A 71-year-old man who was advanced £33,750 by the Portman Building Society in 1989 on re-mortgaging his house, today failed in an Appeal Court challenge against a county court ruling that he and his wife must leave their home. Possession was granted to the building society on the basis that the couple’s son, who had guaranteed repayment of the loan, failed to keep up payments.
Dismissing the appeal, Simon Brown LJ said that none of the essential touchstones of an unconscionable bargain were to be found in the case. The appellant was not at a serious disadvantage to the building society as neither he nor his son had any existing indebtedness towards them. His situation was not exploited by the building society which had not acted in a morally reprehensible manner.
Ward LJ said that the family had wanted to raise money and the building society was prepared to lend it. “One shakes one’s head&with sadness and with incredulity at the folly of it all, alas not with moral outrage. The moral conscience of the court has not been shocked.”
Portman Building Society v Dusangh & others Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Ward & Sedley LJJ) 19 April 2000
PLS News 19/4/00
