English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

IN THE MORPETH & BERWICK COUNTY COURT
COUNTY COURT

		Fountain House New Market Morpeth Northumberland NE61 1LA
		12th November 2012

1. This is a claim brought by Mrs and Mrs Redpath against Black Horse Ltd under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and arising out of a loan advanced by Black Horse to Mr and Mrs Redpath in or about August of 2003 (and that is as at today nine and a half years ago).
2. I will start (because it is irrelevant to the judgment) by getting out of the way one of my particular annoyances. Mrs Redpath in the Witness Box when asked "What is your full name?" (which is the proper thing for counsel to ask) said "Sally Ann Redpath". I am sure that counsel would like to advise his instructing solicitors that taking the full name of the client is basic proper practice and procedure and would ensure that the case papers named the claimant properly.
3. I have heard evidence today from Mrs Redpath, who was present in Black Horse's office with the Black Horse sales assistant when the details of the loan were discussed. I have heard from Mr Redpath, who was one of the joint borrowers, but he was not present at that time, and later received and subsequently signed the necessary documentation when it came to their house.
4. I have heard also from Mr Starling on behalf of Black Horse. He of course was not a witness to the entering into of the agreement or any part of the discussion as to its terms, but he does give me helpful information as to how he would have expected this particular transaction to proceed.
5. As I have said, this is a claim brought under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and in particular it is brought under Sections 140A, B and C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is important perhaps to make it clear that they are number 140A, 140B and 140C, because they did not form any part of the original Consumer Credit Act when it came into force or when it was passed in 1974. These are amendments to the Act which were introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. While it does not bear upon the circumstances of this case, it is nonetheless interesting to note that at the time this agreement was entered into, those amendments were not in force.
6. Dealing with the law, what in fact section 140A(1) enables me to consider is varying in one way, shape or form, the terms of the Consumer Credit Agreement, if I determine that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following:

"(a) any of the terms of the agreement…" – I am not going to refer to the related agreements as they do not directly affect the issue;

"(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement" – as far as I know, apart from receiving the payments, the creditor has not taken any steps to enforce his rights under the agreement); and

"(c) any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement)."

7. That appears to give the Court a fairly wide discretion to consider the agreement being unfair. The section goes on to say that:

"(2) In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor)."

And for the sake of total completeness section 140A(3) provides that:

"(3) For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor."

In other words, anybody who is doing anything in connection with it. I am also entitled under the section thus:

"(4) A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended" – which is not of course the case in this particular instance.

And exempt agreements are exactly what they say they are; exempt from these provisions.

8. That, in substance, is what the law says. So to try and summarise it (primarily for the benefit of Mr and Mrs Redpath, so they can see where I am going in this instance), the section entitles me to consider all the circumstances surrounding the entering into the agreement and all the circumstances following the entering into the agreement. In other words, everything that may have happened from the first moment that somebody thought it might be a good idea to think about going to Black Horse to borrow some money. If I am satisfied, having looked at those provisions (I will come to the question of being satisfied in a moment), then I can conclude that the agreement is unfair. And if I conclude that the agreement is unfair, then (and without boring you with all the technical details in 140B) I can do pretty well anything. And that is how it appears.
9. So most importantly, the issue that is before me for determination is whether or not this was an unfair relationship between Mr and Mrs Redpath on the one hand and Black Horse Ltd on the other hand. In order to decide that, (as I have said) I can take account of more or less anything, but the one thing that it is clear I have to do is that I have to be satisfied on the various matters which caused me to conclude that it is unfair.
10. That leads me on to explain how all cases before this Court work. I need to make it clear first of all that when a claimant brings a case before this Court, the burden of proof is upon the claimant to satisfy me that he or she or they are right. There is no burden that falls on the shoulders of the defendants to satisfy me that they are right. In order to be satisfied, I am required to apply a certain standard of proof. It is not the criminal standard; it is that I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. In other words, it is more likely that the claimant is right than that the claimant is wrong. That is the standard; the burden is on the claimant.
11. In order to fulfil that test, I have now to look at the facts (or to put it more precisely I now have to look at the evidence), so that I can decide on what facts I am satisfied.
12. I start with the Particulars of Claim, because that is how any case starts. The Particulars of Claim (see page 1 of the bundle) deals with (in paragraph three) the application process for the loan and alleged misrepresentation. It sets out that the first claimant on behalf of herself and the second claimant (that of course is Mrs Redpath on behalf of herself and her husband), on or about 5^th August 2003, made an application for a loan at the defendants Gateshead branch. That application and the accompanying Payment Protection Insurance was dealt with by a female sales assistant who was a servant, agent or employee of the defendant.
13. It goes on at paragraph four:

"(4) At the beginning of the meeting, the first claimant provided the details of the first and second claimant's personal circumstances to the sales assistant. The sales assistant was given the claimants' address history, details of outstanding credit, employment details, and she was informed that the purpose of the loan was to consolidate debts".

The Particulars of Claim goes on to say:

"After confirming these details, the sales assistant represented as follows: Firstly, the loan application would only be approved if the claimants agreed to the addition of PPI as part of the loan application. Secondly, the PPI was required to obtain the loan; and thirdly, that on a big loan like this we would always have the cover anyway."

I say immediately that that is not pursued. Those matters are not proved indeed. Talking to the claimants (as opposed to the lawyers who drafted the document), that was never a matter that was at issue.

14. It continues at paragraph six:

"(6) During the meeting, the first claimant asked what would happen if the second claimant became unemployed? This reflected the only substantial concern that the claimant had as to whether they would be able to meet the future repayments of any loan agreement."

15. We go to paragraph seven where the sales assistant represented that the PPI would provide cover in the event that the second claimant became unemployed.
16. Paragraph eight:

"(8) I feel that those representations were false" and goes on to say "the further representation was false because the PPI ultimately sold to the claimant provided life cover only".

And in paragraph ten:

"(10) the sales assistant failed to inform or explain to the first claimant the whole number of matters dealing with the life cover including cooling off period, cancellation, money could be borrowed over a decreased term if the PPI policy was not taken out, it could be taken out with a payment by monthly instalments, they could go to an alternative lender" and so forth (I am not going to go to every paragraph in detail).

17. It then goes on at paragraph eleven to say:

"(11) Following the meeting, the paperwork was sent to the claimants' address so that the second claimant could provide his signature"

It also confirms that the second claimant did not meet any representative of the defendant; he was dependent on the first claimant as his source of information for the happenings during the meeting between the first claimant and the sales assistant. It then avers with the detail of the loan that the claimants relied on the representations, were induced by them to enter into an agreement in writing dated 5^th August 2003, and in paragraph thirteen:

"(13) It is asserted that if the sales assistant had informed the claimants of one or more of the features set out in paragraph 10," (that includes such things as the availability of borrowing elsewhere, or monthly instalments and the like) "then it is likely that the claimants would not have entered into the agreement with PPI".

18. So those are the allegations set out. It then continues by giving particulars of the unfairness relied upon; that the PPI provided life cover only for the claimants. It says:

"This was worthless to the first claimant as she already had life cover provided by Prudential, thus the vast majority of the cover provided by the policy was irrelevant to the needs of the claimants due to the percentage ratio of PPI determined borrowing … alleges that the claimants were sold expensive PPI that was not wanted, needed or useable".

It repeats the particulars concerning the possibility of taking out insurance elsewhere and of the like (again I am not going to go through it all in detail). It then avers that the defendant received a commission from the underwriter; that is not pursued (again, I make that clear). It then alleges that the sale of the PPI was governed by the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) and that the defendant acted as an insurance intermediary in respect of the said sale.

19. I mention at this stage (because it is convenient) that that is inaccurate, because the defendants have not signed up to that although they accepted voluntarily they adopted the same or similar stands.
20. Following upon all those allegations, the claimant seeks an Order under Section 140B, i.e. an order varying the agreements entered into. So that is what the Particulars of Claim asks for. It is self-evident of course that the only person who actually knows what really went on at the time of the discussion at the office is Mrs Redpath (she was the only one there whom I have been able to hear).
21. She sets out in her statement her personal circumstances, saying that the loan was taken out so that she could consolidate a number of existing debts, including the repayment of car loan and credit cards, looking to consolidate the debts into one repayment per month to save money. She therefore wanted the repayment to be as low as possible. She explains her personal circumstances; she was employed part-time as a care worker. Mr Redpath was a self-employed scrap merchant working (as I now understand it) in the family business, where he had been for a long time). She cannot remember whether there was a sick pay scheme at work for her. She says that she considered it highly unlikely that she would have been made redundant, and she said:

"I had other existing insurance which already provided me with some of the cover the PPI included within my loan application would subsequently provide. In particular, I had life insurance with my private pension."

22. She then deals with the application process for the loan, which was dealt with at a visit to the defendant's Gateshead branch in or around 5^th August2003. She made a lunchtime appointment to go there and she went (obviously because it was during the working day) without Mr Redpath being with her. She said:

"The application was completed by a female representative whose name I cannot now recall, who I believed was employed by the defendant".

I do not think that is remotely an issue; that clearly is the case. It took twenty to thirty minutes to complete, with only the two of them involved in the discussions. Again in the application process:

"I confirmed the purpose of the loan and that we were looking to consolidate our debts into one monthly repayment. I recall providing the defendants' representative with details of our personal circumstances including employment details, address history, outstanding credit and the reason why we required the finance".

And she then goes on to say:

"I recall a discussion took place in relation to obtaining a loan, and I recall asking what would happen in the event that either the second claimant or myself could not meet the repayments, for example if either of us were unable to work due to sickness. And the defendant's representative advised that we would be covered by a PPI policy and we could claim on the policy in those circumstances, providing that we were not off work for more than six months. I only found out that the policy provided life cover only when I was off work due to sickness for 14 weeks last year."

(I hasten to say that this statement is dated 3^rd July, so we are talking about 2011). She then says:

"I would not have taken out the policy if I had known it only covered us for life insurance, particularly as I already had life cover in place. The defendant's representative did not ask whether we had any existing insurance policies in place or other means to pay off the loan if needed. Further, the defendant's representative did not advise me during the application process, that the PPI policy provided life cover only."

She goes on to say:

"The defendants' representative did not explain why the insurance was suitable for our needs or provide any further information in relation to the insurance, and I just assumed that it came as part of the loan. Therefore, I did not think that the insurance was optional. I am aware that I have had PPI with previous borrowings. However, I was given the impression with previous applications that the PPI came as part of the loan and I was never aware that the PPI was optional. I do not recall that we were provided with any policy documentation. I have retained the original loan agreement, but there is no policy documentation with it in respect of the insurance and I do not consider that we were provided with this, as I consider that I have retained everything we had been given".

23. She goes on in further detail

"When a quote for the personal loan repayment was provided to me, I do not recall being told the price of the loan without the PPI added. I was not advised that the PPI was a single premium policy which would be charged interest on in addition to the loan. Had it been made clear to me that the monthly repayment could have been significantly reduced had PPI not been added, I consider I would have asked for the loan without insurance, in particular where only life cover was provided. Ultimately, I was looking to consolidate our debts into the lowest possible monthly repayment and I would have opted for the loan without PPI had I known the significant cost we would have avoided over the course of the loan agreement."

24. Again I am not going to go on further in detail. It continues in that sort of detail, dealing with various issues arising out of the PPI policy. Mrs Redpath has filed an additional statement (which I today permitted to be introduced) in which she gives further detail. I comment that it was certainly originally drafted as plural claimants doing this, it has clearly been amended in Mrs Redpath's own handwriting, and I do not at any stage blame her for the fact that the solicitors appear not to have done the job very well. She says:

"In addition to my previous statement, I would like to add that at the time the loan was being taken out I made it clear that we wanted a consolidation loan to help resolve our existing car loan and credit card loans. After some discussion about the size of the loan, we agreed an appropriate sum would be £25,000, and that at the time appeared to be in accord with us having sufficient equity in our home" (because of course this was to be a secured loan).

Then she confirms the explanation to her that there was a life cover only policy attached to the loan, and (I mention this for the sake of completeness) they were in difficult times because of their daughter's illness.

25. I have taken some time, deliberately, in going through Mrs Redpath's statement, because (as I have said already) she is the one witness who was personally present at the time that these matters were being dealt with, and it is therefore crucially her evidence that ultimately determines this case.
26. Mr Redpath (at page 109) says in his statement that they were looking for finance to consolidate existing debts; one repayment per month. He was self-employed. The solicitors again are confused by saying he was employed full-time as a self-employed scrap merchant, which is a concept totally unknown to the law; you are either self-employed or employed or unemployed. He had been in the job since 1965. It is important to make the point that he was self-employed because being self-employed, he could not insure himself against being unemployed (because he never was employed). He tells me:

"Mrs Redpath attended the branch to apply for the loan. They had that conversation, the conclusion of which was that the defendant would be sending out a loan agreement for us to sign for us to obtain the loan. That came through in the post, the agreement had been prepared to include the PPI details and was marked where we should sign".

And he says (and again this stresses the importance of Mrs Redpath's evidence) he only signed the agreement documentation in reliance upon the information that Mrs Redpath had given to him from the defendants representative. Very simple, she had been there, she had talked to them, she knew what went on; it is as simple as that.

27. I will deal simply with Mr Starling's evidence in that (as I have said already) he was not present at the time. He describes the procedures which go on within their office. We cannot hear from the representative Miss Murray, who was involved in the original transaction, because she has (I think he said) been made redundant some time ago and is no longer contactable:

"We did try to contact her but had no response. They have no records left of that time."

Again, I stress this is an agreement entered into in 2003, which is some nine years ago.

28. So that is the case as it appeared at ten o'clock this morning. Then I heard evidence following submissions from Mr Wynne-Smith and Miss [inaudible] about the introduction of the additional statements. I heard first from Mrs Redpath and following the procedure which now is required as a result of the Civil Procedure Rules, Mrs Redpath's statements stand as her evidence in chief and we proceeded virtually immediately to cross-examination.
29. Mrs Redpath told me:

"I have a very clear memory of being in the room and the essentials which were discussed, the basic parts and the essential parts".

Bits were missing that she could not remember. She said:

"I signed the loan agreement. We were asked about basic things like earnings and future earnings. I have had PPI before".

She accepted when Miss [inaudible] asked her that she was an experienced borrower:

"But not for big ones like this," she said.

They had had five previous loans with Black Horse and she did not realise that she must have bought insurance with all of those. She had a credit card with Lloyds, a Barclaycard, a car loan and two other credit cards, and she intended to pay off the Barclaycard and the Lloyds and the car loan (that being about ten or eleven years ago). She was familiar with making applications for loans and with insurance on the loans, although she had never heard the term PPI (which is not surprising; I do not think any of us met PPI unless you were in the industry, until very recently ago). She had had previous Black Horse loans within twelve months prior to entering into this loan and she says:

"No insurance was discussed until the end of the meeting, until I asked if either of us were out of work or sick. The reply was 'Don't worry, you're covered'. That is clear in my mind" she said. "This time," she said, "we went straight to Black Horse because we had said that we needed to consolidate".

She did not sign the loan agreement at the meeting:

"They posted it out to us".

Of course, that contradicts what is said in the Particulars of Claim or her statement (I cannot immediately remember which). She said:

"I must have been wrong; they sent them out to us to sign."

She could not remember the employee who had dealt with her, she did not have a name badge on, but she had only dealt with her. It was a structured interview,

"a small room off a large room with people at desks." (which sounds very like 95.5 per cent of banks, building societies and financial institution offices that one may go into), "Just a table and two chairs in the room and the two of them, no computer, she had the forms but nothing else".

Asked about personal circumstances and Mrs Redpath was basically concerned about the repayments; what was the cost going to be? That is something certainly that one could appreciate would be in their minds:

"When told that we had to have the insurance, it was just explained that, at the end, that we were covered. When she said that, I assumed it must be compulsory. I had asked 'What if either of us were off sick or unemployed?' and she said 'It's alright, you're insured for that'. We needed sickness or off work insurance, and she told us we were covered. My husband could have been out of work, anything could happen. We wanted this insurance on a loan that size".

And she says again:

"I did not sign anything at the time. Clearly the Particulars of Claim was incorrect."

But then says:

"I cannot remember if I signed on the day or later. I know they were sent out to the house to be signed. There was a bundle of the loan agreement and the direct debit instructions".

Yes, she agreed, it was a document pack that was sent out to the house. They received the money about a week to ten days later. She did remember the basic facts. She said:

"We were in such a mess financially, we went to a broker and Black Horse were the only ones who would give us a loan".

30. I pause there. That is the first time that it has been said; that they did not go direct to Black Horse. Indeed, in every other documentation prior to that moment it has been averred positively that they had gone to Black Horse. The truth of the matter is not that. The truth of the matter is they went to a broker and, because of their difficult financial situation, they were sent to Black Horse as the only people who would grant the loan.
31. She then agreed that it was probably correct that she went to Black Horse in July. Again, that has not been said previously. She confirmed that they were sold the insurance that she had asked for, they were not offered any types of insurance, no insurance was discussed until the end:

"The insurance was just on the agreement and I signed it. I can remember the main points; we needed to consolidate, did not want to pay too much extra."

And then again for the first time:

"Wanted to pay for home improvements as well."

I asked about the home improvements, and I am told that home improvements probably cost something like £11,000. So it was not an inconsequential add-on to the amount of money that was being borrowed; it was a significant sum of money:

"Signed the loan agreement, cannot remember where, signed a charge over the property, that was done way after. I had forgotten about that one. Daughter signed the disclaimer, debts were paid off by the lender, the loan started in the September. I don't remember the other forms, only the loan agreement and the main facts stand out in my mind. You can remember a lot and you can't remember other things. When I went in for the loan there was no discussion of insurance. I was not told I had to have the insurance. I knew there would be some insurance, but I wanted loss of earnings or hospitalisation, whatever. Basic facts stay in my mind. I did ask at the end what insurance there was and was told we were covered".

32. Then she was asked (I am not going through every dot and comma of cross-examination) about Personal Protection details which appear on the loan agreement on the right hand side (see page 39):

"I didn't read this when it came through".

She accepted that it says [inaudible] covered for life. She said:

"It was shown to me during the meeting, which didn't mention life insurance."

She said:

"The sickness and unemployment insurance I wanted was for this big one," (big loan) "I just assumed it was normal."

33. Then if one looks at the Particulars of Claim (bearing in mind that it was sickness and her unemployment that was under consideration) the Particulars of Claim at paragraph six says:

"(6) During the meeting, the first claimant asked what would happen if the second claimant became unemployed. This reflected the only substantial concern that the claimants had as to whether they would be able to meet the future repayments of any loan agreement." (That of course is the claimant's Particulars of Claim) "The only substantial concern was Mr Redpath's unemployment".

34. Well, two things arise from that. First of all, Mr Redpath could not become unemployed because he was not employed, and secondly, it makes no mention of illness or accident insurance.
35. Asked about what is said in paragraph eleven of the Particulars of Claim, which by implication says that the first claimant (Mrs Redpath) had already signed the documentation, it says:

"Following the meeting, the paperwork was sent to the claimants' home address so that the second claimant could provide his signature. She said she herself must have been signing it at the office. She didn't know where she signed it, she couldn't remember. And she said she didn't want life insurance; she had life insurance. It referred to her pension plan, which shows that the life cover was £5,000 and accepted that that was inadequate to cover the loan and said that Mr Redpath had life insurance also and she didn't want life insurance on the loan. Didn't discuss any other types of insurance. She was so anxious to get the loan that we just signed at the bottom. Just read the bottom part and the payments. It didn't sink in; she said 'I assumed any insurance on that would be the right one.' She said she wasn't allowed to read the PPI document in the office and she (i.e. the sales assistant) didn't mention about not having one or going to someone else. 'I didn't realise it was as serious as mortgaging the house.'."

36. She was asked about entering into these proceedings and she said

"There was a phone call to my husband, I have no idea how we came this route. We just followed instructions for 18 months now; don't know how we've got involved with solicitors etc. This is the only claim that we have pursued".

37. Again I am not going to go through every dot and comma in detail, but it is important evidence, but it is important for this reason that it does not stay the same all the time, I am afraid. We start out with a claim which is pleaded on one basis; we then have a witness statement which sets out in circumstances a slightly different basis. (And I will explain why all this happens in a minute). But we finish up finally with Mrs Redpath giving her evidence on oath in the Witness Box, telling me a different story. I do not mean to put it in those terms as implying that Mrs Redpath has done anything wrong, but certainly telling me the events as they happened in a totally different way from that which is set out in the Particulars of Claim, and also in a totally different way from the way it is set out in her witness statement. Her witness statement and Particulars of Claim are themselves contradictory.
38. I have identified (adequately I hope, for counsel) those areas which caused me the main concern. Of course, it happens this way and I explored matters a little bit further with Mr Redpath when he gave his evidence, and sadly it is a sort of situation which is all too familiar to those of us who sit in my seat here. The reason this claim came to Court was because Black Horse did not concede liability. It started by a cold call to Mr Redpath and it is a cold call that I can almost recite verbatim, even though I was not at the other end of the telephone: 'You may be entitled to x thousand pounds for a mis-sold PPI policy. Please contact blah blah blah'. They come by telephone, they come by email, they come by text message interminably to mobile phones, and they happen purely automatically. The people who contact you have not got the foggiest idea whether you have ever had a PPI; they are just hoping that somebody will (to put it bluntly) 'rise to the bait' and respond to them and say 'Yes, we did have a PPI', and then they will explore the matter further.
39. That is how it starts and I have not asked this but if I had asked it I would guess and it is implicit in what Mr Redpath did tell me, that they were assured it would never come to Court because they would get compensation. We have been through it several times before with different sorts of statements. About ten years ago, it was social housing disrepair claims we had in those days. I was the sitting resident Judge at North Shields County Court and in one month we discovered we had 99 claims for disrepair of council houses because people were going around the neighbourhood knocking on doors and asking 'Is there anything wrong with your house?'.
40. Now that is not to say that there are not genuine PPI claims, but there is inevitably the danger that unsophisticated lay people are led down a path to a point at which they are led to expect certain things, and the questions to which they give answers are directed towards very specific areas. And I say that quite deliberately, because I am satisfied in my mind that the only thing that Mrs Redpath is satisfied that she can remember about her dealings leading up to this transaction is that she asked about insurance and was told that she was covered for unemployment, accident and illness.
41. But whilst I am satisfied that she is satisfied that is the only thing that she can remember, I am not satisfied that that is a clear and genuine recollection. Again, I make it clear that I am not suggesting that she is making it up. This is a couple who have had three loans within a twelve month period for different things, different amounts. I have not gone into the details of the others, but I know that other loans (and indeed a total of five loans with this company) have included what we now know as PPI insurance. I cannot be satisfied (bearing in mind the discrepancies in the evidence about this loan that I have identified) that Mrs Redpath is not confused between this loan and one or other from the others which have taken place in that period of time. Particularly bearing in mind that this is a loan which is nine and a half years back. She is being asked to remember precise details that long ago in relation to something which has arisen only comparatively recently by the cold call.
42. I conclude that I cannot on the balance of probabilities be satisfied that in relation to this loan, in respect of which the proceedings are brought, there was an issue that genuinely arose concerning the PPI insurance. I remain puzzled as to why in the Particulars of Claim it should be said that Mrs Redpath was particularly concerned about unemployment insurance for her husband who, being self-employed, could not become unemployed in the context in which that is understood. And I am puzzled by assertions in the Particulars of Claim that they were looking for a loan as low as possible, when in fact not far short of half the money they were borrowing was to be spent on home improvements (which I fully understand), and not to pay off existing credit debts.
43. Again I could go on and if counsel want me to do so, I will do so; I will give detail point by point through the discrepancies, but I am satisfied, on everything that I have heard, that what I heard from Mrs Redpath today is the most accurate recollection of what went on. The Particulars of Claim and her statement being prepared by solicitors who cannot even be bothered to get her full name does not help one little bit. But bearing in mind that with the passage of time and the other matters which she was unable to remember and/or only remembered when it was put to her in cross-examination, I cannot be satisfied that the issue which is before me of the PPI insurance was actually an issue which related to this loan at that time.
44. I am therefore, on that basis, afraid that the claim has to be dismissed.

End of judgment