CONSUMER CREDITCredit agreement recording amount of credit as including sum paid as fee to lender - fee not part of the amount of credit so agreement and security unenforcable - arguably disproportionate restriction in breach of lender's human rights Wilson v First County Trust Ltd: CA (Sir Andrew Morritt V-C, Chadwick and Rix LJJ): 23 November 2000The claimant agreed to borrow 5,000 from the defendant pawnbrokers on security of her car.

She was unable to pay a 250 fee charged by the defendant, so it was added to the loan.

The agreement, which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, recorded that the amount of credit was 5,250.The claimant subsequently sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforcable on the ground that it incorrectly stated the amount of credit and therefore failed to contain a term prescribed by s.61 of the 1974 Act and the regulations made thereunder.

The judge gave judgment for the defendant.

The claimant appealed.Martin Young (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the claimant.

The defendant appeared by an employee, Michael Atkins.Held, adjourning the appeal, that the 250 by which the loan had been increased was 'an item entering into the total charge for credit' for the purposes of s.9(4) and should not have been treated as credit; that since it incorrectly stated the amount of credit the agreement lacked a prescribed term and by s.127(3) was unenforcable; that if the agreement was unenforcable then so was the security; that the bar on the court enforcing the agreement was arguably a disproportionate restriction on the right of the lender and a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and; that, accordingly, the appeal would be adjourned and the Crown given notice that the court was considering making a declaration of incompatibility.