum claim to help you to manage your debt through affordable repayments, and to support you through the process.
In common with most debt purchasers, their real aim is to maximise their investment in the debts they purchase. To this end, they will sometimes accept repayment plans, but may require proof of your income and expenditure before agreeing terms. Be aware, however, that these plans are usually informal and can often be reviewed or revised, usually every 6 months. A repayment plan does not stop Idem from issuing a claim.
If you have received a letter of claim or a County Court Claim from Idem or they have obtained a default judgment against you, we can advise you how to proceed, or we can act for you. These claims can be defended and judgments set aside. Our view is that these companies, once they issue county court proceedings, must show us and the courts that they have complied with the statutory requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and the Law of Property Act 1925. If they have not, then they are not legally entitled to enforce these debts. We defend all cases vigorously with a near 100% success rate.
This is an example of one of the many claims we have successfully defended against Intrum UK Finance:
Intrum UK Limited v Freeman (Maidstone County Court) (2018) Claim for monies owing under a Lloyds TSB consumer credit loan agreement – claim dismissed as credit agreement unenforceable under S.77 (1), S77A and S.87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)
Please note that County Court decisions are not binding on other judges. Each case has to be argued and defended on it’s merits.
Intrum UK Finance Lose Appeal
The Court has today 8th June 2022, handed down Judgment in a case where we were instructed to represent an individual consumer and where the Appellant was Intrum UK Finance Limited (“Intrum”), formerly known as 1st Credit (Finance) Limited.
Intrum issued proceedings in the County Court in May 2019 alleging to be an assignee of a Halifax Credit Card Agreement entered into by the consumer in 2006. The consumer instructed Joanna Connolly Solicitors to defend him in the claim. We made an application in June 2019 for summary Judgment and/or the claim to be struck out. The application was heard in August 2019 by Deputy District Judge Trent, sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. After hearing from Mrs Connolly, Solicitor Advocate for the consumer, and Counsel of Gough Square Chambers for the Claimant, Deputy District Judge Trent made a finding that the Claimant (Intrum) was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), and thus not entitled to bring legal proceedings against consumers. The Judge therefore struck the claim out and ordered Intrum to pay the Defendant’s costs.
Intrum sought to appeal the decision. Owing to delays in the County Courts and as a result of the covid 19 pandemic the appeal was not heard until January of 2022. The Appeal was heard before His Honour Judge Robinson sitting in the County Court at Sheffield. Intrum was represented by a QC from Henderson Chambers. Our Client was represented by Counsel on instruction of Mrs Connolly.
Judgment was reserved and not handed down until 9.30 am 8 June 2022. In a considered judgment, based on the facts before him, His Honour Judge Robinson found, as a matter of fact, that Intrum had no authorisation from the FCA to commence proceedings, that Deputy District Judge Trent was correct to strike out the claim on the basis he did and that Intrum’s appeal fell to be dismissed.
It is noteworthy that Intrum having had their claim struck out at first instance sought to appeal on a separate issue not raised before the Deputy District Judge We therefore instructed counsel to oppose the appeal primarily for that reason. Intrum conceded their new argument during submissions, and it is refreshing to see His Honour Judge Robinson took into account the argument in the Court below, as well as the previous decision we obtained of Her Honour Judge Sykes in the case of Idem Capital Securities Limited v Webster in which the legislative provisions, the legal framework and the submissions of Mrs Connolly were considered.
Although not a binding decision this latest Judgment is a second persuasive Judgment, after that of Her Honour Judge Sykes in Idem, that creditor/assignees who are not authorised by the FCA are not authorised to, and therefore under statute should not commence legal proceedings against consumers in respect of regulated consumer credit agreements.
It is important for consumers to be aware that Intrum and Idem are not the only unauthorised consumer credit debt purchasers who embark upon legal proceedings against consumers, and although these claims can be defended, as in this case, it is not a simple legal argument.
Contact us at [email protected] or telephone 0151254 6980