Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

The Financial Conduct Authority v London Property Investments (UK) Limited (t/a LPI Emergency Property Finance) & Ors

[2024] EWHC 1276 (Ch)
A company and two individuals tricked people facing house repossession into taking out expensive loans. The court said this was illegal and ordered them to pay back the money lost plus costs and to remove unfair property restrictions. It was a big win for consumer protection.

Key Facts

  • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) brought a claim against four defendants (two companies and two individuals) for contraventions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
  • The defendants were involved in providing high-cost loans to financially distressed individuals at risk of repossession, often using deceptive practices.
  • Two trials were conducted: the first addressed 45 cases, the second addressed an additional 26 cases.
  • The defendants were debarred from defending the claim and were not represented.
  • The cases involved two types of transactions: regulated mortgage contracts (RMCs) and sale and rent-back agreements (SRAs).

Legal Principles

General Prohibition on carrying on regulated activities without authorization or exemption.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (s.19(1))

Unenforceability of agreements made in contravention of the general prohibition.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (s.26)

Definition of "regulated mortgage contract" (RMC).

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order (SI 2001 No. 544) (art. 88, 61)

Specified activities relating to RMCs.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order (SI 2001 No. 544) (art. 25A)

Liability as knowingly concerned in contraventions.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (s.36)

Court's power to make remedial and restitution orders.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (ss. 380, 382)

Outcomes

The court found that the defendants contravened the general prohibition and were knowingly concerned in those contraventions.

The defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of deceptive practices to secure high-cost loans for vulnerable individuals.

Declaratory relief was granted, declaring the unenforceability of various agreements.

The agreements were made in contravention of the general prohibition.

Remedial orders were made requiring the removal of restrictions on property titles.

The restrictions were obtained through the defendants' unlawful conduct.

Restitution orders were made against the defendants for losses suffered by the consumers.

The restitution orders are intended to compensate the consumers for their losses, calculated by reference to loss suffered and profit made.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.