Lowering the Bar …
When we filed a claim for £4,370 against Black Horse (BH) we did not anticipate being pitted in court against a London barrister from Gough Square Chambers which, according to LEGAL 500 was:-
‘Without doubt, the leading set for consumer law matters with eminent QCs … and some brilliant rising stars’.
The basis of our claim against BH was over the financing of a caravan where the cash price was purported to be £21,995 with no VAT. However, it later transpired that the true value of the caravan was much less as the cost of site fees, insurance, business and water rates were included in the price, causing higher hire purchase repayments. Not only did the first year’s site fees and rates carry interest charges for up to 84 months, but the VAT on them was also subjected to the same period of interest charges.
A lawyer with specialist knowledge of Consumer Credit (CC) law pointed us in the direction of the CC (Agreements) Regulations 2010 and the CC Act 1974, section 189 and confirmed that, as site fees were not ‘goods’, and could not be sold or ‘serviced’ or, kept in ‘good condition and repair’ or, ‘insured comprehensively’ as is required by the terms of the agreement, they could not be included as part of the ‘cash price’ of a caravan sold on hire purchase.
Clearly, a barrister with knowledge of CC law ought to have known that the above requirements did not apply to site fees, business rates and insurance, but it appears that a blind eye was turned to these very obvious facts. As the barrister had access to our witness statements and other documents dealing with these issues it is hard to understand why they were ignored.
According to Chambers and Partners:-
‘Gough Square Chambers is the definitive consumer law set… Renowned for consumer credit expertise’ and,
‘In consumer law they will always be the Chambers you turn to …’ and,
‘Consumer law is the life blood of this set… The foremost chambers for consumer credit.’
In a submission to the court the barrister wrote:-
'The first pleaded allegation is that the cash price of the Caravan included impermissible components … namely:
'.....The first year's charges in respect of the siting of the Caravan (e.g. site fees, insurance, non-domestic business rates, water and sewerage rates).'
The submission’s conclusion was that our allegations were ‘devoid of merit.’ However, with apparent expertise in CC Law the barrister should have known it was BH’s position that was unsustainable and devoid of merit. This has since been proven as the contested extras are no longer included as part of the price of caravans. I issued a formal complaint to the Chambers about the barrister’s erroneous court submission and a Panel was convened to investigate. Here are its findings:-
‘We have considered whether there is any information … that should lead us to a conclusion that (deleted) misled the court or failed to draw the attention of the court to any relevant decided cases or legistration.
‘… Mr Jackson has not drawn attention to any cases or legislation that he states should have been cited to the court and we are aware of none.
‘… we are not able to find anything in the Skeleton Argument that was misleading or biased.
‘…we are not able to find that Mr Jackson’s complaint … has been made out.’
Not content with this outcome I emailed the Head of Chambers reaffirming our complaint about the barrister’s involvement in the court hearing but to no avail. I then took the matter to the Bar Standards Board (BSB). In a letter dated 28th October 2020 the BSB wrote:-
‘We have looked carefully at everything you have sent us. We cannot identify a breach of the BSB’s handbook … and so we are unable to investigate your concerns …’
A further letter of 19th January 2021 from the BSB outlined the findings of an ‘Independent Reviewer’ (IR):-
‘The IR appreciated that this had been an upsetting and long running concern for you and your wife. There was however no evidence to suggest a breach of the Handbook … and the IR concluded that the BSB’s decision not to take further action on your report was reasonable and appropriate.
‘For the reasons set out, this case will remain closed. Please note that there is no further review available within our processes.’
From the above it appears that the BSB also considered our claims to be ‘devoid of merit’. However, had we been Gough Square Chambers’ clients perhaps the barrister would have taken a much closer look at the Consumer Credit law and sought a very different outcome - in our favour.
Yes, if only we had been paying one of those ‘brilliant rising stars’ ……
26 February 2021
Unprompted review
